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
    • Agooner
    • By Agooner 8th Jul 18, 5:32 PM
    • 33Posts
    • 11Thanks
    Agooner
    Wing Parking POPLA
    • #1
    • 8th Jul 18, 5:32 PM
    Wing Parking POPLA 8th Jul 18 at 5:32 PM
    Hi All,

    I have reached the POPLA stage of my PCN appeal from Wing Parking. Please review my POPLA appeal below before I send it.

    Summary so far:

    1. Someone parked my car in a residential car park, owned by the local housing association. The driver, displayed an old residential parking permit and consequently received a windscreen ticket.

    2. I received a NTK asking me to pay a reduced fine. I appealed, using the template on the newbies sticky.

    3. Stages one and two appeals were rejected by Wing Parking. I also appealed to the housing association; they rejected my appeal.

    Thank you.

    Draft appeal:

    PCN Ref XXXX
    POPLA REF XXXX



    As a registered keeper, I am writing to appeal against the above PCN. Wing Parking have no right to claim under POFA. The parking spaces in question have been provided by Brent Council, (a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4) and are not relevant land by virtue of Paragraph 3 (1) (b) of Schedule 4.

    Statutory control (including Orders in Council) is covered separately under Paragraph 3 (1) (c) i.e. any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control is not relevant land. The Parking charge notice amount of £100 which is claimed by wing parking is therefore invalid and no creditor exists. If a statutory debt is proven this would be dealt with by Brent Council using their powers and not by Wing Parking.

    In addition to the above, I contend the PCN for the following reasons:

    1. No evidence of landowner authority
    2. The signs in this car park are not prominent
    3. The Appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable

    1. 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


    2.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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

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

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

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

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

    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:

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

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

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

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Understanding keeper liability
    '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.''

    I look forward to hearing your response

    Yours truly,

Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jul 18, 5:54 PM
    • 61,405 Posts
    • 74,299 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 8th Jul 18, 5:54 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Jul 18, 5:54 PM
    Looks fine! You will win. I would just remove this as it's superfluous and more written for a ParkingEye case:

    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.
    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.

    • Agooner
    • By Agooner 8th Jul 18, 7:32 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Agooner
    • #3
    • 8th Jul 18, 7:32 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Jul 18, 7:32 PM
    Looks fine! You will win. I would just remove this as it's superfluous and more written for a ParkingEye case:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you, I have removed that paragraph.

    I will complete my appeal.
    • Agooner
    • By Agooner 26th Jul 18, 10:03 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Agooner
    • #4
    • 26th Jul 18, 10:03 PM
    Operator's evidence
    • #4
    • 26th Jul 18, 10:03 PM
    Wing Parking have replied to my appeal and submitted their evidence. Below is a summary of this.

    Are there any grounds in their evidence that I should comment on before the 7 days deadline to comment expires?

    They stated that the permit the driver used is obsolete and that they were withdrawn from November 2017, however their sign does not state which permits are valid and which are not. Is this a reasonable ground to comment on?

    Also, part of their evidence is a letter that they claimed was hand delivered to all residents informing them of the new permit. Could it be argued that a new resident after this date would not have received the hand delivered letter and therefore not be aware of it?

    My first appeal was made on the 17th May 2018, on wing parking's website. Yet in their evidence it they claim that they received my appeal via email. There is an email from customer services@zzps.co.uk. I have a screenshot of my appeal, with that date it was made. I do not know how ZZPS got my details. Should I comment on this as well?

    Thank you

    WING PARKING LTD - POPLA APPEAL EVIDENCE SECTION B - CASE SUMMARY AND RULES/CONDITIONS

    1) The vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice because it was parked on private land managed by Catalyst Housing in breach of the local parking restrictions that were clearly advertised on warning signs present. The Operator is formally contracted to provide parking management services on the private car park through the operation of a parking charge notice (PCN) scheme. No service is carried out on the public highway.

    2) The warning signs clearly state "Private property. Parking conditions apply at all times. Parking for permit holders in marked bays only. A valid permit for this car park must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times” and “By parking here you are entering into a contract of which the terms are stated above. Failure to comply with these terms may result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice of £100 (reduced to £60 if payment is received within 14 days). A detailed copy of the sign wording at this location is enclosed as Image 1 in Section F. It must also be specifically noted that as this site is one where general parking is not permitted, (i.e. parking is solely for resident permit holders), it is exempt from the signage requirements of Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice and this is confirmed by the BPA email enclosed as in Section G.

    3) In designing our signs, we have considered the findings of the Beavis vs Parking Eye case which stated that the amount of the parking charge should be adequately brought to the attention of the motorist as well as the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. We have achieved this by outlining the key Terms & Conditions that a motorist should be aware of before remaining at the location at the top of the signage, then giving some more specific detail about the location Terms before having a separate section detailing the implications of a breach of the Terms & Conditions, including the amount of any PCN charge, (this portion in a bordered box to specifically draw attention to it). We contend that this is a logical progression through the sign that any visitor to the location would be able to follow.

