PCN Parking Solutions - Salford University Options

[Toffeenose]

Hi there,

Just looking for a bit of guidence following a Ntk received from PCN Solutions, parking at Salford University [Mary Seacole Car park)

Have done some background reading in prep and found a similar Ntk on thread ‘RootieTootie’ on 06/10/2016 that was useful.

Background: basically I paid for a few hours Parking (approx 2pm to 4pm) and then got stuck in a lecture and forgot extend the parking upto 6pm. After 6pm parking is free. Approx issue of PCN was approx 4:45 and the writing on Parking location is in scribbled handwriting that’s a bit unclear on the PCN.

Next 2 steps that I intend to take and would like to check if this would be a suitable in response? If any further info is needed just let me know. (Thanks in advance for any advice that is provided).

1. Respond to the Ntk with:

Dear Sir/Madam,

As keeper of the vehicle in question I have received a notice from 'PCN Parking Solutions'. As the notice fails to adhere to the requirements of PoFA 2012 I cannot be held liable for the drivers actions.

Please contact the driver at the time of the event, I have no further liability in this matter and will not be providing drivers details.

If you do not agree with the above summation of the situation, please provide a POPLA code so we can get the matter dealt with at your expense.

2. Once popla code is received, appeal to POPLA with the following that has been adapted from ‘RootieTooties’ post:


Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA XXXXXXX

Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
Date of Issue: XXX
Company in question: PCN Parking Solutions

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £XX Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by PCN Parking Solutions for Parking Solutions 24 Limited.

As the keeper of the car, I have contacted the driver of the event, and was allowed to quote the words here: “A paybyphone payment was made for parking on the day. However, it was discovered on finding the PCN that there is a limit meaning the monies paid did not run over to the next 1 hour and 15 minutes after which parking is free. There is no clear signage to determine that there is parking restrictions in place and also no clear signage that determines times for free parking.

Based on the quotation, I believe the driver of the event made a valid payment, however, due to unclear signage was not aware of the limitations on the time allowed to pay for parking and free parking. The driver has provided evidence of all payments through the paybyphone session.

Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage
2. Parking Solutions 24 Limited’s Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
4. No breach/trespass

1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being presented with clear time restrictions on maximum parking hours and/or payment of those hours when parking on the premises and time for free parking.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication

“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that on parking the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Solutions 24 Limited is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due to pay on site.

The alleged breach occurred due to unclear instructions regarding the limitation of parking hours allowed to be paid for. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time.

There were, in fact, no signs at all located near where the vehicle was parked and no signage relating to 1) overnight parking, 2) Maximum stay and/or the limitation of parking hours allowed to be paid for in advance and 3) time periods for free parking

There is only one significant sign on the site in question, located out of sight and unlit from where the vehicle above was parked. The wording on this signage is insufficient to form a contract with a visitor for many reasons including using a font of insufficient proportions to be clearly read.

Furthermore, the signage offers nothing and is also forbidding in the wording. The wording invites parking only to those with a valid permit or who have a paybyphone access. Other persons without either are not invited and are therefore trespassers. Therefore only the landowner can claim for trespass against the keeper.

The landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Solutions 24 Limited did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.

2. Parking Solutions 24 Limited’s Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to the dates, time and the wording used.
Contrary to the response on the rejection letter of the appeal which states “We can confirm Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was not referenced within the Notice to Keeper, our client Parking Solutions 24 Limited are entitled to write to the keeper in regards to the driver information”, I can confirm that Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was specifically referenced in the Notice to Keeper from PCN Parking Solutions for Parking Solutions 24 Limited, and states very clearly on the first page:
“If you are unable to provide the driver’s name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”

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, and 12.

Under paragraph 8 (2), it is a requirement of PoFA that the NTD and the NTK contain the same information whereas the time noted on the NTD and NTK is not consistent and does not match. PoFA states:

8 (2) The notice must—

© state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), © and (f);

The time detail is not repeated and differs on both the NTD and NTK.

Under paragraph 4 (5), the maximum claim recovered from the keeper must equal that requested from the driver. PoFA states:

4 (5)
The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

The NTK is not PoFA compliant as extra fees to the sum of £18 have been added to the ‘charge’. To reiterate, PoFA allows only a claim for the amount of the drivers liability.

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.

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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a PoFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the PoFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA 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.

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.''

No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the PoFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.’'

5. No breach/trespass

To reiterate, if there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the Parking Solutions 24 Limited ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if Parking Solutions 24 Limited do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform Parking Solutions 24 Limited to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXX

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Let's get the initial appeal out of the way but I suggest you change your post to say 'the driver'...

[emsgeorge]

And be aware we've seen some universities withhold awarding degrees on the basis that there are sums 'owed' to either them, or their contractors.

So check your small print in your terms with them.

[Toffeenose]

Thanks for the info and quick responses. I’ll send off the appeal tomorrow, after a thouragh read through of the Uni student T&C’s.

[Toffeenose]

The letter states ‘the driver at the time of the event and any valid dispute or payment hasn’t been received’ and has 14 days to respond. So looks like they haven’t

Plan is to respond to the letter by sending the origional letter sent to PCN and a copy of the receipt of postage. Any other suggestions on this ?

This post has been edited by Toffeenose: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:18

[ostell]

Well, it looks like ignoring the request to edit your first post has come back and to bite you on the bum. They do read the forums.

[Toffeenose]

Thanks. Sorry, but a little confused. Just want to check the response sent to the NTK was correct (or incorrect) as thought this part was ok as it was in step 1 above?. assumed step 2 (POPLA) appeal was the part that needed editing.

This post has been edited by Toffeenose: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 19:27

[Redivi]

What's the full and exact name of the company that you've called PCN Parking Solutions, Parking Solutions and PCN Solutions ?

Salford University car parks are patrolled by Parking Solutions 24 Ltd although PCN Parking Solutions may be a trading name

I wouldn't contact UCS at all but instead complain to the British Parking Association that the company, whatever it's called, passed the account to UCS without supplying the POPLA code

[Toffeenose]

Yes it’s Parking Solutions 24 Ltd and on the letter head has PCN Parking Solutions with address.
will take your advice and make a complaint to the BPA and see how that goes. Probably a new strategy by parking solutions and edging their bets perhaps.


This post has been edited by Toffeenose: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:20

[ostell]

The possible reason for stating that you were the driver is that you failed to follow the advice in post #2. I hope you haven't done the same again.

[Toffeenose]

I see now... so would that explain why there is no POPLA code and have probably lost this one

[The Rookie]

No, but it does kill off your best appeal point.