Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 14th Feb 18, 1:04 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 2Thanks
    IronLung
    PPS POPLA Appeal
    • #1
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:04 PM
    PPS POPLA Appeal 14th Feb 18 at 1:04 PM
    Hi everybody,

    I've been reading through the posts on this forum for a couple of months now (have read the newbies sticky). Excellent resource, big thanks to all those involved.

    On the 20th Nov a pcn was received (£60) on the windscreen from PPS (London) Ltd for parking in a car park where it was permit holders only. The driver was there visiting a business (the people who run the business told the driver afterwards that had the driver parked right outside their building rather than on the other side of the small road a ticket wouldnt have been issued - even though this is on the same land - this is because when PPS first started operating there they complained about getting tickets for parking outside their business - sure enough the following week the car was parked where they said and no ticket).
    It was dark when the car was parked, the signs are not lit up and on very high posts.
    A 'Reminder Notice' was received (NTK?) 38 days later on the 28th Dec saying the charge had gone up from £60 to £100.
    I followed the guidance on the sticky and sent them an appeal email which they rejected - this was 5 days ago on the 9th.
    So I've now got to appeal to POPLA - but I'm starting to feel a bit out of my depth, I haven't been able to find anything up to date that I can use in my appeal on these boards.. or maybe I'm just being green! Would anyone be kind enough to point me in the right direction or give me any advice? I would really appreciate it. I would usually ask my dad to help me with this kind of thing but he's away at the moment!

    I was so close to just paying the £100 the other day to save anymore hassle but then I though f*@k giving any money to these lot especially when I don't have much to start with!
    Last edited by IronLung; 14-02-2018 at 4:40 PM. Reason: correction on info
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Feb 18, 1:05 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:05 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:05 PM
    I haven't been able to find anything up to date that I can use in my appeal on these boards.
    You simply need to read post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky...POPLA template points. Put them together.

    Hope you did not say who was driving in the appeal, and that the keeper appealed.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 14th Feb 18, 1:22 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    • #3
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:22 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:22 PM
    Thanks for the super quick response..
    No i didn't say who was driving, i used the template appeal letter from this forum.
    I'll have another look at post #3 and draft an appeal.. Hope it's ok if I post it here for feedback before I send it.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 14th Feb 18, 1:27 PM
    • 1,792 Posts
    • 2,271 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #4
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:27 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:27 PM
    It was dark when I parked, the signs are not lit up and on very high posts.

    you have been back at roughly the same time and taken photo's?
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 14th Feb 18, 1:27 PM
    • 2,763 Posts
    • 3,490 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #5
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:27 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:27 PM
    yes post here first

    Ralph
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 14th Feb 18, 1:36 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    • #6
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:36 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Feb 18, 1:36 PM
    It was dark when I parked, the signs are not lit up and on very high posts.

    you have been back at roughly the same time and taken photo's?


    No I haven't, I've been away, and since I got back have had pneumonia and then pleurisy! Plus it's about an hour drive from my house - but I do plan to go back and get some photographic evidence!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Feb 18, 12:16 AM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 15th Feb 18, 12:16 AM
    • #7
    • 15th Feb 18, 12:16 AM
    Good, that can win at POPLA, being careful of course not to imply who was driving when you add a few words and embed your own photos of dark signs, into the template POPLA point about 'unclear signs' that's just one of several points you can find in the NEWBIES thread post #3.

    The idea is partly to make POPLA appeals so long that most PPCs will fold. And they do!

    Obviously your first 2 points will be the standard 'no keeper liability' argument pointing out that this wasn't compliant with para 8 of Schedule 4 (you can play spot the difference & work out how):
    A 'Reminder Notice' was received (NTK?) 38 days later on the 28th Dec saying the charge had gone up from £60 to £100.
    and #2 will be the standard 'The appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable'.

    Then 'no landowner authority, then last but not least, a really long 'unclear signage' point, illustrated with your photos showing unreadable terms in pitch black!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-02-2018 at 12:20 AM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 21st Feb 18, 1:10 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    • #8
    • 21st Feb 18, 1:10 PM
    • #8
    • 21st Feb 18, 1:10 PM
    Hello all,

    I've got a draft and photo together now to submit to POPLA. Posting it below.. if anyone has any advice on any edits before I send it, it would be gratefully received.. (EDIT just tried to post this but as a new user im not allowed to include links so I have removed all the links inc the link to my photo from the draft - if anyone knows how i can post my photo as a newbie, pls let me know!)

