PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Care Parking Charge Notice - HELP!, Ticket fixed to window in train station car park
Manchester_Commu...
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 16:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



In October whilst my vehicle was parked at the station car park it received a parking charge notice from Care Parking. I was not the driver at the time but I am the registered keeper. I have appealed directly to Care Parking which was rejected (letter below) and now plan to appeal to POPLA. I have never done anything like this before and after reading up feel a little overwhelmed hence this post asking for help!

Attached Image


Background:

The station car park is in two sections; one tarmaced, one gravel. As I understand it, the tarmaced section is owned by the railway and they have CareParking enforce the parking. The gravel section is owned by a local charitable trust who allow commuters to park there and there are no rules/signs. There are also no marked bays on the gravel. The vehicle was parked with two wheels on the tarmac and two on the gravel (see picture). The ticket has been issued for 'parking outside of a marked bay' in contravention of the car park contract which is displayed on the signs and for obstructing other vehicles (which it was not). Is there an argument here about CareParking having the authority to issue the ticket in the first place given this is arguable not relevant land? (I'm assuming the end of the tarmac is the boundary, but cannot be certain).

Attached Image


From reading advice on forums I have pulled together the following arguments:


1. No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge leading to an unenforceable penalty

Given that the vehicle was parked in a free to stay car park, there is no loss to Care Parking or the landowner. Further, as has been evidenced in the Beavis vs ParkingEye case, the charge is therefore a penalty. However, unlike in Beavis vs ParkingEye, Care Parking have no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge (i.e. to deter staying more than 2 hours to ensure customer turnover for commercial reasons). Without an legitimate interest, the charge is deemed an unenforceable penalty under English contract law.


2. Not compliant with POFA (relevant land)

The vehicle was parked in the overflow car park which is owned by [redacted] trust. I do not believe Care Parking’s contract gives them the authority to issue charges for parking on this land. [As mentioned above 2 wheels were on the tarmac, not sure where this puts me with this argument]


3. First time offender [Asking for contract]

As cited in the BPA forum minutes of 3rd November 2015, many car park enforcement contracts have clauses disallowing charges to be made to first time offenders. As this was the first offence, I would like to see a copy of the contract between Care Parking and the landowner so I can ascertain for myself that it has been issued in accordance with the contract.


In addition to the above, I note that the parking charge notice was issued on 11 October but I am yet to receive a Notice to Keeper (it's now 11th December). I have read that a Notice to Keeper should be received not less than 28 days after the notice to driver but not more than 56 days after, although I have seen contradictory comments on this. As I am yet to receive a Notice to Keeper is this in contravention of POFA? I appealed on the 23rd October to Care Parking and received the rejection on 21 November. - does that 'stop the clock'? Advice appreciated.

Any advice you can give on the above points and anything else you think I could add would be appreciated. Please ask for any additional information you think I've missed.
I plan on appealing to POPLA next week (19/20 December).


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 16:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 17:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Your killer point here is that as this is not relevant land (due to the presence of railway bylaws), then schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply here. This means that they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.

They need to take the matter up with the driver and leave you alone. You are under no obligation to name the driver, and I hope you haven't done so.

POPLA appeals based on the above usually win, do a search for this particular point in other recent successful POPLA appeals and post a draft appeal here.

Note that this isn't a case of 'the parking company failed to comply with POFA', its that 'POFA doesn't apply, full stop'.

If you have supporting evidence of being elsewhere at the time (even a witness statement from someone you were with, bank transactions where you bought something somewhere else, Google Maps location history on your phone, etc.) then even better.

This post has been edited by ManxRed: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 17:33


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 17:37
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Spin this out as long as you can. Aside from the [dubious] argument about the adjoining land, a stronger argument around non-relevant land is Railway Byelaws. They can only be enforced against the driver and only within 6 months. Search Railway byelaws and start reading.

Compose your POPLA appeal, based on other Rail Byelaw appeals found on here, and post here for fine tuning. Send it to arrive one day before the POPLA deadline. Regardless of whether POPLA accept the appeal or not (although they should accept a strong one!), you will then only have a short period left to ping-pong some correspondence to kill it off under byelaws.

