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
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 23rd Apr 18, 8:00 PM
    • 68Posts
    • 18Thanks
    Silversurreal
    Land owner changed since PCN of 4 months ago
    • #1
    • 23rd Apr 18, 8:00 PM
    Land owner changed since PCN of 4 months ago 23rd Apr 18 at 8:00 PM
    Hi I was visiting and spending a lot of money in Poundstretcher Wymondham Norfolk and had no idea of any limits, just didnt see a sign (apparently it was for 90 mins) This is the only shop there and no other reason to use this car park. There is always only about 4 or 5 cars there as I go late at night just before they close

    I apparently went 15 mins over this, I had 2 trolleys to steer full of Christmas presents, electricals foods toys furnishings pet goods homewares etc, I travelled 15 miles for their closing down sale

    It was their last few days of trading. I had no idea of any parking charge until DRP sent me a £160 charge. The store has since been knocked down and a new LIDL built on the landI I suspect the land owner may be the same, but don't really know!

    I visited the shop about 4 times in December as everything was half price and I bought up big! All the staff knew me, they even help me load the car as I have lots of heavy bulky items. Theyre very friendly and would always help me in any way and we chat for ages! Had I known at the time or someone had warned me of time limits I'd have asked them for an exemption or something! I can't contact anyone there now as the store doesnt exist any more!


    Very unfair as I was a very genuine customer, my only fault it was dark and never saw the signs and bought so much I was in there over 90 mins

    DRP 's threat letter was barely readable, had to really struggle to see the operators name on top right carbon type tiny printing (who are Smart Parking) as the letter was virtually unreadable and the times in and out were printed so finely they couldnt be read either

    I still parked on private land I guess, but as Smart supposedly wrote to me at the same address DRP did and I never received it, I had no idea of what I had done until some 3 months later with the usual court threats etc!

    I have ignored DRP as advised in sticky notes but appealed online to Smart (as when you call to speak to an operater they cut you off every time instead of transferring you) so only way was to view the ticket online - still not very clear as so dark at night!

    Finally a reply by letter to correct address 3 weeks later. They are upholding the charge as I went 15 mins over and have taken all my points into consideration, but still want the money. Although they have referred back to the initial offer of reduced fine if paid in so many days. No apology for never informing me by letter(s) that I'd even received a PCN in time to give me time to pay a reduced fine, just the Debt collectors letter. as I said before. I guess them reducing it was them acknowledging that I was right they had ommitted sending one?

    I probably will pay as they say they'll escalate it again to debt if I don't. They do refer to POPLA but say if my case fails I'll then be over the date allowed for the unknown discount and have to pay full amount..

    Interestingly they dont quote any figures to pay, just an address or phone number to pay by, so I've no idea what this reduced fine is as they never send me an initial letter in the first place! There were one or two spelling mistakes in their letter too, but guess that's just me being pedantic!

    Do I appeal to POPLA and risk becoming one of the unlucky cases who lose? And the worst thing that annoys me is I can't visit the store as it has been knocked down since December so no one there anymore to help or advise! I am gutted that the new land owners forced them to close by buying the land off whoever owned it for years, I got so many supplies in there and was my favourite and much used place to shop for so many things.

    I drove over there the other week to look for signs, but as it was all being dug out and the car park was now a heap of mud, I have no idea if there were signs or not! I could see however a small white camera quite high up in middle of car park!

    The shop didnt want to close down they were forced out a while ago because LIDL bought the land and they all lost their jobs! This was in the local press about 2 years ago when I lived in the area! The papers said LIDL had taken over the land. So they had fair warning. I guess although it is now being dug up, that the signs I never knew were there from 4 months ago were legal at the time!

    I have had so many unfair PCNS over the last few years and have always managed to get out of them by writing direct or the store has offered to sort it out for me. Can I just say that ALDI are wonderful, they just take the letter and plug it into their internal system and you hear no more. LIDL on the other hand are not so nice, they forced my No 1 discount store out of business!

