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
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 12th Mar 18, 2:34 PM
    • 51Posts
    • 46Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    NTD from LPS (Local Parking Security Ltd)
    • #1
    • 12th Mar 18, 2:34 PM
    NTD from LPS (Local Parking Security Ltd) 12th Mar 18 at 2:34 PM
    Driver suffered a flat tyre and had to abandon the car in the closest car park. It was dark and the driver was not aware that the car park was a Pay and Display operation - in fact it was a pub car park, so the driver assumed it was free.

    Upon arranging for a recovery truck and returning to the vehicle, driver surprised to see NTD on windscreen.

    The company is LPS (Local Parking Security Ltd). Looked them up and they're BPA members, so hopefully this can be beaten at POPLA.

    The driver has taken photos of the signage, and of the flat tyre. Keeper is all ready to sit this out until day 25/26 and submit the blue template as per the newbies thread.

    However, wondering whether there's something more here.

    1) The NTD is headed "EXCESS CHARGE NOTICE". Isn't this only permitted by local authorities and police? Can this be used against them?
Page 2
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 8th May 18, 7:59 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    Hi folks,

    Just giving this a bump.

    It's now day 58 and no NTK has been received at The Keeper's address (correctly registered with the DVLA).

    Kind of a bit worried because there's also been no sign of a POPLA appeal code number via email either, and the only correspondence has been that original rejection.

    I know they've not followed PoFA 2012 by not sending an NTK and I also know (from research here) that their NTK isn't PoFA compliant anyway. Hence, what would be preferable, is to get a POPLA code, beat them there and be done with it, rather than having this at the back of the mind for six long years. Plus the worry that moving addressess in that time, can inadvertently get you landed with a CCJ - ridiculous really, but there you are.

    So, I intend to send that second email demanding a POPLA code

    FAO Appeals Department,

    Parking Charge Notice: <xxx>

    Please confirm whether or not your email received on 10th April 2018 constitutes a rejection of my appeal. If so, please provide me, the keeper, with a POPLA appeal code number as your code of practice instructs.

    Sincerely,

    <Keeper name>

    Should I add anything else like let them know that it's now too late to send a PoFA compliant NTK, so that they have lost any chance to hold the keeper liable? Or just keep things short and succint?

    Thanks again.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th May 18, 9:29 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Keep it short!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 14th May 18, 5:40 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    Just to keep you up to date, the keeper sent the following email;
    Parking Charge Notice: PCN xxx

    Please confirm whether or not your email which was received on 9th April 2018 constitutes a rejection of my appeal. If so, please provide me, the keeper, with a POPLA appeal code number as your code of practice instructs.

    Sincerely,

    <keeper name>
    <keeper address>

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Received the following reply on Friday 11-May-2018

    Dear <keeper name>,

    Parking charge notice: xxxx

    Thank you for your email dated: 9th May 2018

    We advise that <car park name> operates as a pay and display system for all car park users, this is clearly stated on all signs located throughout the car park.

    As no ticket was purchased or displayed the above parking charge notice was correctly issued.

    Thank you for your appeal against the parking charge notice issued by us to you on the 12th March 2018. Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we regret your appeal has been unsuccessful for the following reasons:

    !!!8226; Parking without displaying a valid ticket

    You now have a number of options:

    1. Pay the parking charge Notice at the reduced amount of 50.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the parking charge notice will increase to 85.00.

    2. Make an appeal to POPLA !!!8211; The independent Appeals Service by visiting www.popla.co.uk and submitting your appeal online. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of 50.00, and should POPLA!!!8217;s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of 85.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.

    3. If you choose to do nothing we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

    You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

    If you wish to appeal to POPLA, please submit your appeal online by visiting www.popla.co.uk .
    When submitting your appeal to POPLA, please use verification code xxx
    Please note that you have 28 days from the date of this email to submit your appeal to POPLA.

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above
    .

    Yours Sincerely

    Appeals Department
    Local Parking Security Ltd.
    PO Box 6321
    Warwick
    Warwickshire
    CV34 9QB
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, keeper has finally received the POPLA code. Over the next few days the wording of the POPLA appeal will be worked on and posted here.

    I'm quietly confident as there was no NTK ever served, and from googling this PPC, their NTKs aren't PoFA 2012 compliant anyway. I'm hoping this consitutes a golden ticket in itself, but just in case (and also to inconvenience the PPC as much as possible), will make sure the appeal is a comprehensive one.
    Last edited by Weasel_Watcher; 14-05-2018 at 6:46 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 6:18 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm quietly confident as there was no NTK ever served,
    You are right to be confident, then! You can't lose.
    (and also to inconvenience the PPC as much as possible), will make the appeal is a comprehensive one.
    I agree, and part of the reason for the kitchen sink POPLA appeals is to make it hard for the scumbag parking firms.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 4th Jun 18, 7:15 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    OK. I think I'm ready with my POPLA appeal, it's a bit kitchen sink. Please give me some feedback....


    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from LPS Ltd on the following points:


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

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

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

    4. 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

    5. The vehicle was not !!!8220;parked!!!8221;, it was broken down.


    1. 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.


    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    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.''