If they don't know the driver, they cannot use PoFA on non-relevant land covered by byelaws. Job done!

EDIT: Use the link below to check your POPLA deadline. DON'T use anything else from the link. It's old and needs updating!

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 17:40


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 19:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I would lose the Beavis argument completely and concentrate on "Not the driver and not relevant land"
POPLA is not interested in whether the payment is owed, only whether the Notice was issued correctly

I'm trying to think of a good way to phrase that "out of the bay" is impossible :

The part of the vehicle that Care alleges to be out of the bay is also outside the car park that they're employed to manage


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester_Commu...
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 08:27
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



Thank you for your help so quickly!
I will research the railway bylaws, draft an appeal and post it here in the coming days.

I have checked the POPLA code and deadline is the 19th December.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 15:06
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



OK, so you need to get the appeal in by then, but NOT earlier.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester_Commu...
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 16:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



Ok, so from researching railway bylaws and reading very helpful posts on this forum and moneysavingexpert I have come up with the following. It's quite lengthy, but I read that can be a strategy in order to put the parking company off arguing against it (I doubt that works but willing to give it a try). Also, I haven't included any photos - should I (such as the one on my original post - I'm not sure they help with the arguments I am making).

Also, I think i'm right in saying that my argument 3 is kind of a moot point if the land is subject to railway bylaws and therefore not subject to POFA, but I think its useful to have in anyway in case argument 1 fails for any reason.

Please let me know your feedback and I will do a second draft.


[Address]

[Date]
[Ref]

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 11th October 2018 and bought to my attention by the driver, as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question of the alleged contravention. I am writing to you and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal as I believe I am not liable for the charge for the following reasons:

(1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).
(2) The operator has not shown who the driver was and therefore who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
(3) Care Parking has failed to notify me, the registered keeper, and a charge notice within 56 days of the parking period in question.


(1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).

Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore Care Parking are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Care Parking any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Care Parking’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Care Parking to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Care Parking is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Care Parking to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Care Parking to prove otherwise so I require that Care Parking produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Care Parking and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Care Parking can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


(2) The operator has not shown who the driver was and therefore who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).

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. Although I am the registered keeper of the vehicle I was not driving on this occasion.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point above.


(3) Care Parking has failed to notify me, the registered keeper, and a charge notice within 56 days of the parking period in question.

Notwithstanding the points above, to date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by Care Parking. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on 11/10/2018 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by 06/12/2016. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 18:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



The lead assessor of the time, Henry Greenslade, made a lengthy statement about assuming the driver's identity. Try and find it because an assessor cannot disregard it. Search other POPLA appeals for it.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:12
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As there was a windscreen ticket don't mention paragraph 9 of POFA. It's the same information but don't give the assessor something to pick up on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:39
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I would lose (3) completely

It's not relevant land so POFA doesn't apply
Point #3 is effectively saying that it does

You haven't made any mention of Care's authority to manage the car park and its boundaries in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2

Neither have you said that the part of the car that Care says was outside the bay was also outside its car park

This is an important point because to conclude otherwise POPLA would be saying that the driver has contracted with two operators at the same time, both of whom can issue a parking notice for the same reason.


This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:47
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Or keep (3) and qualify it with an 'Even if POPLA believes this is relevant land...' start?

POPLA are not the brightest so it;s good to include all the bullets and they might realise why the OP clearly wins this easy case!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 22:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That works for me

I'd also condense that appeal so it's easier to find the essential points

Part (1) appears to contain several separate points

Also go through it and look for opportunities to insert comments about a breach of the BPA Code of Practice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 22:29
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Yep. And just to remind the OP about adding these valid points Redivi gave you:

QUOTE
You haven't made any mention of Care's authority to manage the car park and its boundaries in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2

Neither have you said that the part of the car that Care says was outside the bay was also outside its car park

This is an important point because to conclude otherwise POPLA would be saying that the driver has contracted with two operators at the same time, both of whom can issue a parking notice for the same reason.