    Advice from the experts on here. Do I now pay SMART even though DRP have hopefully backed off? and what is the amount I'm supposed to pay anyway?, I'm guessing £60 as that seems pretty standard. But how unprofessional to ask me to pay in a few days and nowhere in their paperwork does it state an amount!

    Sorry I'm so long winded. I didn't intend to be, but I'm close to giving up on the battle. No one wants the shock of what they assume is a £160 fine and threats of court action out of the blue!

    Do I write to Poundstretcher HQ as theres no longer any in this area. I'm sure its all too late and Smart say this is my last chance to deal with them! Cowboys for sure, but still legal, I blame the land owners.

    In leaving,this page, do the parking company or the landowners get all this money they accrue off innocent shoppers? Be interested to know Thanks all in advance, this is a wonderful resource and without it I'd have probably panicked even more. I'm sure its saved lots of people money who would have just paid up! Kind regards Julia
    Last edited by Silversurreal; 23-04-2018 at 8:10 PM. Reason: spelling
Page 5
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 14th May 18, 8:43 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    All correct and in order now :-) I'll post later. But is there anything important I have missed with the legal bit. As far as I know I've added all the facts!

    Are you saying Coupon Mad that I add a point of contest #5 as till receipt adding wight to my appeal? I'm not sure what you mean! ;-)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 8:48 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well it would have to be a separate point as it doesn't fit with #4.

    Just don't say 'my receipt'!
    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.

    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 14th May 18, 9:21 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    POPLA Verification Code – xxxxx

    PCN Ref – xxxxx - SMART PARKING

    Location - Former site of Poundstretcher UK Gateway 11 Wymondham NR18 0WF

    Charge - Keeper/driver illegally over stayed the allocated time by 15 minutes in a 90 free parking area (allocated to one store only)

    PCN recorded via ANPR dated 04/12/17 Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18 (Escalated to debt recovery with no prior knowledge of charge)


    As the registered keeper of xxxxx I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds


    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012

    2. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority


    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
    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

    No “notice to keeper received” therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.



    The first correspondence to the keeper (confirmed correct DVLA address) was in the form of an unpaid demand of £160 received from DEBT RECOVERY PLUS (post dated 22/03/18) The keeper was informed that the alleged infringement of a 15 minute over stay in a 90 minute free stay car park; occurred on 4/12/17 (108 days prior to first contact) and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by well before this duration


    It was claimed by Debt Recovery Plus that a PCN had been issued and ignored by the keeper (by law there should be follow up letter before escalation to debt revovery) On contacting SMART PARKING refuting the no formal “notice to keeper” having ever having served as stipulated in POFA 2012. They wrote back with no answer as to why or whether they had ever sent PCN to the keeper or not!. At this moment it is doubtful they actually issued a PCN between the alleged date of 04/12/17 and DRPs demand letter on 22/03/18 (over 3 months later) They just seem to have just escalated the charge to Debt recovery with no right to defend. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that did omit to notify sender with a PCN there was still no apology or explanation of their error in their response. They offered to extend the "discounted period". Due to their oversight I guess. They quoted " please note we have reinstated the discount period until the 02/05/18" but there was no mention or inkling of the amount they were putting forward or asking for (originally or now)! DRP's initial demand was for £160 with their debt recovery charges added as standard, but no mention ever of original charge as SMART PARKING had never contacted keeper in the first instance. So the original charge amount remains undisclosed and unknown throughout.

    2. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.
    There are no signs from Smart Parking displayed in the car park, nor store. A sign was not in place on this occasion. It likely had been removed due to change of owner and car park about to be revamped (This Store was closing down permanently on 30/12/17) The supposed future development by new owner of this plot of land on Gateway 11 started soon after. Poundstretcher were forced to cease trading and as of the time the appellant received notice from DRP 108 days after the fact, the store no longer stands and the car park is currently being redeveoped for a location of a new Lidl store. If a sign had been on site at this time, it wouldn't have been seen at on a dark December evening in this iscolated location..
    Further more there is/was only one store situated on this car park. The store is located off a busy dual carriageway, with no other shops close by and one mile to the town centre. Hence there is no other reason to use this car park other than for customers of Poundstretcher/Pets at Home.
    I would also bring into question the authenticity and clarity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps which even magnified are difficult to reasonably determine. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. The stated over stay is 15 minutes if the details are correct! I reiterate the times on both images are not clear to the human eye.

