PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NtK ANPR with not functional parking machine
StickyBread
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



Hello,

Will keep this nice and simple. The driver parked the car (of which I am the RK) in a car park that has ANPR cameras. The car park only has one parking machine which has an out of order sign stuck to the front of it advising to use the other parking machine. The driver looked around the car park to find this other machine but it could not be found. The driver was unsure what was being referred to as the "Woodland parking machine" as this was the car park in the woods.

Is a simple letter enough to squash this, asking for a POPLA code if they wish to reject the appeal.

Dear CSPM

PCN number xxxx
I have received your parking invoice which was sent to me; being the registered keeper. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

a: You have failed to maintain your parking machines deeming it unreasonable for the driver to pay for the parking session. You can not expect the driver to find another machine located in another location with vague instructions of "Woodland carpark". The driver could only find one parking machine which had a sign stating it was out of order; no other parking machines could be located. Please refer to the picture attached for reference.

As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'. If not, under your Trade Body's current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:

1. The means to make an appeal to POPLA. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written communications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:19
Post #2


Member


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



So what were the dates on the NTK.

The NTK is missing 9 (2) (e) of POFA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StickyBread
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:28
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



Date of Event: 30th June 2020
Date Issued: 07 July 2020
Date: 07 July 2020

Back of NtK

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:30
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



No that letter won't quash it, it doesn't give them £100......

If you can't pay you are expected (by their argument) to leave not go 'goody free parking'.

Did the driver try ringing Ringo?

Personally I'd get back onto the site owner as a first step while ensuring an appeal is in within the deadline so as to use lack of PoFA compliance to quash it (assuming it's not on the reverse).
https://www.queenswoodandbodenhamlake.org/p...r-visit/parking


--------------------
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
StickyBread
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 11:46
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 12:30) *
No that letter won't quash it, it doesn't give them £100......

If you can't pay you are expected (by their argument) to leave not go 'goody free parking'.

Did the driver try ringing Ringo?

Personally I'd get back onto the site owner as a first step while ensuring an appeal is in within the deadline so as to use lack of PoFA compliance to quash it (assuming it's not on the reverse).
https://www.queenswoodandbodenhamlake.org/p...r-visit/parking


Thanks for the reply.

I have posted the back of the NtK.

An email will be sent to the site owner explaining the situation.

The site is in the woods, meaning 4G signal is spotty in the area. A screenshot was taken on the device at the time showing no 4G was available. Doubt this would be too helpful though as it was just of the home screen of the phone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 12:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Being pedantic, 4G relates to data not calls, you just need 'no signal'. Its not an argument for CSPM though but the site owner.

The rear doesn't fix the PoFA non compliance IMO.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 12:43


--------------------
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
StickyBread
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 12:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



Thanks - I suspect the site owner will come back saying to contact CSPM (as their website states).

How do you suggest I tackle this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 12:58
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Try with the site owner, they presumably have a vested interest in you not deciding to never go back.

The appeal to CPSM will be on the basis that their non compliance with PoFA means that you, as the keeper, have no liability. You need the simple 'bogoff' appeal you'll find in a number of threads, post here for critique before sending.

That gets you the POPLA code. POPLA appeal will be on all the usual angles, PoFA, signage, contract etc.


--------------------
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
ostell
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 17:07
Post #9


Member


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



Will this help?


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 the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StickyBread
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 14:37
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



Thank you for both of you for assisting me with this. I appealed using Ostell's template.

They have sent me back an email today saying the following:



How is the below as a POPLA letter (it was used many years ago for the same company)

EDIT: This needs after reading it again, it will need some more work but is it along the right lines?

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £100 demanded by Corporate Services (Parking Management) is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no GPEoL as the vehicle holds a valid permit to use the car park and the driver did not park obstructing anyone, nor in anyone else’s allocated space. Corporate Services were asked in their initial letter to display a breakdown to prove their loss in which they failed to even acknowledge the request.
As Corporate Services has failed to provide a breakdown of the losses equalling the sum of £100; which cannot include day to day costs of running the company, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA states that a charge for a breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimated loss flowing from the parking event; Corporate Services have failed to provide any evidence of this making this charge unenforceable.

Given that Corporate Services (Parking Management) charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage

There is no sign on the entrance to the car park where the vehicle was parked. The car park in question is fenced into three different sections so it is very misleading even if the driver did see a sign to determine what car park the sign was meant for.
Due to the fact that the car park having little lighting in it, and the signs text on the signs being extremely small it would be unsafe for a driver to notice the signs yet alone to safely read the signs small text and accept and of the terms and conditions on the sign.
The only way that the driver of the vehicle could safely read these signs (if the driver noticed them) would be to position the car with the headlights pointing at the sign (which would mean blocking the entrance and exit to the car park) and then pull forward towards the sign to read the small print. It is highly unfair for Corporate services to expect drivers to do this in order to read their signs.


3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

Corporate Services (Parking Management) does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Corporate Services (Parking Management) produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Corporate Services (Parking Management).