    3. 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


    4. 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

    The signs are sporadically placed, indeed the sign on entry to the car park is partially obscured by a tree as you enter the car park by road.
    https://i.imgur.com/bFZDBqY.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/0tGNC83.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/S6AZmiA.jpg
    https://imgur.com/eccLf8v.jpg

    The driver was a young/inexperienced person in the early hours of the morning, and they used the public house car park in what they believed was emergency circumstances, due to a flat tyre. There was nowhere else convenient to stop close by, and the driver was unaware that any parking restrictions existed. The driver was in a distressed state, and after stopping, left the vehicle and car park on foot, in order to seek assistance.
    The above pictures were taking at night time, during lighting up hours, not during complete darkness in the early hours of the morning at the time of the alleged offence, when they would have been invisible to the driver. At the time of the alleged offence, the public house would have been closed and the car park would have been in complete darkness. The driver would have had no chance to view the signage and therefore no contract can exist.

    I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

    ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

    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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
    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.




    Furthermore, the signs 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).


    https://i.imgur.com/0iylTJp.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/Z0WLBMs.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/EmumxPa.jpg



    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:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''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:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

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

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    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.

    5. The vehicle was not parked, it was broken down.
    Even a cursory glance at the vehicle would have confirmed that the front offside tyre was completely flat, as shown in the attached picture taken from the car on the day of the vehicle!!!8217;s recovery.



    https://i.imgur.com/sCq2l2o.jpg


    The driver had not parked, but was unable to drive the vehicle, and being unaware of the parking restrictions in the early hours of the morning had left the vehicle prior to recovery.



    -----------------------------------------------


    Should I put anything about the non-compliant NTD? They never sent a NTK, so all I have in an NTD.




    Last edited by Weasel_Watcher; 04-06-2018 at 7:18 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Jun 18, 8:53 PM
    • 8,079 Posts
    • 7,946 Thanks
    KeithP
    Can you not get pictures at the same time of night as the incident?
    In post #4 you said you were going to. That would really make a difference IMHO.
    The above pictures were taking at night time, during lighting up hours, not during complete darkness in the early hours of the morning at the time of the alleged offence, when they would have been invisible to the driver. At the time of the alleged offence, the public house would have been closed and the car park would have been in complete darkness. The driver would have had no chance to view the signage and therefore no contract can exist.
    I would suggest that those few sentences at least need to be more assertive. Get rid of the 'would have been's.

    It would be good if you could change the above to something like:
    The above pictures were taking at the time of the alleged offence, when they were invisible to the driver. At that time the public house was closed and the car park was in complete darkness. The driver had no chance to view the signage and therefore no contract can exist.
    In your actual appeal document you should embed the pictures in the doc rather that have links. Help the assessor to read your story.
    Here's an example of what I mean, linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0
    Note that each picture in numbered and described in the text.
    Last edited by KeithP; 04-06-2018 at 11:48 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 18, 12:40 AM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove the non working ebay and signazon links from the signage point; they are dead and of course remove the sentences that refer to those links.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 5th Jun 18, 11:33 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    Can you not get pictures at the same time of night as the incident?
    In post #4 you said you were going to. That would really make a difference IMHO.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    I know I did, and that was the plan, but the problem is that I don't actually live anywhere near there. The driver parked in the very early hours (about 3:00am- 3:30am) Sunday morning. It's proving awkward to get there at this time of the morning, and since I apparently have a golden ticket anyway, it would be tragic to miss the looming deadline.

    I would suggest that those few sentences at least need to be more assertive. Get rid of the 'would have been's.

    It would be good if you could change the above to something like:
    The above pictures were taking at the time of the alleged offence, when they were invisible to the driver. At that time the public house was closed and the car park was in complete darkness. The driver had no chance to view the signage and therefore no contract can exist.
    In your actual appeal document you should embed the pictures in the doc rather that have links. Help the assessor to read your story.
    Here's an example of what I mean, linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0
    Note that each picture in numbered and described in the text.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    In the actual document, I've embedded the pictures. I've only added them as links so I could paste them here. Thank you for the pointers though, and I'll reword those paragraphs.




    Remove the non working ebay and signazon links from the signage point; they are dead and of course remove the sentences that refer to those links.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    Will do. Thank you all.

    The only other thing that's niggling me is should I say anything about the wording of the NTD? Specifically the fact that it says "Excess Charge Notice" and that it is not PoFA compliant either? Just in case they try and make out they've sent out a NTK, I think it would be prudent to point out that the NTD doesn't comply with paragraph 7



    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted


    In that it doesn't mention " period of parking to which the notice relates" only that it was issued at 09:46 on 12/03/2018.
    Last edited by Weasel_Watcher; 05-06-2018 at 11:39 AM.
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 5th Jun 18, 11:54 AM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    Here is the NTD



    Last edited by Weasel_Watcher; 05-06-2018 at 11:57 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 5th Jun 18, 12:04 PM
    • 1,818 Posts
    • 2,486 Thanks
    Castle
    Report them to trading standards as the Credit/Debit card payment charge of 1.50 was banned in January 2018.
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 5th Jun 18, 12:45 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    Report them to trading standards as the Credit/Debit card payment charge of 1.50 was banned in January 2018.
    Originally posted by Castle

