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
    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 30th Aug 18, 11:11 AM
    • 21Posts
    • 11Thanks
    Roosterrs
    Highview
    • #1
    • 30th Aug 18, 11:11 AM
    Highview 30th Aug 18 at 11:11 AM
    We received a parking fine frim Highview. We have sent the standard letter from the newbie section, this has been rejected and I now have a Popla number. What do I do next? The fine was literally minutes over the time and there is a very good reason why. Tried contacting the company we visited but cannot get hold of anyone. It has also taken them months to send the fine to us in the first place.
    Last edited by Roosterrs; 30-08-2018 at 11:16 AM.
Page 2
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Sep 18, 9:15 PM
    • 37,381 Posts
    • 84,240 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Your signage point is very short compared to the example in post 3 of the NEWBIES.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 12th Sep 18, 9:52 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    I understand that. I can't(or could) argue the signage more but I don't think Beavis would apply as the signs stating the parking charge are very similar to Beavis so may go against my argument. Currently the signs show the parking charge on a white background in large letters but I would say not large enough if you were some distance away. Letter size I would say is about an 1" high.
    The large lettering is not on the entrance though, and being as it was 3 months between the event and NTK, they could quite easily have put up more/different signs in that timeframe. However I don't have any evidence to support that they have just put the signs up.
    Is the argument here for Highview to prove that the correct signs were in place at the time of the event to show the signs complied with the BPA CoP??
    I know this must be frustrating, and I do appreciate everyones help, but I am trying to apply this particular section to my case. I don't just want to copy and paste without understanding the reasoning.
    Thanks again for your help.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Sep 18, 9:59 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I can't read it until the split infinitive at the start is put right (not joking, fed up with people copying that one).

    It is not English to put ''I'' followed by a comma - then something in the middle - then the poor isolated verb 'received' several words later. Horrible to read.

    I am going to delete that example POPLA appeal from the NEWBIES thread even thought the rest of it is good, I HATE that start so much it puts me off helping.

    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.

    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 12th Sep 18, 10:51 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    I do appreciate your help with this and can understand that it must be frustrating.
    I have amended the first lines of the document as requested.
    I would like to add in the signage from the newbie section, but as I said in post #22, the current signage means I may need to remove some of the text and cut it down. However, if adding the wording from the newbie section on signage requires Highview to prove that the signage complied with the regulations at the time of the event, I can add the complete section in. As mentioned before, the signage could have been changed in the timeframe between the event and what is currently on display now.

    POPLA Verification Code:
    Vehicle Registration:
    I received a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper of the vehicle registration mark mentioned above. My appeal to the Operator – Highview Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx/xx/xx and rejected via a letter dated xx/xx/xx. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

    1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
    2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant. Highview Parking Ltd’s own documentation shows that the event to which they refer occurred on xx/xx/xxxx, but they did not issue the charge notice until xx/xx/xxxx, which is 14+ days later.
    3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
    4. Highview Parking Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing
    5. No evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
    6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
    7: Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
    8: Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.


    1: Non-compliance of grace periods stated in the BPA Code of Practice.
    The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start:
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

    “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters
    your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a
    reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking
    charge notice.”

    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 a 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”.
    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 also reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
    It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which Highview Parking claim was Xhrs Xminutes) the grace periods stated in 13.2 and 13.4 of the BPA’s Code of Practice apply in this case, given:
    a) Visiting Vue Cinemas at Sol Central as a customer entitles 3 hours of free parking which was subsequently validated before leaving the Cinema
    b) The time taken to park the vehicle in a parking bay, locate a sign and read the full terms and conditions prior to entering a contract.

    2: This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Highview Parking Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

    ’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

    The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived XX days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from Highview Parking Ltd with the ‘event date’ of xx/xx/xxxx and the issue date of xx/xx/xxxx (ie, 14+ days later!)

    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. 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.''

    4) Highview Parking Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that Highview Parking Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Highview Parking Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

    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

    5: No evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

    Highview Parking Ltd’s Notice to Keeper states:
    “The vehicle was recorded on our clients property at Sol Central NN1 1SR from xx/xx/xxxx xx:xx to xx/xx/xxxx xx:xx.”
    These times do not equate to any single evidenced “period of parking”.
    .
    By Highview Parking Ltd’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the “In” and “Out” time of the vehicle recorded by the ANPR system.
    There is no evidence of a single “period of parking” and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
    By virtue of the nature of the ANPR system recording only the entry and exit times, Highview Parking Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
    I require Highview Parking Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

    6: The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

    Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
    I require Highview Parking Ltd to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked,
    calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
    As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase
    a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case(it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (3 hours and 5 minutes apart), it is vital that Highview Parking Ltd produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

    7: Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

    The BPA Code Of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

    The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph”.
    The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these to the location stated. The PCN also shows two pictures of the vehicle in question. One of these pictures does not clearly show the registration mark of the vehicle.
    The key point here is that the photographs must show that a vehicle was “parked” in an unauthorised way. The photos merely show that the vehicle was entering and leaving the car park.