    A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)!!!8212; (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper!!!8217;s address within the !!!8216;relevant period!!!8217; which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.



    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.!

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land!and!show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    !!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.!

    There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.!

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:!
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.!

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).!

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:


    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.!

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and!'agreement on the charge'!existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.!

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.!

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.!

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:



    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:



    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2!!!8221; letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and!want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:



    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters.!Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.!

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''!

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.!
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact!'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'!about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:


    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 21st Feb 18, 1:14 PM
    • 10,022 Posts
    • 9,865 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 21st Feb 18, 1:14 PM
    • #9
    • 21st Feb 18, 1:14 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 5:43 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    if anyone knows how i can post my photo as a newbie, pls let me know!
    Break the http link or change it to hxxp, like you/we see on endless other threads.

    Paragraph 1 is not the right one, that's for cases where there was no NTK at all.

    But I think you said there was a NTK of sorts, called a reminder, within 56 days. So you need to do as I said earlier and spot the difference in wording, against paragraph 8 of the POFA Schedule 4, not say that there wasn't a NTK at all:

    Obviously your first 2 points will be the standard 'no keeper liability' argument pointing out that this wasn't compliant with para 8 of Schedule 4 (you can play spot the difference & work out how):

    A 'Reminder Notice' was received (NTK?) 38 days later on the 28th Dec saying the charge had gone up from £60 to £100.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 4th Mar 18, 2:09 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    Ok, I've changed my first paragraph to this:

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)!!!8212; (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;

    (2)The notice must—

    (a)specify.. the period of parking to which the notice relates;

    (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

    Private Parking Solutions (London) have sent a document which fails to repeat the information on the PCN and fails to state any 'period of!parking'!(which is a period of time in excess of any grace period and not merely a single 'time of issue' of a PCN which is not the same information in law). The document also failed to ‘state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver’. As Private Parking Solutions (London) have evidently failed to serve a legally compliant ‘notice to keeper’ by failing to show an applicable and stated 'period of!parking' and failing to state that they do not know the identification and address of the driver not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012 but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the correct mandatory documents were not properly given.



    Here's the link to the photo of the signage:

    hxxp://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t206/gingin3/PPS%20Sign.jpg
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 28th Mar 18, 2:29 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    Hi all,
    So i submitted the above appeal to Popla and I've just had notification from them that Private Parking Solutions have submitted counter-evidence which I am including below. They've also submitted several photos of the vehicle, plus photos and illustrations of the signs they have in the area. The photos show how dark it was at the time the ticket was received and how the signs are unlit. Should I respond to this with further comments? I have 7 days.

    Here is the response from PPS:

    Dear Assessor,

    Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8216;the Act!!!8217 states:
    !!!8220;The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.!!!8221;
    The Notice to Keeper was sent to the appellant in accordance with the Act and the Registered Keeper (the appellant) failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the Act (paragraph 5(2)). The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sched 4 (para 2) states that; the !!!8220;keeper!!!8221; means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.
    The appellant states the witness statement does not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice - the Agreement authorising our Company to manage parking on the relevant land on behalf of the Landowner is attached for review.
    Our Company rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver!!!8217;s actions as prescribed therein and we rejects any argument that the appellant did not see the sign. It is evident from the site plan that there are sufficient signs, clear and in excess of industry standards, stipulating:
    !!!8220;Private land, permit holders only. If a vehicle is parked for more than 30 minutes a valid estate parking permit must be clearly displayed on the windscreen!!!8221;.
    In this case, the operative has provided time and date stamped photographic evidence taken on the day of the parking event. From these images, you can see that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle is parked on site within close proximity to a warning sign, however, there is no valid parking permit present in the vehicle for more than 1 hour and 25 minutes.
    The signs on site are clear and unambiguous. By leaving their vehicle on site without a permit, the appellant has agreed to the terms and conditions, which in this case is a £100 PCN for failure to display a permit.
    What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the appellant didn!!!8217;t see the signs, we submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000; !!!8220;Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of stopping the unauthorized parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property!!!8221;.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 28th Mar 18, 4:56 PM
    • 19,507 Posts
    • 30,866 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The Notice to Keeper was sent to the appellant in accordance with the Act and the Registered Keeper (the appellant) failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the Act (paragraph 5(2)).
    No it's not! Check out what para 5(2) says and tell POPLA that what the PPC saying is totally incorrect. 'Proceedings' relate to the commencement of court proceedings with the issue of a formal small claim issued via the Northampton CCBC.