    ANPR Images taken directly from SMART PARKING online. Illegible times of entrance and exit!





    Image image


    Entrance Exit

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.




    3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator



    In their correspondence of 17/04/18 SMART PARKING state "We wish to confirm there is sufficient time allowed for drivers to return to their vehicle and exit the car park, however the maximum free time is calculated from entrance to exit and must be adhered to at all times" Their time limit is 90 minutes total, no allowance for getting to and from vehicle to store, finding a parking space, carrying shopping to car or loading trolley packing car or negotiating traffic and pedestrians. So therefore their argument that their 90 minute rule allows for any such "grace time" is absurd!

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

    “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

    “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

    “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”


    The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in .13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    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).


    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 in the agreement


    AOB, extra evidence - proof of purchase from aforementioned store at this date/time
    The date can clearly be read on image # 1. The second image #2 is shown just to demonstrate how genuine shoppers are being penalised by these unscrupulous car park operators. I am adding my name to a petition to take to the movement in government currently ongoing, as this should not be allowed to continue. I’ll also be writing to my local MP and possibly writing an article for local press. This has to be stamped out, in this financial climate, the UK wants to encourage comsumer spending, not prevent shoppers driving out to remote locations and receiving penalties for their efforts to keep the economy going. The way the future is looking. Everyone will purchase online and more and more busnesses will be forced to close – as in the case of the store involved on this occasion!



    1

    image

    2

    image



    The contravention was during Poundstretchers final weeks of their closing down sale leading up to final closure at Christmas. The business at this location has now ceased. It is unknown who actually owns the land. Lidl has since taken over the plot from Poundstretcher. It is unclear if change of landowner has occurred. Search for current landowner online has been fruitless.
    I ask in all sincerity that you cancel this charge of £160 – assumably. (Amount unknown because the PCN has never issued any amount to keeper initially or subsequentially) Many thanks and look forward to your thoughts and hopefully an agreeable resolution!

    Sincerely xxxxx
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th May 18, 9:31 PM
    • 18,380 Posts
    • 29,091 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Ok CM I accept I may not complete today but want to fine tune it, if I have missed key points!

    Is the point you're talking about the appellant not shown to be the driver THE INSERTED TEXT? see below

    and should it go here? I dont understand what points # 1 to # 4 are? I am appealing on 4 points, I am a novice at this! Is there a longer schedule that I should be inserting, believe me I have read numerous appeals etc in the newbies



    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
    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

    No !!!8220;notice to keeper received!!!8221; therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.
    Originally posted by Silversurreal
    So why have you still not included this in your latest POPLA draft as a very separate appeal section?

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

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 14-05-2018 at 9:34 PM.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 9:32 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What about post #79?
    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.

    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 14th May 18, 11:33 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    What about post #79?

    Coupon Mad, you mean about emailing Steve Clark? I will do that if it helps stop these cowboys. I'll try to find his address in this forum, thanks! Now I need advice on filling form in!:
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 11:41 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And the words I gave you to add.
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th May 18, 11:50 PM
    • 8,079 Posts
    • 7,946 Thanks
    KeithP
    Silversurreal, as Umkomaas reminds you, your point 1 needs splitting into two points.

    Your point 1 should start:
    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
    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
    followed by the rest of your point 1.

    A new point 2 is needed.
    It should be titled as Umkomaas says and copied and pasted from the link that he has provided.

