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
    • kit27
    • By kit27 20th Jun 18, 2:16 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 1Thanks
    kit27
    P4 Parking Residential
    • #1
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:16 PM
    P4 Parking Residential 20th Jun 18 at 2:16 PM
    Hi,

    I was issued a P4 Parking ticket for parking on the road in a residential area (London). I must admit the car was parked on a dropped pavement and a double yellow but this area is notorious for having nowhere to park. Even the double yellow lines (not private land) were filled with cars. Have read through the Newbies section and am waiting until day 26 (currently on day 20) to appeal my ticket fine. Do I still have grounds to appeal? I am aware that these PPC's are essentially scams so do not want to be part with my money if I do not have to but I am afraid my appeal will not hold up.

    Any advice that can be given will be greatly appreciated!
Page 1
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 20th Jun 18, 2:42 PM
    • 3,228 Posts
    • 4,988 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #2
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:42 PM
    • #2
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:42 PM
    Hi,

    I was issued a P4 Parking ticket for parking on the road in a residential area (London). I must admit the car was parked on a dropped pavement and a double yellow but this area is notorious for having nowhere to park. Even the double yellow lines (not private land) were filled with cars. Have read through the Newbies section and am waiting until day 26 (currently on day 20) to appeal my ticket fine. Do I still have grounds to appeal? I am aware that these PPC's are essentially scams so do not want to be part with my money if I do not have to but I am afraid my appeal will not hold up.

    Any advice that can be given will be greatly appreciated!
    Originally posted by kit27

    Were you parked on private land or the highway?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jun 18, 2:52 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:52 PM
    • #3
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:52 PM
    Everyone has grounds to appeal a private parking scam ticket like that.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 20th Jun 18, 2:54 PM
    • 10,239 Posts
    • 10,134 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:54 PM
    • #4
    • 20th Jun 18, 2:54 PM
    And everyone should complain to their MP

    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.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • kit27
    • By kit27 28th Jun 18, 6:46 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    • #5
    • 28th Jun 18, 6:46 PM
    • #5
    • 28th Jun 18, 6:46 PM
    The car was parked on private land which I think is why P4 had the grounds to ticket it. The road leading into it was filled with cars parked on double yellows (with no tickets). Feels like a trap!
    • kit27
    • By kit27 28th Jun 18, 6:48 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    • #6
    • 28th Jun 18, 6:48 PM
    • #6
    • 28th Jun 18, 6:48 PM
    If I use the generic template in the newbies thread - will it still be applicable? The car was also parked right next to a visible sign...
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 28th Jun 18, 7:46 PM
    • 3,228 Posts
    • 4,988 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #7
    • 28th Jun 18, 7:46 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Jun 18, 7:46 PM
    If I use the generic template in the newbies thread - will it still be applicable? The car was also parked right next to a visible sign...
    Originally posted by kit27

    Yes, that is still relevant, forget about the road and the yellow lines and what anyone else was doing.


    They will reject it but your objective is to get a POPLA code.
    P4 don't do court anyway.
    • kit27
    • By kit27 1st Aug 18, 4:36 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    • #8
    • 1st Aug 18, 4:36 PM
    • #8
    • 1st Aug 18, 4:36 PM
    Hi again,

    I have received a response which states the following:

    "Further to and in response to your appeal, P4Parking has been contracted by the landowners or agents thereof to ensure that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on the land with authority.
    This authority is dependent upon the rules as laid down by the landowners or bodies acting on behalf of such estate, land or development. P4Parking has the authority to charge any vehicle that is parked
    contrary to these regulations.
    It is the responsibility of the person parking to demonstrate the correct display of the relevant permit
    and or adherence to the rules governing the parking of the vehicle(s) within the grounds. If in doubt,
    P4Parking operates 5 days a week Monday to Friday from 9:00am till 5:00pm a manned control-room
    whose staff are willing and able to advice on the validity of your parking prior to any charge being
    issued. This contact number is available on any P4Parking warning notice and is placed throughout the private grounds as well as being on all permit documents issued by and on behalf of P4Parking.
    The area where your vehicle was charged has a policy to which all attending vehicles must park within
    the pre-informed parking criteria. The contravention you have been breached with specifically is for:

    Parked In A No Parking Zone
    Although I sympathies with your concerns, at the time of your vehicle contravention and subsequent
    issuance with a Parking Charge Notice the vehicle was in breach of the above and therefore, correctly
    charged under the power given to us by the landowner. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.
    With regards to your appeal of the parking charge issued and having inspected all data available, which includes your letter and contents of appeal, photographs taken at the time of the charge issued by the warden and all additional 3rd party information available to us, we must make the following points very clearly.
    It is the duty of the driver to read the signage placed on the development. The signs on the
    development clearly state "All vehicles parked within these private grounds and not displaying an
    authorised parking permit or parked outside of this development!!!8217;s parking regulations will be charged
    via the issuance of a parking charge notice. Enforcement may take place at any time!!!8221;
    Having read your statement, it is the motorist responsibility to read the warning notices on the
    development and abide to the parking regulations and adhere to the rules governing the parking of the vehicle(s) within the grounds. Your appeal will be responded to as sent to us via e-mail. As the keeper of this vehicle by refusing to name the driver does not void this parking charge notice. The warning signs in **location** are not only visible they comply with the BPA Code of Practice. NO PARKING ZONE's are designated areas within a development, where the landowners and or their agents neither authorise vehicle to be parked or indeed want vehicles parked under any circumstances. After examination of the pictorial evidence taken by the operative at the time this parking charge notice was issued and the proximity of the very clear NO PARKING ZONE sign that this vehicle is parked almost directly next to, which we are confident would have been evident, this parking charge notice was issued correctly. Furthermore there has been the opportunity to appeal this parking charge within 14 day's which was not the case, the full settlement amount of £100 is now due. The patrol officer has carried out his duties correctly as instructed by the landowner. Motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions, therefore the patrol officer had reasonable cause to issue a parking charge notice on your vehicle. Therefore the parking charge notice was issued correctly according to the instructions set out by the
    landowners, please see attached pictorial evidence below."


    The pictures that they have provided also does show the car parked next to a sign... I have started drafting up a POPLA appeal but I am not sure that I can include the signage point/no evidence of landowner authority which would only leave me with two points: no NTK and no keeper liability.

    Would the appeal be successful if there are only two points of defence? Does anyone have any tips for POPLA appeal please?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Aug 18, 4:41 PM
    • 19,633 Posts
    • 24,929 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 1st Aug 18, 4:41 PM
    • #9
    • 1st Aug 18, 4:41 PM
    at this time you are not writing a defence

    you appeal to POPLA by studying post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and construction the appeal from the examples there, plus start reading the POPLA DECISIONS thread working backwards from the last page

    see what other popla appeals look like and plagiarise from them

    the appeal will be based on technicalities and errors by the ppc etc, not what happened on the day


    you WILL DEFINITELY be including no landowner contract and poor signage, putting them to strict proof of compliance with evidence for the assessor to see


    post your proposed draft on here once completed
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • kit27
    • By kit27 3rd Aug 18, 1:16 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    So in using the poor signage point, is this merely to force the operators to put forth evidence? Will it compromise my case at all or work against my favour if their evidence shows the driver can legibly read the sign next to where the car is parked?
    • kit27
    • By kit27 3rd Aug 18, 1:28 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    POPLA appeal draft
    I am thinking of using the following for the POPLA appeal, which was successful against P4 Parking recently. Would anyone recommend I include my own pictures of the signage at night and from the view entering the area from the drivers seat?

    POPLA Verification Code: XXXX
    Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXX
    Vehicle Registration: XXXX
    Operator: XXXX

    I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and am appealing a PCN which was issued for no valid parking permit on visible display on [date]. An appeal to the operator was submitted and acknowledged on [date] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [date]. Therefore, I am now elevating this appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:

    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 may have been potentially liable for the charge
    3. 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
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


    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) - (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 'If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.'

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper's address within the 'relevant period' 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 may have been potentially liable for the charge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3. 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

    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:

    LINK

    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:

    LINK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    LINK

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

    LINK

    ''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' 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' or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    LINK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    LINK

    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.

    4. 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

    I consider any one of the above reasons as sufficient for you to uphold my appeal. I look forward to your positive response.
    Last edited by kit27; 03-08-2018 at 1:37 PM. Reason: Forgot title
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 3rd Aug 18, 2:11 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    Would anyone recommend I include my own pictures of the signage at night and from the view entering the area from the drivers seat?
    Yes. Use any and every picture that will help your case.
    .
    • kit27
    • By kit27 10th Aug 18, 3:19 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    Yes. Use any and every picture that will help your case.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Sorry to repeat myself, but I just wanted to clarify as I feel the pictures will actually hurt my case if it goes against my point of the signs being illegible/unclear. Should I omit them in this case?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Aug 18, 3:49 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    Of course.

    But can't you get pictures at night that help your case?
    .
    • kit27
    • By kit27 10th Aug 18, 4:44 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    Of course.

    But can't you get pictures at night that help your case?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    If according to the points set out in my appeal, it adheres to these grounds as the sign is at an adequate height, illuminated correctly etc.

    The parking company also has a picture of the car parked directly outside the sign - drivers side too which can prove that the driver could adequately read the signage.

    I did see another user successful appeal on two basic but effective points surrounding the NTK - 1) no NTK issued 2) driver not keeper liable - liability has not been transferred. Would you recommend I use the same simple two arguments as I am not confident on the point surrounding the signage.

    Thank you again for your help so far!
    • kit27
    • By kit27 14th Aug 18, 3:57 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    Hi,

    Could somebody read and check through my POPLA appeal before I submit?

    Thanks!

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX and am appealing a parking charge from P4 Parking. An appeal to the operator was submitted but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 24/07/18. Therefore, I am now elevating this appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 !!!8211; no keeper liability.
    2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 !!!8211; no keeper liability.
    To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by P4 Parking. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

    The alleged infringement occurred on 31/05/18 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by 26/07/18. 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.

    The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

    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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, P4 Parking must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put P4 Parking to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between P4 Parking and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorized the necessary rights to P4 Parking.

    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 and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any areas 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.

    Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

    !!!8220;If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges!!!8221;.

    Section 7.3 states: !!!8220;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.''

    I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay P4 Parking. P4 Parking have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court.

    I put P4 Parking to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 18, 4:49 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Should be fine; if you got no NTK (or a late one after day 56) you will win!
    • kit27
    • By kit27 15th Aug 18, 3:32 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    kit27
    How is it that people are submitting very long POPLA appeals when the website only allows 2000 characters? Is the summary of the argument submitted in text box and the full appeal submitted in PDF as supporting evidence?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Aug 18, 3:37 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    How is it that people are submitting very long POPLA appeals when the website only allows 2000 characters? Is the summary of the argument submitted in text box and the full appeal submitted in PDF as supporting evidence?
    Originally posted by kit27
    They are following the guidance offered in post #3 in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where it says:
    These then get saved as PDFs and uploaded to POPLA under OTHER (ONLY) - do not think you only have 2000 characters in some box on the POPLA wepage!
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Aug 18, 12:07 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bit fed up with replying to people who haven't read the sticky thread today, or could have searched the forum for '2000 characters' or other keywords they were wondering about, and had their answer in seconds.

    We have literally directed 20 or more people to read the sticky thread, tonight alone.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-08-2018 at 9:19 PM.
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

123Posts Today

1,699Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GillsSarah: Interesting! I always used to buy big name products cos I thought they?d be stronger. @MartinSLewis has changed my mind on?

  • RT @think_jessica: Think Jessica the Film 30 min doc/drama based on my mother?s true story. Narrated by @MartinSLewis is now live on https:?

  • RT @kelsher123: @MartinSLewis First time switcher! And no, it wasn?t as challenging as I thought???? A British Gas customer so no brainier. Th?

  • Follow Martin