PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NCP Parking Charge Notice
Netwizard
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 11:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



Hi All,

Wondering whether you lovely people can tell me whether this is worth challenging or not.

Driver parked in an NCP car park in Kiddiminster for 17 mins while they went to collect something. On their return, they tried to pay at the machine, but they could not get the machine to accept payment, so they (stupidly i know!), just left!

The breach of terms is "Parking without payment of the parking charge and liability for the same having been bought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site (kiddiminster swan shopping centre) at the time of parking. The breach relating to the period of parking was recorded by an approved ANPR camera"

They were clocked on ANPR entering at 14:13:13 and exited at 14:31:32

NCP have got the RK details (From the DVLA) as they admit in the letter that they do not know who was driving, so RK, either has to pay the fine, or there is a section to fill in who was driving.

Obviously payment is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

My question is, surely they would have CCTV of Driver trying to pay the parking at the machine and the machine not taking it. It is a fairly short (17 minute) period to look through CCTV wise, to see them trying to pay.

Is there any way to appeal this? Its a slam dunk really as they didn't pay, but that is because the machine didnt work, not because they just disregarded the rules and couldn't be bothered to pay. its fair to say technology isn't their forte, but of course that is no defence.

Date of offence was 04.09.20 and the date on the letter is 17.09.20.

Thank you for any advice smile.gif

This post has been edited by Netwizard: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 11:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:17
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



As they don't appear to be using the Protection of Freedoms Act then there are simple words that will make them run away.

The keeper is under no obligation to name the driver.

QUOTE (Netwizard @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:57) *
My question is, surely they would have CCTV of Driver trying to pay the parking at the machine and the machine not taking it. It is a fairly short (17 minute) period to look through CCTV wise, to see them trying to pay.

They won't have CCTV. They simply have photo's at the perimeter of the car arriving and leaving.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Loan Ranger
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:30
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,925



QUOTE (Netwizard @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:57) *
Hi All,

Wondering whether you lovely people can tell me whether this is worth challenging or not.

Driver parked in an NCP car park in Kiddiminster for 17 mins while they went to collect something. On their return, they tried to pay at the machine, but they could not get the machine to accept payment, so they (stupidly i know!), just left!

The breach of terms is "Parking without payment of the parking charge and liability for the same having been bought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site (kiddiminster swan shopping centre) at the time of parking. The breach relating to the period of parking was recorded by an approved ANPR camera"

They were clocked on ANPR entering at 14:13:13 and exited at 14:31:32

NCP have got the RK details (From the DVLA) as they admit in the letter that they do not know who was driving, so RK, either has to pay the fine, or there is a section to fill in who was driving.

Obviously payment is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

My question is, surely they would have CCTV of Driver trying to pay the parking at the machine and the machine not taking it. It is a fairly short (17 minute) period to look through CCTV wise, to see them trying to pay.

Is there any way to appeal this? Its a slam dunk really as they didn't pay, but that is because the machine didnt work, not because they just disregarded the rules and couldn't be bothered to pay. its fair to say technology isn't their forte, but of course that is no defence.

Date of offence was 04.09.20 and the date on the letter is 17.09.20.

Thank you for any advice smile.gif


My wife parks in an NCP every day, unfortunately, as it's handy for her work. She regularly experiences that the machines do not work, but then uses the online option, so I fear they will state the driver should have read the signage and opted for this option. Sorry!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:42
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



Thank you, and yes that is true, there is just a few close ups of the number plate with entry and exit times on the letter rather than on the original photo. I have found this template from reading elsewhere on the forum and wanted to see if this was acceptable to use as i have read it all and it seems to fit with what i want to say:

QUOTE
POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
The registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 04/09/2020 acting as a notice to the registered keeper.

I contend that neither the registered keeper or the driver are 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. No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
3. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance
4. The ANPR System is Not a record of a Parking Period.

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
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 the 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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you.
If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
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. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is
reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

If the BPA feel “a minimum of 10 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and
conditions,decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.
It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which National Car Parks claim was 12 minutes 20 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
a)That the driver had entered the car park to pick up a disabled person & their disability vehicle. This person was entitled to be accommodated under the Equality Act 2010.
b) The amount of traffic in the car park & surrounding roads.
c) The lengthiness of National Car Parks’ signage (in terms of word count)
The factors mentioned above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions .
• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.

2. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “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 an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times,National Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require National Car Parks 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.