    You subsequent points will then need renumbering.
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-05-2018 at 12:01 AM.
    .
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 12:46 AM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    UPDATED APPEAL - please confirm if it's ready for POPLA



    POPLA Verification Code !!!8211; xxxxx

    PCN Ref - xxxxx - SMART PARKING

    Location - Former site of Poundstretcher store, Gateway 11 Wymondham NR18 0WF

    Charge - keeper/driver over stayed the allocated time by 15 minutes. 105 munutes in a 90 minute free parking zone. This area is allocated to poundstretcher customers only.
    PCN recorded via ANPR dated 04/12/17 Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18 (Escalated to debt recovery with no prior knowledge of charge)

    As the registered keeper of xxxxx I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds


    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012

    2. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    5. Appellant has proof that the car park was used for aforementioned store but not considered by SMART PARKING as a defence



    ]
    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012 No keeper liability.

    This 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

    No !!!8220;notice to keeper received!!!8221; therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.

    The first correspondence to the keeper (confirmed correct DVLA address) was in the form of an unpaid demand of £160 received from DEBT RECOVERY PLUS (post dated 22/03/18) The keeper was informed that the alleged infringement of a 15 minute over stay in a 90 minute free stay car park; occurred on 4/12/17 (108 days prior to first contact) and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by well before this duration

    It was claimed by Debt Recovery Plus that a PCN had been issued and ignored by the keeper (by law there should be follow up letter before escalation to debt revovery) On contacting SMART PARKING refuting the no formal !!!8220;notice to keeper!!!8221; having ever having served as stipulated in POFA 2012. They wrote back on 17/04/18 with no response as to why or whether they had ever sent PCN to the keeper or not before escalating to debt recovery!. At this moment it is doubtful they actually issued a PCN between the alleged date of 04/12/17 and DRPs demand letter on 22/03/18 (over 3 months later) They just seem to have just escalated the charge to Debt recovery with no right to defend. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that did omit to notify sender with a PCN there was still no apology or explanation of their error in their response. They offered to extend the "discounted period". Due to their oversight I guess. They quoted " please note we have reinstated the discount period until the 02/05/18" but there was no mention or inkling of the amount they were putting forward or asking for (originally or now)! DRP's initial demand was for £160 with their debt recovery charges added as standard, but no mention ever of original charge as SMART PARKING had never contacted keeper in the first instance. So the original charge amount remains undisclosed and unknown throughout.





    2. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    There are no signs from Smart Parking displayed in the car park, nor store. A sign was not in place on this occasion. It likely had been removed due to change of owner and car park about to be revamped (This Store was closing down permanently on 30/12/17) The supposed future development by new owner of this plot of land on Gateway 11 started soon after. Poundstretcher were forced to cease trading and as of the time the appellant received notice from DRP 108 days after the fact, the store no longer stands and the car park is currently being redeveoped for a location of a new Lidl store. If a sign had been on site at this time, it wouldn't have been seen at on a dark December evening in this iscolated location..

    Further more there is/was only one store situated on this car park. The store is located off a busy dual carriageway, with no other shops close by and one mile to the town centre. Hence there is no other reason to use this car park other than for customers of Poundstretcher/Pets at Home.

    I would also bring into question the authenticity and clarity of the photographs taken of the vehicle !!!8211; most notably the time stamps which even magnified are difficult to reasonably determine. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos. They are barely decipherable. The stated over stay is 15 minutes if the details are correct! I reiterate the times on both images are not clear to the human eye.
    ANPR Images taken directly from SMART PARKING online. Supposed confirmation of times of entrance and exit to outside gate of car park.







    Entrance Exit

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.


    3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    Smart parking!!!8217;s minimum grace period was deemed to be included in the 90 minute stay and the 15 minute over stay was dismissed.

    In their correspondence of 17/04/18 SMART PARKING state "We wish to confirm there is sufficient time allowed for drivers to return to their vehicle and exit the car park, however the maximum free time is calculated from entrance to exit and must be adhered to at all times" Their time limit is 90 minutes total, there is no allowance for getting to and from vehicle to store, finding a parking space, carrying items to car or loading trolley packing, unpacking car returning trolley to store or negotiating traffic and pedestrians on site. So therefore their argument that their 90 minute rule allows for any such "grace time" is absurd!

    BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

    !!!8220;You should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.!!!8221;
    BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

    !!!8220;You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.!!!8221;

    BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

    !!!8220;If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.!!!8221;


    The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in .13.4 is also a !!!8220;reasonable grace period!!!8221; to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice.

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    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).


    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 in the agreement


    Extra evidence - proof of purchase from aforementioned store on this date/time
    The date can clearly be read on image # 1. The second image #2 is shown just to demonstrate how genuine shoppers are being penalised by these unscrupulous car park operators.

    Whilst the driver's identity will not be divulged, as registered keeper I have complained to Steve Clark at the BPA to add to his dossier about Smart Parking routinely going straight to debt collector stage with no NTK posted, and I am adding my name to a petition. This should not be allowed to continue. I!!!8217;ll also be writing to my local MP and possibly writing an article for local press. This has to be stamped out, in this financial climate, the UK wants to encourage consumer spending, not prevent shoppers driving out to remote locations and receiving penalties for their efforts to keep the economy going. The way the future is looking. Everyone will purchase online and more and more businesses will be forced to close !!!8211; as in the case of the store involved on this occasion!

    #1 #2



    Summary and extra crucial information on this case

    The contravention was during Poundstretcher!!!8217;s final weeks of their closing down sale leading up to a final closure after Christmas. The business at this location has now ceased. It is unknown who actually owns the land. Lidl has since taken over the plot from Poundstretcher. It is unclear if change of landowner has occurred. Search for current landowner online has been fruitless.
    I ask in all sincerity that you cancel this charge. The initial charge that SMART PARKING were asking for has never been disclosed. Their first correspondence dated 17/04/18 was after debt recovery was already in progress which stated !!!8220;the discount period had been reinstated!!!8221; and that !!!8220; the full charge would be payable if not paid by 02/05/18 and then escalated once again to debt recovery!!!8221;
    In summary their actual charge is unknown because the PCN was never issued in any supposed first instance or subsequentially. So in their interpretation they had apparantly been kind enough to give a second discount period after failing to admit they!!!8217;d failed to issue a PCN in the first place.
    Many thanks and look forward to your thoughts and hopefully an agreeable resolution!

    Sincerely xxxx
    Last edited by Silversurreal; 15-05-2018 at 1:01 AM. Reason: corrections
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 12:54 AM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    Confused.com ;-) any more help appreciated. I can see that 3 brain cells are required for these appeals. Luckily: I have 4 :-)rotfl
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 18, 1:05 AM
    • 8,079 Posts
    • 7,946 Thanks
    KeithP
    any more help appreciated.
    Originally posted by Silversurreal
    As I said earlier:
    A new point 2 is needed.
    It should be titled as Umkomaas says and copied and pasted from the link that he has provided.

    You subsequent points will then need renumbering.
    .
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 1:45 AM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    POPLA Verification Code – xxxxx

    PCN Ref - xxxxxx - SMART PARKING

    Location - Former site of Poundstretcher store, Gateway 11 Wymondham NR18 0WF

    Charge - keeper/driver over stayed the allocated time by 15 minutes. 105 munutes in a 90 minute free parking zone. This area is allocated to poundstretcher customers only.
    PCN recorded via ANPR dated 04/12/17 Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18 (Escalated to debt recovery with no prior knowledge of charge)

    As the registered keeper of xxxx I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds


    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012

    2. 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

    3. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    4. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    6. Appellant has proof that the car park was used for aforementioned store but not considered by SMART PARKING as a defence


    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012
    No keeper liability. This 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

    No “notice to keeper received” therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.

    The first correspondence to the keeper (confirmed correct DVLA address) was in the form of an unpaid demand of £160 received from DEBT RECOVERY PLUS (post dated 22/03/18) The keeper was informed that the alleged infringement of a 15 minute over stay in a 90 minute free stay car park; occurred on 4/12/17 (108 days prior to first contact) and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by well before this duration

    It was claimed by Debt Recovery Plus that a PCN had been issued and ignored by the keeper (by law there should be follow up letter before escalation to debt revovery) On contacting SMART PARKING refuting the no formal “notice to keeper” having ever having served as stipulated in POFA 2012. They wrote back on 17/04/18 with no response as to why or whether they had ever sent PCN to the keeper or not before escalating to debt recovery!. At this moment it is doubtful they actually issued a PCN between the alleged date of 04/12/17 and DRPs demand letter on 22/03/18 (over 3 months later) They just seem to have just escalated the charge to Debt recovery with no right to defend. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that did omit to notify sender with a PCN there was still no apology or explanation of their error in their response. They offered to extend the "discounted period". Due to their oversight I guess. They quoted " please note we have reinstated the discount period until the 02/05/18" but there was no mention or inkling of the amount they were putting forward or asking for (originally or now)! DRP's initial demand was for £160 with their debt recovery charges added as standard, but no mention ever of original charge as SMART PARKING had never contacted keeper in the first instance. So the original charge amount remains undisclosed and unknown throughout.



    2. 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

    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:


    3 Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    There are no signs from Smart Parking displayed in the car park, nor store. A sign was not in place on this occasion. It likely had been removed due to change of owner and car park about to be revamped (This Store was closing down permanently on 30/12/17) The supposed future development by new owner of this plot of land on Gateway 11 started soon after. Poundstretcher were forced to cease trading and as of the time the appellant received notice from DRP 108 days after the fact, the store no longer stands and the car park is currently being redeveoped for a location of a new Lidl store. If a sign had been on site at this time, it wouldn't have been seen at on a dark December evening in this iscolated location..

    Further more there is/was only one store situated on this car park. The store is located off a busy dual carriageway, with no other shops close by and one mile to the town centre. Hence there is no other reason to use this car park other than for customers of Poundstretcher/Pets at Home.

    I would also bring into question the authenticity and clarity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps which even magnified are difficult to reasonably determine. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos. They are barely decipherable. The stated over stay is 15 minutes if the details are correct! I reiterate the times on both images are not clear to the human eye.
    ANPR Images taken directly from SMART PARKING online. Supposed confirmation of times of entrance and exit to outside gate of car park.







    Entrance Exit

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.


    4. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    Smart parking’s minimum grace period was deemed to be included in the 90 minute stay and the 15 minute over stay was dismissed.
    In their correspondence of 17/04/18 SMART PARKING state "We wish to confirm there is sufficient time allowed for drivers to return to their vehicle and exit the car park, however the maximum free time is calculated from entrance to exit and must be adhered to at all times" Their time limit is 90 minutes total, there is no allowance for getting to and from vehicle to store, finding a parking space, carrying items to car or loading trolley packing, unpacking car returning trolley to store or negotiating traffic and pedestrians on site. So therefore their argument that their 90 minute rule allows for any such "grace time" is absurd!

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

    “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

    “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

    “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”


    The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in .13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    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).


    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 in the agreement



    6. Added evidence - proof of purchase from aforementioned store on this date/time disregarded
    The date can clearly be read on image # 1. The second image #2 is shown just to demonstrate how genuine shoppers are being penalised by these unscrupulous car park operators.
    Whilst the driver's identity will not be divulged, as registered keeper I have complained to Steve Clark at the BPA to add to his dossier about Smart Parking routinely going straight to debt collector stage with no NTK posted, and I am adding my name to a petition for a movement in government as this should not be allowed to continue. I’ll also be writing to my local MP and possibly writing an article for local press. This has to be stamped out, in this financial climate, the UK wants to encourage comsumer spending, not prevent shoppers driving out to remote locations and receiving penalties for their efforts to keep the economy going. The way the future is looking. Everyone will purchase online and more and more busnesses will be forced to close – as in the case of the store involved on this occasion!