This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester_Commu...
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 12:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



Hi all,

Thanks again for your help.

I have gone through key points from your comments below (a few queries) and will post another draft after this post.

QUOTE
The lead assessor of the time, Henry Greenslade, made a lengthy statement about assuming the driver's identity. Try and find it because an assessor cannot disregard it. Search other POPLA appeals for it.

I already have a quote in there from Henry Greenslade - or is there another I should be using? (from a search I kept coming across the one I already have)


QUOTE
Or keep (3) and qualify it with an 'Even if POPLA believes this is relevant land...' start?

Great idea - I agree that it's best to keep in and that this point is only there if they disagree with point 1. I have amended point 3 (which has now become point 4) accordingly.


QUOTE
Neither have you said that the part of the car that Care says was outside the bay was also outside its car park

This is an important point because to conclude otherwise POPLA would be saying that the driver has contracted with two operators at the same time, both of whom can issue a parking notice for the same reason.

I really like this point however, could this also be used against me? The part of the car on the tarmac was also not in a marked bay. So could Care Parking argue that the part of the car on the tarmac was on their car park but not in a bay and the other operator argue the same for the part of the car on the gravel (incidentally, the gravel owner has stated they're happy for people to maximise the number of cars parked, so long as parking is sensible. There are no marked bays on the gravel anyway).
I started drafting this point but don't feel as though it is strong. Maybe I'm missing something- please let me know if I am!

QUOTE
As there was a windscreen ticket don't mention paragraph 9 of POFA. It's the same information but don't give the assessor something to pick up on.

I have removed reference to para 9, but left reference to para 8 - I trust this is ok.

QUOTE
You haven't made any mention of Care's authority to manage the car park and its boundaries in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2

I have added, as point 3, a new section on this point. Please advise if any amendments should be made.


QUOTE
I'd also condense that appeal so it's easier to find the essential points

I've done my best - I've especially shortened point 1.


I have also added a short paragraph in the introduction with some background (explaining the car had two wheels on the tarmac etc). I will post the updated draft below.

[Address]

[Date]
[Ref]

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 11th October 2018 and brought to my attention by the driver, as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question of the alleged contravention.

The vehicle was parked at the end of a row of cars in the gravel overflow area of the car park. This gravel overflow is owned by a local charitable trust and does not have any marked bays. I understand the alleged contravention is due to two wheels being on the tarmacked section of the car park (see attached picture). The vehicle was not causing an obstruction to any other vehicles.

I am writing to you and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal as I believe I am not liable for the charge for the following reasons:

(1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).
(2) The operator has not shown who the driver was and therefore who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
(3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
(4) If deemed to be relevant land, Care Parking has failed to notify me, the registered keeper, and a charge notice within 56 days of the parking period in question.


(1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).

Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land.

I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore Care Parking are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

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.



(2) The operator has not shown who the driver was and therefore who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).

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. Although I am the registered keeper of the vehicle I was not driving on this occasion.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point above.


(3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

Care Parking has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. BPA COP paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Care Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Care Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Care Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Care Parking to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, unredacted contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for Care Parking merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

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”

In addition, in the case of [xxx] train station, the interest of the landowner is to attract and retain customers to the railway, not to earn revenue through parking penalties, which is evidenced through it being a free to use car park. Therefore it is very possible that the landowner would allow in its contract with the operator that first time offenders are not pursued by the operator as such practice would obviously hurt the business of the landowner. Care Parking has not offered evidence of the exact terms under which it is allowed by the landowner to issue and seek payment of parking charges.


(4) Even if POPLA believes this is relevant land, Care Parking has failed to notify me, the registered keeper, and a charge notice within 56 days of the parking period in question.

Even if POPLA believes this is relevant land, to date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by Care Parking. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on 11/10/2018 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by 06/12/2016. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 18:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You will win anyway, due to no NTK.

But I would add a point about unclear signs, as that is a given.