    8: Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces

    BPA’s Code of Practice Version 7 – January (18.2) states:

    “Entrance signs play and important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:

    “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”

    Highview Parking’s signs at the entrance to the car park are very difficult to spot at they are located on a pillar along with other signage on the very tight bend when negotiating the entrance to the car park. These signs are mounted high up on the wall or close to the floor and are of two different layouts and, in some places, text size for the same wording on each sign, which when negotiating the entrance make them difficult to read as some of the wording is illegible when seated in the vehicle. There is no mention on these signs of the parking charge of £70.
    The parking signs within the car park detailing the terms and conditions are not visible from all parking spaces. The signs also clearly violate BPA’s Code of Practise (18.3) in that it is unremarkable, small, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. 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.

    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 18, 12:57 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived XX days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from Highview Parking Ltd with the ‘event date’ of xx/xx/xxxx and the issue date of xx/xx/xxxx (ie, 14+ days later!)
    then under that bit of yours, add:

    Notwithstanding the dates, Highview are known to have never attempted to use POFA wording on their NTKs anyway, and prescribed wording from paragraph 9 is conspicuous by its absence, including, but not limited to the mandatory 'keeper liability' warning in 9(2)f of Schedule 4. So, POPLA and the appellant must both conclude and agree on the fact that this is a PCN that could only hold a driver liable and in this case, the driver's identity has never been admitted or evidenced. So the PCN was not properly given and must be cancelled.
    Re the signage point, yes you could use the full template wording because it is for Highview to prove the signs on that material date.

    But they won't even bother to contest this winning POPLA appeal, I promise!
    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.

    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 13th Sep 18, 9:00 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    Final draft before submission. If you could confirm its OK that would be great.
    **deleted due to formatting error. Will repost**
    Last edited by Roosterrs; 13-09-2018 at 9:19 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Sep 18, 9:08 PM
    • 19,383 Posts
    • 30,617 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Can't read those humungous blocks of text. Why present those and expect the few very busy regulars to grab themselves a headache in trying to read them? Is your keyboard missing one of those new-fangled paragraph buttons?

    Anyways, I'd move appeal points 2 & 3 to become 1 & 2.

    Don't alienate the POPLA assessor by slamming that text slab in front of them too.
    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.
    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 13th Sep 18, 9:16 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    Ok, I have an issue as my PC IP address is banned from the forum for some reason. I have copied from notepad on PC to email , via iphone to tablet then copied to the forum as I still have access on my tablet. I will delete and re post. Tried to contact admin but no reply.
    Last edited by Roosterrs; 13-09-2018 at 9:20 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Sep 18, 11:41 PM
    • 19,213 Posts
    • 24,409 Thanks
    Redx
    report your own post and ask the admin staff to reinstate the banned ip address


    be very careful about copying and pasting from word into forum posts, try splitting it up over a couple of posts , AFTER copying and pasting from notepad, so you dont get formatting issues carrying over
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 18, 11:49 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ok, I have an issue as my PC IP address is banned from the forum for some reason. I have copied from notepad on PC to email , via iphone to tablet then copied to the forum as I still have access on my tablet. I will delete and re post. Tried to contact admin but no reply.
    Originally posted by Roosterrs
    Your problem was caused by copying and pasting directly from MS Word to the forum.

    To avoid it in future, copy via notepad to avoid all the Word formatting characters being transferred.

    This is explained in lots of places on various threads, and that's what caused the formatting block of text as well:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74700980#post74700980

    HTH
    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.

    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 14th Sep 18, 12:06 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    I have now got access on my PC.
    This is the first part of my POPLA appeal as I am posting in two sections to reduce the size. Copied from Notepad.
    Arguments in the same order, please advise if I need to change the order.

    POPLA Verification Code:
    Vehicle Registration:
    I received a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper of the vehicle registration mark mentioned above. My appeal to the Operator – Highview Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx/xx/xx and rejected via a letter dated xx/xx/xx.
    As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
    1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
    2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant. Highview Parking Ltd’s own documentation shows that the event to which they refer occurred on xx/xx/xxxx, but they did not issue the charge notice until xx/xx/xxxx, which is 14+ days later.
    3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
    4. Highview Parking Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing
    5. No evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
    6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
    7. Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces
    8. 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

    1: Non-compliance of grace periods stated in the BPA Code of Practice.
    The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start:
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

    “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters
    your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a
    reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking
    charge notice.”