    #1 #2









    Summary and extra crucial information on this case

    The contravention was during Poundstretcher’s final weeks of their closing down sale leading up to a final closure after Christmas. The business at this location has now ceased. It is unknown who actually owns the land. Lidl has since taken over the plot from Poundstretcher. It is unclear if change of landowner has occurred. Search for current landowner online has been fruitless.
    I ask in all sincerity that you cancel this charge. The initial charge that SMART PARKING were asking for has never been disclosed. Their first correspondence dated 17/04/18 was after debt recovery was already in progress which stated “the discount period had been reinstated” and that “ the full charge would be payable if not paid by 02/05/18 and then escalated once again to debt recovery”
    In summary their actual charge is unknown because the PCN was never issued in any supposed first instance or subsequentially. So in their interpretation they had apparantly been kind enough to give a second grace period after failing to admit they’d failed to issue a PCN in the first place.
    Many thanks and look forward to your thoughts and hopefully an agreeable resolution!

    Sincerely xxxxx
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 2:10 AM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    POPLA Verification Code – xxxxx

    PCN Ref – xxxxxx issued by SMART PARKING

    Reg no– xxxxx

    Location - Former site of Poundstretcher store, Gateway 11 Wymondham NR18 0WF

    As the registered keeper of xxxx I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds
    Charge - keeper/driver over stayed the allocated time by 15 minutes. 105 munutes in a 90 minute free parking zone. This area is allocated to poundstretcher customers only.

    PCN recorded via ANPR dated 04/12/17 Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18 (Escalated to debt recovery with no prior knowledge of charge)

    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012

    2. 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

    3. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    4. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    6. Appellant has proof that the car park was used for aforementioned store but not considered by SMART PARKING as a defence


    1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012
    No keeper liability. This 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

    No “notice to keeper received” therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
    As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.

    The first correspondence to the keeper (confirmed correct DVLA address) was in the form of an unpaid demand of £160 received from DEBT RECOVERY PLUS (post dated 22/03/18) The keeper was informed that the alleged infringement of a 15 minute over stay in a 90 minute free stay car park; occurred on 4/12/17 (108 days prior to first contact) and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by well before this duration

    It was claimed by Debt Recovery Plus that a PCN had been issued and ignored by the keeper (by law there should be follow up letter before escalation to debt revovery) On contacting SMART PARKING refuting the no formal “notice to keeper” having ever having served as stipulated in POFA 2012. They wrote back on 17/04/18 with no response as to why or whether they had ever sent PCN to the keeper or not before escalating to debt recovery!. At this moment it is doubtful they actually issued a PCN between the alleged date of 04/12/17 and DRPs demand letter on 22/03/18 (over 3 months later) They just seem to have just escalated the charge to Debt recovery with no right to defend. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that did omit to notify sender with a PCN there was still no apology or explanation of their error in their response. They offered to extend the "discounted period". Due to their oversight I guess. They quoted " please note we have reinstated the discount period until the 02/05/18" but there was no mention or inkling of the amount they were putting forward or asking for (originally or now)! DRP's initial demand was for £160 with their debt recovery charges added as standard, but no mention ever of original charge as SMART PARKING had never contacted keeper in the first instance. So the original charge amount remains undisclosed and unknown throughout.




    2. 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

    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:


    3 Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

    There are no signs from Smart Parking displayed in the car park, nor store. A sign was not in place on this occasion. It likely had been removed due to change of owner and car park about to be revamped (This Store was closing down permanently on 30/12/17) The supposed future development by new owner of this plot of land on Gateway 11 started soon after. Poundstretcher were forced to cease trading and as of the time the appellant received notice from DRP 108 days after the fact, the store no longer stands and the car park is currently being redeveoped for a location of a new Lidl store. If a sign had been on site at this time, it wouldn't have been seen at on a dark December evening in this iscolated location..

    Further more there is/was only one store situated on this car park. The store is located off a busy dual carriageway, with no other shops close by and one mile to the town centre. Hence there is no other reason to use this car park other than for customers of Poundstretcher/Pets at Home.

    I would also bring into question the authenticity and clarity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps which even magnified are difficult to reasonably determine. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos. They are barely decipherable. The stated over stay is 15 minutes if the details are correct! I reiterate the times on both images are not clear to the human eye.
    ANPR Images taken directly from SMART PARKING online. Supposed confirmation of times of entrance and exit to outside gate of car park.







    Entrance Exit

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.