    4) There should be no dispute that the warning signs were present. The appellant has not disputed the presence of signs in any of his appeals. Confirmation that a warning sign was present in enclosed as Image 2 in Section F.

    5) PCN 1094129 was issued for the reason of "Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit" because no valid parking permit for that car park was on display, a fact that does not appear to be under dispute. In all their many pages of appeals, the appellant at no time claims to have been displaying a valid parking permit. The vehicle was observed for 18 minutes and during that time it remained parked and unattended. The observation and issue times are detailed on the PCN database record enclosed in Section C.

    6) There is no dispute that the vehicle was displaying a parking permit. The operator has not disputed that matter and indeed images 3 and 4 in Section F shows the permit as it was displayed. The issue here is that the permit in use was obsolete and was no longer valid for use, such permits having been withdrawn from use in November 2017, an issue that has not been disputed. Image 2 in Section G shows the type of permit that is now in use at this location whilst Image 3 in Section F shows no evidence of such a permit on display.

    7) There is no dispute that the parking charge notice was issued to the vehicle and received by the driver as the appellant does not make such a claim. Confirmation that a PCN was issued is enclosed as Image 5 in Section F.

    8) The dispute arises because the appellant claims that
    • There is no evidence of landowner authority
    • The signs in the car park are not prominent clear or legible from all parking
    spaces
    • There is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    • He has not been shown to be the individual liable

    9) The warning signs on display in the area clearly inform drivers that an estate parking permit must be clearly displayed in order to allow users to park. On this occasion, at the time that the Notice was actually issued, no valid estate permit was on clear display and this much is not in dispute.

    10) Document 5 in Section G contains the information that was hand delivered to all relevant properties in October 2017, informing them of the new parking restrictions coming into place in November 2017. This clearly informs users that “Any existing permits already issued by Catalyst that DO NOT display an expiry date are NO LONGER VALID from 6 November 2017 and you need to obtain a new permit now so you can continue to park after that date.”

    11) It is also clear that the driver was fully aware of the terms and conditions of parking at this location. The driver knew enough about the parking restrictions to know that he needed to obtain and display a parking permit, albeit that he used an obsolete one

    12) It is unclear as to why the appellant is now questioning the operator’s authority to issue PCN’s on the said land. He clearly did not question the operator’s authority at the time of parking when displaying the permit in an attempt to comply. Nevertheless, the operator strongly disputes that appellant’s claim that they do not have the authority of the landowner to issue PCN’s on the said land. The operator suggest that this claim is made purely on the basis of having read various internet sites rather than a knowledge of the exact legal standing between the operator and the client.

    13) The appellant is totally incorrect in his claims that the location is operated by Brent Council under statutory parking controls and he has provided no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.

    14) The contract to park is not actually offered by the operator at all, it is offered by the client Catalyst Housing, who hold the necessary legal interest in the property. The operator is not offering the contract, they are merely acting as agents in the management of that contract and they have a written and signed agreement with the client where they authorise them to carry out this service on their behalf.

    15) The agreement is however subject to Data Protection so there is no legal requirement for the operator to disclose this contract to any third party. The appellant was however well within his rights to contact the client directly to confirm that such an agreement exists. Both the operator and the client are satisfied that the written and signed agreement between them does provide the operator with sufficient legal authority to issue the PCN and to seek to recover payment of that PCN from drivers on their behalf. For the benefit of doubt, enclosed as Document 3 in Section G is a signed witness statement from the client confirming the existence of this agreement and all the relevant particulars.

    16) In light of the fact that the appellant is incorrect in his assertation as to who the client is, any references or requirements relating to statutory provisions are totally irrelevant.

    17) It is also unclear as to why the appellant is now questioning the signage, when Image 2 in Section F clearly shows a warning sign was visible from where the vehicle was parked. However, signs do not necessarily have to be legible from where a vehicle is parked, only prominent enough for drivers to know that they are there. It is then the responsibility of the driver to approach that sign until such time that they are able to take notice of the stated instructions.

    18) Furthermore, the main purpose of the sign is to communicate the parking conditions at this location. Any claim by the appellant that the driver was unaware of the parking restrictions or did not know about them or had not seen or understood the sign are totally negated by the fact that the driver parked and then proceeded to obtain and display a parking permit, albeit an obsolete one. The driver had clearly seen the warning signs, and had understood the meaning, the need to display a parking permit, and the consequences of not doing so, because they obtained and displayed a parking permit. How did they know they had to do this if they did not see, read and understand the sign that was located only 3 parking spaces away from their vehicle?

    19) There can be no dispute that the warning was present or that it clearly stated the requirement for a valid permit to be clearly displayed. The bottom of the sign also clearly warns all drivers that ‘Failure to comply with these terms may result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice of £100 (reduced to £60 if payment is received within 14 days).’

