PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Total Parking Solutions Reading Uni
ohnoes
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 20:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Situation:
A paper ticket was attached to the vehicle by a TPS warden.

The vehicle was parked on a Reading Uni campus car park and there was a TPS sign nearby the vehicle. Will get a photo of one of these signs and attach it soon.

The driver of this vehicle is also a blue badge holder however it wasn't on display at the time of ticketing.

The vehicle was displaying a TPS 'halls of residence' permit, however the permit is made out in the registration number of a previous vehicle.

The permit was was photographed by the warden (with the old VRM on it) alongside pictures of the car and the sign behind it, although it is unreadable from the photos.

There is also a copy of an email communication where university has been contacted about the permit when vehicles were changed. The university replied stating the same permit displaying the old VRM could be used.

There is the added confusion of where a 'halls of residence' permit allows the driver to park on campus, which isn't entirely clear based on the information on the reading uni website.


PCN front and back:
https://imgur.com/a/HUtCy1O

Not sure if it has any bearing on this case, but found this on the university website, their parking t&cs: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/parking..._EFC_190618.pdf

No communications have been entered into with TPS yet, pending comments from the knowledgable folk here.
Can you suggest the best course of action based on the information given so far?

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:32


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 46)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 20:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 16:02
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Just under 1,900 characters. Anything I missed?

Comments to POPLA assessor:

It appears that a generic template argument has been used, ignoring completely the facts of this case. With the lack of any specific rebuttal from TPS to any and all of the points I have raised, it appears that they agree with the premise of my appeal. Therefore, the adjudicator must uphold the appeal on all points.

1. The driver has not been identified and TPS have failed to obtain the keepers details from the DVLA within the designated time scales, therefore they can not transfer liability to the keeper. No evidence has been offered to show compliance with PoFA or that keeper details were requested within the time scales specified by PoFA from the DVLA.

2. TPS have not addressed email evidence in my submission that the landowner considered the permit displayed on the vehicle as valid. No further evidence has been offered by TPS to rebut this point or elaborate on why they considered the permit displayed to be invalid.

3. TPS have not addressed the fact that none of the terms and conditions of parking as displayed on the signage by the vehicle, were broken. A permit considered valid by the land owner was displayed on the vehicle and is clearly seen in their evidence pack, and all other signed conditions were complied with. TPS have not elaborated as to how the terms of parking were broken, nor have they explained how the signage restricts parking to only certain 'types' of permit.

4. TPS have not addressed the fact that their signage is forbidding in nature therefore could not be enforced even if there was a breach of terms.

5. TPS have failed to provide evidence of landowner authority to pursue any parking charges on this land.

6. TPS have included images of signage in their evidence which does not relate to the signage displayed by the vehicle and included in my submission. I question why these signs (mentioning pay and display for example) have been included in their evidence and why TPS have failed to indicate where the vehicle was parked in relation to any of the signs they have included.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 16:21


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 15:19
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Good result, thanks for the assists.
Not sure how the assessor came to the conclusion that the appellant was the driver (they were not).


Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Eileen Ioannou

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle did not display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
Within their appeal to POPLA the appellant says that the parking operator has failed to comply with the requirements set out within the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 therefore keeper liability cannot be applied. The appellant says that the operator has failed to identify the person that they are pursuing is the driver. Further, the appellant says that the parking operator does not have compliant signage in respect of an offer of contract stating that no breach occurred. In addition, the appellant says the operator does not have the authority to issue charges at the site and puts it to strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having reviewed the appellant’s case, I consider them to be the driver; therefore, I will be considering their liability in this review. The assessor’s remit is to consider whether a PCN has been issued correctly by taking into considering the circumstances and any evidence presented by both parties. It is important to note that the nature of the relationship between the motorist and the parking operator is contractual. The driver is granted permission to park at the site by way of making an offer in signage displayed at the site. It is the driver’s obligation to check for signage. The contract offered at the site allows the motorist to decide if they wish to accept the offer of the terms set out on the signs or leave to find more suitable parking. The photographic evidence of the signage at the car park states, “Up to 2 hours (obtain your free ticket from the machi9ne) Free”, “Over 2 hours £3.10” and “Ensure you have clearly displayed wither your valid University Vehicle Entry Permit, Free ticket or Pay & Display ticket at all times…” I can see that there is a helpline number for motorists to use for assistance. The PCN was issued as the vehicle did not display a valid permit. By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions offered at the car park. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the car park that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. In this case, the operator has failed to supply a copy of the contract that it has with the landowner, as such, it is not possible to determine that it has the required authority to issue enforcement at the site. I note that the appellant brought various points to POPLA within their appeal. However, as I have allowed this appeal for the reasons given within this assessment, I do not feel that the additional grounds require any further consideration. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.


This post has been edited by ohnoes: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 15:21


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 21:15
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Completely bizarre reasoning but the right result.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 00:09
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,123
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Very bizarre

POPLA only requires a letter from the land-owner confirming that the company is authorised to manage the car park

Until recently, the parking company could write and sign the letter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:54
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,443
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Maybe TPS didn't even provide the letter.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 08:37
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 08:54) *
Maybe TPS didn't even provide the letter.


I didn't see it in their evidence pack, which was mainly a collection of random signs unrelated to where the vehicle was parked and copies of the defective NTK and the original ticket.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 09:46
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,123
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Ironic that for many years TPS has proudly advertised its ISO 9001 quality certification
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Wednesday, 18th September 2019 - 10:27
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.