    4. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

    Smart parking’s minimum grace period was deemed to be included in the 90 minute stay and the 15 minute over stay was dismissed.
    In their correspondence of 17/04/18 SMART PARKING state "We wish to confirm there is sufficient time allowed for drivers to return to their vehicle and exit the car park, however the maximum free time is calculated from entrance to exit and must be adhered to at all times" Their time limit is 90 minutes total, there is no allowance for getting to and from vehicle to store, finding a parking space, carrying items to car or loading trolley packing, unpacking car returning trolley to store or negotiating traffic and pedestrians on site. So therefore their argument that their 90 minute rule allows for any such "grace time" is absurd!

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

    “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

    “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

    “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”


    The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in .13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    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).


    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 in the agreement



    6. Added evidence - proof of purchase from aforementioned store on this date/time disregarded
    The date can clearly be read on image # 1. The second image #2 is shown just to demonstrate how genuine shoppers are being penalised by these unscrupulous car park operators.
    Whilst the driver's identity will not be divulged, as registered keeper I have complained to Steve Clark at the BPA to add to his dossier about Smart Parking routinely going straight to debt collector stage with no NTK posted, and I am adding my name to a petition for a movement in government as this should not be allowed to continue. I’ll also be writing to my local MP and possibly writing an article for local press. This has to be stamped out, in this financial climate, the UK wants to encourage consumer spending, not prevent shoppers driving out to remote locations and receiving penalties for their efforts to keep the economy going. The way the future is looking. Everyone will purchase online and more and more busnesses will be forced to close – as in the case of the store involved on this occasion!




    #1 #2











    Summary and added crucial information on this case

    This contravention was during Poundstretcher’s final weeks of their closing down sale leading up to a final closure after Christmas. The business at this location has now ceased. It is unknown who actually owns the land. Lidl has since taken over the plot from Poundstretcher. It is unclear if change of landowner has occurred. Search for current landowner online has been fruitless.
    I ask in all sincerity that you cancel this charge. The initial charge that SMART PARKING were asking for has never been disclosed. Their first correspondence dated 17/04/18 was after debt recovery was already in progress which stated “the discount period had been reinstated” and that “ the full charge would be payable if not paid by 02/05/18 and then escalated once again to debt recovery”
    In summary their actual charge is unknown because the PCN was never issued in any supposed first instance or subsequentially. So in their interpretation they had apparantly been kind enough to give a second grace period after failing to admit they’d failed to issue a PCN in the first place.
    Many thanks and look forward to your thoughts and hopefully an agreeable resolution!

    Sincerely xxxxx
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 12:42 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    So I'm sending that then, or is there any more things to add or take out? ? ? Please anyone.....
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 12:47 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    I've heard said don't use the boxes but attach the Pdf file. and photos



    This is what they say as they know we use templates, sounds like they're onto us!

    Use your own words not someone else's
    The POPLA website has been designed so that you can provide most of the information we need in just a few clicks and without too much typing. Whilst we do provide text boxes for you to supply additional information please try to avoid simply copying and pasting text from other websites or templates. This can be very difficult to translate and may slow down the process. Your appeal is less likely to be successful if it doesn’t make any sense.


    Data protection statement
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 15th May 18, 12:55 PM
    • 4,509 Posts
    • 4,541 Thanks
    DoaM
    Who do you believe most? The folks here who've experienced the process, or the website of an appeals service funded by the parking companies' "old boy's club"?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 1:13 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    You lot obviously! While they think we're a pain in the **** seems it works most of the time!

    Just dont want them annoyed by the templates!
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 15th May 18, 1:21 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    :So is it ready to go, experts?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th May 18, 1:47 PM
    • 2,851 Posts
    • 3,545 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    If youre happy with it, then it's ready to go.
    This is your appeal, after all

    POPLA had the day the started information about what would be less successful, despite never having reviewed a single case. They lie.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 1:59 PM
    • 59,507 Posts
    • 72,672 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Upload it as a PDF under 'other'. Job done.
    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.

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

2,844Posts Today

6,378Users online

Martin's Twitter