3. 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”nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).
The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the images. The images have also been cropped. As these are not the original images, I require National Car Parks
Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" 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 photos to the location stated.

4. The ANPR System is Not a record of a Parking Period.
The National Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question.
There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.
The Notice to Keeper states:
“Date of incident 04/09/2020,Vehicle registration number xxxxxxx
Entry (from) 14:13:13 Exit (to) 14:31:42”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By National Car Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle.
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.”


Does this sound acceptable?

Thank you

On further logging onto NCP, there is 4 images. 2 of the number plate, and one of the car entering the carpark (but not identifying the driver) and it does list the car make / model in there, but it is not present in the NTK.

I should also state that RK is a blue badge holder, unsure if this makes a difference to any appeal. I need to appeal to NCP first, so do i go for the above, or explain the situation? i fear the latter will just result in a rejection!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Netwizard @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:42) *
Does this sound acceptable?

Fair too wordy.

Assuming the NtK doesn't comply with PoFA (would be best to see a redacted scan), appeal as the KEEPER:

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc


QUOTE (Netwizard @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:42) *
I should also state that RK is a blue badge holder, unsure if this makes a difference to any appeal.

No in these circumstances.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 14:10
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



Thank you. I will send that off as my first appeal before POPLA.

What has actually happened in this instance is the driver has put their card in to pay, and thought the payment was successful. This car park apparently does not give out a receipt confirmation, so thought the payment had gone through when it hadn't! Payment was for 50p! so not going to avoid paying for this paltry amount.

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 07:13
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:50) *
Assuming the NtK doesn't comply with PoFA (would be best to see a redacted scan), appeal as the KEEPER:


Sorry its took so long to reply. had to wait until i got to work to get this uploaded. The notice should be attached. Would the above text still be OK for a first appeal?

Thank you

This post has been edited by Netwizard: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 07:38
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 08:58
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:50) *
QUOTE (Netwizard @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:42) *
Does this sound acceptable?

Fair too wordy.

Assuming the NtK doesn't comply with PoFA (would be best to see a redacted scan), appeal as the KEEPER:

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc


QUOTE (Netwizard @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:42) *
I should also state that RK is a blue badge holder, unsure if this makes a difference to any appeal.

No in these circumstances.


Having read section 9 (2) (f) of the Act, it seems like this notice does comply, unless i have missed something? but i have sent the above off as an appeal via letter so i'll wait and see the outcome.

Many Thanks


This post has been edited by Netwizard: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 09:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 10:30
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Netwizard @ Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 09:58) *
Having read section 9 (2) (f) of the Act, it seems like this notice does comply, unless i have missed something? but i have sent the above off as an appeal via letter so i'll wait and see the outcome.

It's subtle - and tries hard to give the impression that the keeper is liable, but they are not. The words do not state the keeper is liable.

Also, note the dates - they did not comply with the 14 days. The charge was issued 17th September which would be presumed to arrive 21th September.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 10:40
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 11:30) *
Also, note the dates - they did not comply with the 14 days. The charge was issued 17th September which would be presumed to arrive 21th September.


Should I add this to my letter, which might add further weight to them cancelling the ticket do you think? as i haven't yet posted the letter!

Thank you again

So this is the letter i plan to send:

I have just received your Notice to Keeper XXXX for vehicle VRM XXXXX

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.
Also, failure to comply with Section 9 (5) and section 9 (6). The charge was issued 17th September which would be presumed to arrive 21th September which is outside of the 14 day relevant period of notification.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours sincerely


This post has been edited by Netwizard: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 10:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 11:37
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Yup, adds further to the case.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 11:51
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 12:37) *
Yup, adds further to the case.


Thank you, i'll send this off this afternoon after work. I much appreciate your input smile.gif

I'll report back when i hear back off NCP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 12:06
Post #13


Member


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



They have failed 9(4). 9(5) & 9(6) are just definitions.

Pedantic I know but let's get it correct

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 12:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Netwizard
post Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 12:17
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 12 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,186



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 13:06) *
They have failed 9(4). 9(5) & 9(6) are just definitions.

Pedantic I know but let's get it correct


I agree, thank you for pointing this out. So i have changed that bit in the letter to:

Also, failure to comply with Section 9 (4) The charge was issued 17th September which would be presumed to arrive 21th September which is outside of the 14 day relevant period of notification.

Again, thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:35
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