    The appellant states the witness statement does not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice - the Agreement authorising our Company to manage parking on the relevant land on behalf of the Landowner is attached for review.
    Have they provided you with a copy of the contract? If not, tell POPLA that you need to see the full, unredacted and contemporaneous contract, and until you have the opportunity to view it and comment, your case should be put on hold until such time.

    Our Company rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign
    The sign in Beavis was very clear and unambiguous, and the parking event took place in clear daylight. If, in your case, because of darkness, the sign could not be read, then they're on thin ice in quoting Beavis.

    As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000; !!!8220;Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice.
    Helpful of them to quote Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest as this particular ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal, and now actually favours your position if you did not/could not see the signage.

    You need succinct bullet point response to anything they've said you disagree with or is quite wrong (don't miss anything, otherwise it might be implied by POPLA that you agree with the PPC on that particular point). You cannot introduce new evidence.

    Respond via the POPLA portal (not by email - often POPLA doesn't read evidence pack rebuttals by email) but be aware, you have only 2,000 characters (not words) to play with.

    HTH.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 28th Mar 18, 8:30 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    Thank you so much Umkomaas for your extremely helpful advice!
    I'll be back to post what the outcome is after i respond on the POPLA portal.
    • IronLung
    • By IronLung 12th Apr 18, 10:35 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    IronLung
    Hi all,

    I have been notified today that my appeal against PPS through POPLA has been unsuccessful.. I have pasted POPLAs reasoning behind their decision below. I guess now I wait for the letters from PPS to start rolling in threatening me with court action??

    POPLAs Statement:

    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle, parked on site failing to display a valid permit. As such, the PCN has been issued to the vehicle. As the operator did not receive a response to this notice, it has issued a notice to the registered keeper. In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue ******, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The PoFA 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant states that they do not believe the operator has the authority to pursue charges or form contracts at this car park. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, !!!8220;If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges!!!8221;. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant states that no contract could be formed as the signage at the site is inadequate. In their comments on the operator evidence, the appellant states the signs could not be seen due to the dark hour at which they parked. When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. In relation to the contrast and illumination of signage, Appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that, !!!8220;Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual!!!8221;. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, !!!8220;If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice!!!8230; Permit holders only. If a vehicle is parked for more than 30 minutes a valid estate parking permit must be clearly displayed in the windscreen!!!8221;. Reviewing the evidence of the sign next to the vehicle, I am satisfied it meets the requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity. The appellant says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: !!!8220;!!!8230;the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.!!!8221; Having considered the signage in place at this particular site, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver failed to display the required permit, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has complied with PoFA 2012, and the appellant as the keeper is now liable for the charge. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    Last edited by IronLung; 13-04-2018 at 5:49 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Apr 18, 11:14 PM
    • 9,313 Posts
    • 9,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    Is there anything in particular that you want to bring to our attention in that wall of text?

    I did notice the keeper's full name in there though.
    Last edited by KeithP; 12-04-2018 at 11:18 PM.
    .
    • waamo
    • By waamo 12th Apr 18, 11:34 PM
    • 4,266 Posts
    • 5,605 Thanks
    waamo
    I did see they have made a massive error in law. They state the driver does not need to read the signs to be bound by the contract, merely afforded the opportunity to read them.

    That drives a coach and horses through established case law. I'm sure Mrs Vine and Waltham Forest would disagree with POPLA's reasoning.
    This space for hire.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,967Posts Today

8,368Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thanks so much to all who watched @itvMLshow LIVE last night. The ratings are in at 2.4m and 12% share, lower tha? https://t.co/Jj62j1fV5F

  • RT @stomp_3k: Oh @MartinSLewis would be proud proud of me went sim free on my mobile contract renewal and bought my handset outright saving?

  • RT @MoneySavingExp: Wales Govt steps up to help ?severely mentally impaired? access crucial council tax discount after MSE campaign - BUT M?

  • Follow Martin