    Nice find. Very happy to do that. Let's get this thing crushed at POPLA first though. Pretty sure POPLA won't be inerested in that.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 5th Jun 18, 2:17 PM
    • 1,818 Posts
    • 2,486 Thanks
    Castle
    Nice find. Very happy to do that. Let's get this thing crushed at POPLA first though. Pretty sure POPLA won't be inerested in that.
    Originally posted by Weasel_Watcher
    Very true, even though it's a requirement of their COP (section 2.4) to comply with the relevant legislation.
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 5th Jun 18, 6:05 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    The extra point of appeal I have added is ;
    -----------------
    The Notice to Driver is not POFA (2012) compliant.
    POFA (2012) Paragraph 7 details what steps need to be taken with respect to the Notice To Driver, in order to hold the keeper liable.
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
    The notice that was issued to the driver is not compliant with this.

    Paragraph 7 (2) States that

    The notice must-

    (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates


    (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;
    Pics 2.1 & 2.2 show that the text in The Notice to Driver is non-compliant.

    Therefore no keeper liability can apply.


    <Then embedded the two Notice To Driver pictures posted above>
    --------------------


    Please let me know if there is anything else I should add (or remove). I'm ready to upload the pdf as soon as possible.


    Thanks again.
    Last edited by Weasel_Watcher; 05-06-2018 at 8:07 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 18, 11:03 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    "Excess Charge Notice"
    An Excess Charge has a specific meaning as a fine or penalty charge issued by local authorities, or town councils under byelaws only. I would add a new point about that, and quote these parts of the BPA CoP:

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

    2.13 The Code does not cover on-street or off-street car
    parking control and enforcement led by local authorities
    and regulated by, for example:

    - the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
    - the Road Traffic Act 1991
    - the Traffic Management Act 2004.
    These are covered by detailed statutory control and
    regulation and can include:

    - immobilisation
    - removal of vehicles
    issuing penalty charge notices and excess charge notices.
    14 Misrepresentation of authority
    14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what
    parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.
    You must not misrepresent to the public that your
    parking control and enforcement work is carried out
    under the statutory powers of the police or any other
    public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you
    suggest to the public that you are providing parking
    enforcement under statutory authority.
    14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is
    being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory
    authority. This includes using terms such as 'fine', 'penalty'
    or 'penalty charge notice'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-06-2018 at 1:24 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 6th Jun 18, 1:41 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    Thanks. I've incorporated all the suggestions and submitted the appeal.


    The POPLA site is a bit of a dog to negotiate and there's only limited instructions in the sticky thread. I am assuming I did everything correct. I ended up selecting "Other" browsed to, and attached the PDF, clicked upload. Confirmed the bin icon appeard and clicked submit.

    I'm a bit paranoid about whether or not they got the upload, but in the section that tracks appeals there's no way to check. Still, everyone else manages to do this OK, so it just must be me

    Regardless how this goes, thank you to everyone that helped.
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 27th Jun 18, 12:25 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    And the result...
    Success!
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator

    Withdrawn on 27/06/2018
    Verification Code

    3711318005

    Withdrawal reasons

    Upon looking further into the evidence, we have cancelled the Parking Charge Notice on our system.


    ---------------------------------------------------
    Thank you so much to everyone who helped; Fruitcake, KeithP, The Deep, nosferatu1001, Castle, and of course the amazing Coupon-mad.

    I might stick around here a bit, now I've got the taste for blood against these scammers.
    Typically, I made all the beginners' mistakes, but this has taught me a lot.

    Here's a redacted copy of the full appeal
    https://www.scribd.com/book/382697256/POPLA-Appeal-red-pdf


    Castle, I'll let you know if I get anywhere with trading standards regarding their additional credit/debit charges.


    Thanks again all. Hopefully see you all around.


    Edited to add: Do they still have to pay the POPLA charge given that they decided to withdraw?
    Last edited by Weasel_Watcher; 27-06-2018 at 1:24 PM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 27th Jun 18, 1:37 PM
    • 1,818 Posts
    • 2,486 Thanks
    Castle

    Edited to add: Do they still have to pay the POPLA charge given that they decided to withdraw?
    Originally posted by Weasel_Watcher
    No....not only do they save the fee but more importantly perhaps, the additional time and costs of preparing their own case.
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 27th Jun 18, 1:59 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    That's a shame. Le'ts hope they get clobberedby by local Trading Standards, though my prior experience of them champion the rights of the consumer isn't great.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Jun 18, 10:13 AM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well done for beating the scam! Do stick around, Weasel_Watcher, and help others!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 28th Jun 18, 10:36 AM
    • 18,380 Posts
    • 29,092 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Good result, well done.

    I might stick around here a bit, now I've got the taste for blood against these scammers.
    Typically, I made all the beginners' mistakes, but this has taught me a lot.
    It would be great to have you advising here, nothing like having someone who has personally gone through the pain of this process and come out the other side victorious.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
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

2,892Posts Today

6,351Users online

Martin's Twitter