4. Unlawful penalty charge
Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Corporate Services (Parking Management) could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.
In conclusion it is clear that Corporate Services has issued this PCN, demanding £100, without abiding by the correct polices that are put in place. The points above demonstrate this and I, as the registered keeper, respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charges that Corporate Services are demanding are dropped.

This post has been edited by StickyBread: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 14:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 15:05
Post #11


Member


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



QUOTE (StickyBread @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 15:37) *
This needs after reading it again, it will need some more work but is it along the right lines?

No...

QUOTE (StickyBread @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 15:37) *
1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system

1 & 4 are dead (POPLA will not uphold these).

Where's non-compliance with PoFa as number 1?


--------------------
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
StickyBread
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 23:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



Could anyone provide feedback on the updated letter below please smile.gif

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

1. Notice to Keeper fails to comply to Protections of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Proof of fully functional parking machines

1. Notice to Keeper fails to include Protections of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act gives the creditor (Corporate Services (Parking Management)) the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, this right is strictly subject to conditions being met; failure of the operator to meet these conditions means that there is no liability of the vehicles registered keeper. Below is details on how Corporate Services (Parking Management) failed to meet these very strict requirements which voids the “parking charge” sent by Corporate Services (Parking Management).

Paragraph 9 (2) (e) of the PoFA Schedule 4 states: state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
Corporate Services (Parking Management) failed to include all the above wording in the Notice to Keeper which is required for a valid NtK.
PoFA states in paragraph 9 (2)(a) that “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The notice to keeper fails to include any period of parking. A date and a single timestamp are present in the text information box along with two photos of the vehicle moving with timestamps. There is no evidence portraying a single period of parking; two photos of a vehicle in motion can mask normal phenomenon such as “double dipping”. This is a well known issue with ANPR technology and something the BPA has released a statement on (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR) “Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.”
I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to provide strict proof that only one instance of parking took place. This is a mandatory requirement highlighted in Schedule 4 paragraph 9 (3):
The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)…

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
The car park in question is in an isolated woodland, off the side of a main road. When entering the car park there is National Trust sign welcoming you to the site, where there is zero mentioning of any parking restrictions. Behind this there is another, much smaller sign, stating that parking charges apply. When driving into the carpark, this much bigger sign completely blocks the sign stating the parking restrictions. There is ample room to place the parking restriction sign adjacent to the welcome sign making it clear on entry however Corporate Services (Parking Management) failed to make this entry sign visible.
There is a lack of readable signage once you have parked your car and it is completely viable that the driver didn’t notice, and therefor agree, to any terms and conditions mentioned on the signs.

The BPA has a very strict code on what is required of signage and I ask Corporate Services (Parking Management) to prove without doubt, that their signage complies to all of BPAs code


3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

Corporate Services (Parking Management) does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Corporate Services (Parking Management) produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Corporate Services (Parking Management).

4. Proof of fully functional parking machines
There is only a single parking machine present in the car park. I ask Corporate Services (Parking Management) to prove that this machine was fully functional at the time and date of the alleged incident. Attached is a photograph of the only parking machine present in the car park clearly stating that it out of order along with vague instructions of where another one is. To illiterate, there is only one parking machine in the car park where the driver parked, the other machine is located around 100 meters away, in a completely separate car park that’s view is obstructed via woodland. It is not reasonable for Corporate Services (Parking Management) to expect the driver to know the existence of this other car park, let along the payment machine.

Due to the car park being in an isolated woodland, away from any residential area’s Ringo was not a feasible option due to the lack of cellular network on the driver’s mobile device.

This post has been edited by StickyBread: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 23:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 10:14
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 13:58) *
Try with the site owner, they presumably have a vested interest in you not deciding to never go back.

And?

Once you submit a POPLA appeal the site owner will no longer be able to help, should have gone to them before rushing the appeal.


--------------------
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
StickyBread
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 10:46
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 11:14) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 13:58) *
Try with the site owner, they presumably have a vested interest in you not deciding to never go back.

And?

Once you submit a POPLA appeal the site owner will no longer be able to help, should have gone to them before rushing the appeal.


They told me they can not deal with it and all appeals must be sent to the parking company.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 10:49
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



A common reply, but they certainly can, the parking company work for them after all, the tail shouldn't be wagging the dog. You don't (shouldn't) give up after the first refusal, go up the chain. Remind them they are liable in law for any actions by their agent.


--------------------
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
StickyBread
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 14:11
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



Thanks - I have pushed harder on that front.

Is the POPLA, that I have written, any good if I need to go down that route?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StickyBread
post Mon, 3 Aug 2020 - 12:20
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,390



After many emails being sent to the Queens wood, with the reply of essentially "We only cancel parking tickets for staff and volunteers" and a phone call to the CEO of the charity whom's response was along the lines of "We get many complaints about our car park, and tickets, we don't plan on doing anything about it, take it up with the parking people" the only option moving forward is POPLA.

Is the letter I posted above good to go, or does it need further work?
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 - 06:17
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