    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 a 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”.
    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 also reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
    It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which Highview Parking claim was Xhrs Xminutes) the grace periods stated in 13.2 and 13.4 of the BPA’s Code of Practice apply in this case, given:
    a) Visiting Vue Cinemas at Sol Central as a customer entitles 3 hours of free parking which was subsequently validated before leaving the Cinema
    b) The time taken to park the vehicle in a parking bay, locate a sign and read the full terms and conditions prior to entering a contract.

    2: This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Highview Parking Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

    ’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

    The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 14+ days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from Highview Parking Ltd with the ‘event date’ of xx/xx/xxxx and the issue date of xx/xx/xxxx (ie, 14+ days later!)
    Notwithstanding the dates, Highview are known to have never attempted to use POFA wording on their NTKs anyway, and prescribed wording from paragraph 9 is conspicuous by its absence, including, but not limited to the mandatory 'keeper liability' warning in 9(2)f of Schedule 4. So, POPLA and the appellant must both conclude and agree on the fact that this is a PCN that could only hold a driver liable and in this case, the driver's identity has never been admitted or evidenced. So the PCN was not properly given and must be cancelled.

    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. 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.''

    4: Highview Parking Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that Highview Parking Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Highview Parking Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

    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
    Last edited by Roosterrs; 14-09-2018 at 12:09 AM.
    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 14th Sep 18, 12:11 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    Part 2.

    5: No evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

    Highview Parking Ltd’s Notice to Keeper states:
    “The vehicle was recorded on our clients property at Sol Central NN1 1SR from xx/xx/xxxx xx:xx to xx/xx/xxxx xx:xx.”
    These times do not equate to any single evidenced “period of parking”.
    .
    By Highview Parking Ltd’s own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the “In” and “Out” time of the vehicle recorded by the ANPR system.
    There is no evidence of a single “period of parking” and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
    By virtue of the nature of the ANPR system recording only the entry and exit times, Highview Parking Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
    I require Highview Parking Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

    6: The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

    Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
    I require Highview Parking Ltd to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked,
    calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
    As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase
    a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case(it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (x hours and x minutes apart), it is vital that Highview Parking Ltd produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

    7: Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

    The BPA Code Of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

    The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph”.
    The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these to the location stated. The PCN also shows two pictures of the vehicle in question. One of these pictures does not clearly show the registration mark of the vehicle.
    The key point here is that the photographs must show that a vehicle was “parked” in an unauthorised way. The photos merely show that the vehicle was entering and leaving the car park.

    8: 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 £70, 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Sep 18, 1:32 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Nice and long, and the 'no keeper liability' bit will cause Highview to cancel.
    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.

    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 15th Sep 18, 11:37 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    Thats great. Thanks for your help. I do have one last question.
    At the end of the document do I need to put the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle and a signature or is this covered when the PDF document is submitted via the POPLA website??
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Sep 18, 12:23 PM
    • 9,197 Posts
    • 9,370 Thanks
    KeithP
    Put it in both places.

    No need to be secretive. They know the RK's name and address.
    .
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Sep 18, 2:28 PM
    • 37,381 Posts
    • 84,240 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    The ebay link doesn't work.

    Embed images in the real thing instead of using links. That way the assessor is forced to look at them.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 15-09-2018 at 5:40 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 17th Sep 18, 8:06 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    I submitted my appeal at the weekend. By midday today I had confirmation from POPLA that Highview were not going to challenge the appeal. Very, very happy.
    Thanks very much to everyone who helped me with this. It is very much appreciated.
    Before submission I also noticed a problem with the pictures so included that info aswell.
    If I could of done anything different I would have took a sceenshot of my first stage appeal before submission to ensure I had evidence of the not identifying keeper.
    I have complained to my MP and had a response. After today, do I complain again?
    Once again, many many thanks for all your help.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 18, 8:11 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Brilliant news!

    You can complain to your MP in more detail about the entire scam, and that only about 2% of people even try POPLA, so it shows how unfairly weighted the scam is - and that them not contesting a 'forum appeal' shows that outraged ticket fighters have got it right, and that these parking forms are operating the ''outrageous scam'' that Parliament said they were.

    Point the MP to the February debate video and ask them to support Sir Greg Knight's Private Parking Bill:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

    https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    Press for change. Imagine all the people who do not know how to beat these.
    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.

    • Roosterrs
    • By Roosterrs 17th Sep 18, 8:27 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Roosterrs
    My MP responded to say he welcomed that the government is working with Greg Knight. I am going to respond with further information you have given me.
    Once again many thanks.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Sep 18, 8:40 PM
    • 19,383 Posts
    • 30,617 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    My MP responded to say he welcomed that the government is working with Greg Knight.
    Ask him to confirm that he too will be supporting his efforts, as this might help you determine how you vote in the next General Election.

    Very useful Q to ask if you live in a nice marginal constituency. Remarkable how MPs can help you in that kind of situation.
    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.
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

186Posts Today

1,584Users 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