And I would state in a final point, that:

If the operator is saying the car was outside the boundary of the car park's last bay, then in fact the overlapping side was outside of the car park entirely, shown in their own pictures where a boundary line and tarmac change to gravel, is evident. The station car park is in two sections; one tarmac, one gravel. The tarmac section is owned by the railway (not relevant land) but the gravel section is owned by a local charitable trust, who allow commuters to park there - and there are no rules/signs. There are also no marked bays on the gravel.

The vehicle was parked with two wheels on the tarmac and two on the gravel (see picture) and thus any alleged contravention at the boundary is outside of the enforcement (railway owned) boundary anyway and Care Parking are having a laugh to issue a PCN for parking on the charitable trust's unrestricted land, where no PPC infestarion blights that piece of land anyway and Care Parking have zero jurisdiction or authority. They are put to strict proof to the contrary about authority and the site boundary.




I would use words like 'infestation' as it is high time POPLA Assessors woke up and smelt the coffee. Say it like the scam it is.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 18:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester_Commu...
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 19:43
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



Thank you so much SchoolRunMum! I will add your point to my appeal.

I really hope I do win. You're right that the whole private parking penalty system is a scam. Here's hoping the government take action soon (though admittedly they're pretty busy right now).

Thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester_Commu...
post Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 16:03
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



I propose adding the below to my appeal. On reflection I think SchoolRunMums point is inaccurate as I think Care Parking are alleging the part of the car ON the tarmac is outside of a marked bay. However I do have the following points. These have been written by myself and less legal arguments, more me putting my case forward. Interested to hear whether you think it will help or hinder my argument. (Unfortunately I'm not able to upload the images as attachment space is full!):





(5) Unclear signage relating to the area of enforcement and inconsistent enforcement

The vehicle was parked at the end of a row of cars parked in the gravel section of the car park (see pictures 1 and 2). There are no marked bays in that section of the car park and cars do not receive penalty notices. I have since learned that this section of the car park is owned by a local charitable trust and is not under Care Parking’s jurisdiction. Care Parking’s signs (picture 4 attached) do not make reference to the area of enforcement, only to the ‘car park’ and ‘this land’ as a whole and yet it is evident that the signs are not in enforcement over the whole station car park. Therefore, without clear signage indicating the tarmac/gravel boundary it is not clear to car park users where these rules are in force and where they aren’t.

Furthermore, the signage states that parking on double yellow lines is not permitted. However this is a daily occurrence at the station, as shown in the attached Google Street View image (Image 5). Care Parking’s failure to enforce their parking conditions in a consistent basis is misleading and implies they are happy to allow customers to park sensibly even when in contravention of the contract rules.


(6) Not causing an obstruction as alleged by Care Parking

Finally, the vehicle was not causing an obstruction to any other vehicles. In their rejection letter, Care Parking stated that the vehicle was ‘obstructing the vehicles parked within the marked bays to the left of your vehicle’. As can be seen from their own images, there is a large space to the left of the vehicle for which I am the registered keeper. The gap is large enough that the vehicles to the left cannot be seen in image 3 and the attendant has been able to take image 2, a full side shot of my vehicle, without being blocked by the vehicles apparently being obstructed.



I plan on submitting my appeal tonight (deadline is tomorrow) so any quick feedback will be gratefully received! Thank you.

This post has been edited by Manchester_Commuter: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 16:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 16:29
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Is the tarmac area on which part of the car was parked a bay or not ?

If it is, Schoolrunmum's point is completely accurate
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Manchester_Commu...
post Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 17:08
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,392



It isn't a bay.

I do have a picture showing that (taken by Care Parking) but unfortunately can't upload.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 01:24
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



But you can embed it into your POPLA appeal (careful not to talk about ''where I parked'' or any such wording of course!).

Don't upload lots of things for the POPLA Assessor to look at. Upload (under 'OTHER' only) just ONE PDF appeal with the images that help your case actually embedded like a storybook, nice & simple to read.

QUOTE
I think SchoolRunMums point is inaccurate as I think Care Parking are alleging the part of the car ON the tarmac is outside of a marked bay.


How can it be inaccurate - and POPLA will only see what we have seen here, which looks like a bay edge (partly 'in') and the rest of the car partly out. May as well include it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:44
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here