Edit your post NOW to remove information about who parked. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper who are two different people.

You obviously need to read the NEWBIES again as you have missed the vital part about never revealing the driver's identity.

Once you have done that, send the appeal template you will find in the NEWBIES. Your case is no different and the template exactly covers your situation.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

You should also complain to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

Thanks fruitcake!

does the fact the incident happened over 28 days not impact the case?

Also i have not complained to the landowner yet - this would be metrolink

Read post 1 of the newbies thread. Tells you wha ttuo need to know

Metrolink is, im fairly sure, byleaws controlled land.

Byelaws or not, this is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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 they will be out of business by Christmas.

Yes, as Fruitcake says, only use the words Driver and Keeper, but you must use them in the correct context.

Surely it was the keeper that "received a letter" and it was the driver that "never received a notice on the car".

OUCH, don't write that!

Hello
the driver never actually received the windscreen ticket even though the pictures show it. I received a letter through the post. I have followed the newbies thread and received my POPLA code. (Care parking refused my appeal saying it was all stuff from the internet....)

Was so close to giving up and just paying but no I'm going to fight it!! Just want to check before I submit that I have covered relevant bits.

(FYI Care parking - metrolink - obstructive parking)

I won't disclose who the driver was and I will appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:


1. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
2. Prominence of signs
3. 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
4. Railway Land Is Not Relevant Land (not sure on this one but saw it in another post)
5. I also want to appeal on grounds of snow covering the "marked bays" and have an image of the weather from that day that shows heavy snowfall in the area. I complained direct to metrolink and have confirmation from them that there was no maintenance on the day in question and will attach this as evidence also.


Am I missing anything and am I likely to win the appeal?

Thank you for any help!

Here is the draft letter i have so far ( and i will include images)


As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Care Parking issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:


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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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



Prominence of signs
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 at the machines.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. The terms on the machine were unreadable and the signs are not the !!!858;brief & prominent!!!859; signs in the Beavis case. As 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!!!863; 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, placed high on a wall or pole, 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 & height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a magnifying glass, for a disabled driver to be able to read any terms. Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge 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. 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. 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 - and at BOTH P&D machines - 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 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
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. 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. 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 !!!862;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 !!!858;reasonable presumption!!!859; 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.''Well Parking Eye have not passed due to the non-compliance with the POFA as shown in point #2. 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 co
ntinues 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 unab
le to confirm that the appellant is
in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the ba
sis that the operator has failed to
demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore l
iable 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.''


Weather conditions and !!!8220;marked bay!!!8221;
Care parking state the reason for the fine is !!!8220;obstructive parking!!!8221; and not parking within a marked bay. However, markings were not visible due to the snow. See below for the weather forecast in the area for the date in question. The driver would not have been able to see any markings as the snow covered them, the photo taken was in the afternoon when the snow had melted however traces of snow are still visible in the pictures. Also see the email from the metrolink which states that no maintenance occured on Feb 28th to clear any snow. Furthermore, when looking at an aerial shot of the car park, it is easy to see how the area in which the car was parked can easily look like a bay, especially when lines are concealed. There are no signs highlighting not to park there and this just looks like another bay lined up in parallel with the other cars.


Railway Land is not Relevant Land
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:
(1) This schedule applies where (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land!. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: (1) In this schedule;relevant land means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - (b) any land; on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. And that: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is !;subject to statutory control if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question. Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore Care Parking are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver!!!8217;s details.

structure it more like this one with a bullet point menu etc

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5722069

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5676540&page=2

ensure that the parts about POFA2012 and not moving liability from driver to keeper etc are the first issues, then about landowner authority , signage and bay markings , not relevant land etc

Well you wouldn't, would you?

It would've been the driver that never actually received the windscreen ticket.

How many times does this need to be said?

Was there a machine, or have you just copied this bit above?


Remove ALL of this bit, below, because the links have stopped working. I will have to amend the template but right now couldn't find a useful link and doubt POPLA consider those sort of links anyway!

Thanks all - such a great help. These companies need to be stopped, don't know how they get away with it.

I'll post back when I have had an update, hopefully will be good news.

They get away with it because 'we', the citizens of this country, allow them to.

Please have another read of The Deep's earlier post and watch the video therein.

Then, as The Deep says "complain in the most robust terms to your MP".

I have sent a complaint to my MP and also to the metrolink

One thing I'm unsure on.

The driver never recieved a 'ticket' on the windscreen. And I received a 'fine' in the post a month later, is this the NTK?

Or can i still use the point:

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


Or is this no longer valid as the fine in the post is classed a notice to keeper?

Thanks

That's the Notice to Keeper that arrived in the post.

Interesting that you say it arrived "in the post a month later".

Can you be precise with dates?
Date of the alleged parking event?
Date of receiving the NtK? Or the date printed on it if you can't remember the date of receipt.

If the NtK arrived as late as you say, it just means the keeper cannot be held liable. That's all.

Yes you can, and should, use the point "A compliant Notice To Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply" if the NtK arrived late and was therefore not compliant.

Oh... and it's not a fine.

You will win, if the NTK was not served by day 15. Because you have never said who was driving (we hope) you can't be held liable as keeper if the NTK was late.

You can add that observation at 'Comments on the Evidence' stage, not now. You can't add anything yet, once submitted.

Yes so the alleged parking offence was Feb 28th and the notice to keeper letter is dated 4th april.

So yay this was past the 15 days!

Hmmm...does the NTK say a PCN was served on the day and remains unpaid?

If they reckon there was a windscreen PCN (whether the driver found one later, or not) then the NTK was served during the correct window (day 29 to day 57).