    20) Whether or not the appellant was the driver at the time of the incident is unfortunately not relevant on this occasion. The Notice To Keeper (NTK), that was sent out to the appellant on 14 May 2018 clearly warned the appellant that keeper liability would be established if driver details were not provided. The appellant has failed to provide any driver details within the specified period and as such keeper liability has now been established. The NTK was issued in full accordance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and a copy of the NTK is enclosed as Document 4 in Section G for reference.

    21) So, whilst both the operator and the client appreciate the grounds of the appeal, these do not negate the validity of the PCN. The client and the operator maintain that the PCN was correctly, validly and legally issued because a valid parking permit for that car park was not clearly displayed, contrary to the instructions on the nearby warning sign. The full sum of £100 is therefore legally due.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Jul 18, 11:14 PM
    • 61,405 Posts
    • 74,299 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 26th Jul 18, 11:14 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Jul 18, 11:14 PM
    They stated that the permit the driver used is obsolete and that they were withdrawn from November 2017, however their sign does not state which permits are valid and which are not. Is this a reasonable ground to comment on?
    Yes.

    Also, part of their evidence is a letter that they claimed was hand delivered to all residents informing them of the new permit. Could it be argued that a new resident after this date would not have received the hand delivered letter and therefore not be aware of it?
    Yes, and argue that there is no evidence whatsoever that every flat received this supposedly hand-delivered note and you state categorically, that the household in question did not, and because the permits had no expiry date there was precisely nothing to alert a permit-holder to the matter and they would have believed they could park with that permit.

    If Wing wanted to replace them, seeing as they claim they knocked on every door, they should have collected the old ones in exchange for a new one, keeping data records to show which residents still needed the new one, and ensured no old permits were in circulation.

    Also tell POPLA:

    At 14 the evidence pack says ''the contract to park is not actually offered by the operator at all, it is offered by the client Catalyst Housing, who hold the necessary legal interest in the property. The operator is not offering the contract, they are merely acting as agents in the management of that contract''.

    So, if Wing offered no contract, Wing are not a party to it and more importantly, cannot sue on it and are in breach of the BPA CoP which requires a landowner contract to grant a PPC the right to take legal action in their own name. Clearly Wing are (by their own admission) merely agents with a bare licence to put up signs and send some letters, relating to appeal and pre-court matters only, on behalf of the actual firm offering the parking. The PCN cannot have been properly given without full compliance with section 7 of the BPA CoP, as was quoted in the appeal.
    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.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 26th Jul 18, 11:26 PM
    • 19,211 Posts
    • 24,404 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 26th Jul 18, 11:26 PM
    • #6
    • 26th Jul 18, 11:26 PM
    big LOL , killer blow ,

    wah wah waaaaah

    and all in a nutshell , I look forward to the appeal being successful and the comments by the popla assessor

    CM strikes again

    apellant = 1 , ALMO and sub contractor = 0
    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
    • Agooner
    • By Agooner 28th Jul 18, 9:47 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Agooner
    • #7
    • 28th Jul 18, 9:47 AM
    • #7
    • 28th Jul 18, 9:47 AM
    Thank you again @coupon-mad. I will draft my response and put it on here for any final comments/advice before sending it off.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Jul 18, 7:06 PM
    • 61,405 Posts
    • 74,299 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 28th Jul 18, 7:06 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Jul 18, 7:06 PM
    You just put it in on the Portal, no sending it off, and you only had six days.
    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.

    • Agooner
    • By Agooner 30th Jul 18, 9:50 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Agooner
    • #9
    • 30th Jul 18, 9:50 PM
    • #9
    • 30th Jul 18, 9:50 PM
    @coupon-mad thank you. I've uploaded my comments on the portal. I'll update when I hear back from the adjudicator.
    • Agooner
    • By Agooner 23rd Aug 18, 7:18 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Agooner
    POPLA Appeal Successful
    @coupon-mad thank you for your help on this. I have copied the decision, that I received yesterday, below:

    The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with PoFA 2012. Within his grounds of appeal, the appellant has made conflicting statements about whether PoFA 2012 applies. For the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that it does. I refer to Section 8(2)(f), which states that the notice to keeper must: “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given: (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full, and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper so much of the amount that remains unpaid”. Upon review of the operator’s notice to keeper, it is evident that he operator has only allowed the appellant 28 days to provide this information, rather than the 29 days required under PoFA 2012. As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge. I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal, however I do not consider it necessary to discuss them as this will have no bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Aug 18, 8:14 AM
    • 19,380 Posts
    • 30,607 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Within his grounds of appeal, the appellant has made conflicting statements about whether PoFA 2012 applies. For the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that it does.
    Not sure whether that means in favour of the appellant or the operator. 'For the avoidance of doubt'.?

    As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.
    Utter tosh!

    Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    How many peanuts a year is this assessor given?

    Anyway, right result for you @Agooner.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 23-08-2018 at 8:16 AM.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Aug 18, 6:24 PM
    • 61,405 Posts
    • 74,299 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well done on the win! I wonder if the Assessor meant the operator made conflicting statements, not you, but hey, it matters not!
    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

2,508Posts Today

8,559Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin