Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ Lease company sending notice 60 days later, excuse 'fixed to windscreen'

Posted by: blad4 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 17:55
Post #1429011

Hi not sure if I am going about this right, but surely we have the right to wait for something to come in the post before we need to appeal? Because what if someone else was driving my car, or the ticket attached to the windscreen just was not there when the driver returned to the car?

So when I did receive the notice via email (not yet via post), I saw that the fine was actually issued 60 days earlier. I emailed back saying

Hi, in relation to the two emails I received on the 13th of this month, each outlining a parking fine, one of them is dated 60 days ago, and I have not received the notice in the post as of yet. After contacting the parking company, I can confirm I have missed the appeal deadline due to receiving it so late. I have looked into the laws and would not like to go any further if you are happy to accept that somewhere between yourselves and TNC Parking services the mistake was made. Below are the specifics of the email:

With the date and time being

17/08/2018 00:00

They responded with

The fine was originally fixed to the windscreen of the vehicle which would have allowed for this fine to be appealed. Please see a screen shot below of the section of the Parking Charge Notice that advises this:

TNC Parking services have obtained your... issued a parking charge notice which was fixed to the vehicle.. remains outstanding

Arval has written to the parking company and asked them to transfer liability of the fine to your address. It depends on the authority on how quickly they reissue the fine. Once you have received the fine in the post you can either pay or dispute it directly with the parking company.


Now there is no way they are getting my money, even the admin charge will get refunded. I'm just more curious as to the laws a process around this, whether I am incorrect etc

Posted by: kommando Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 18:20
Post #1429015

It's not a fine but an Invoice, so have a look at Arvals T&C's and if they do not mention invoices only fines then you can reclaim any charges they apply.

Onto the PPC, they invariably get the next bit wrong and issue a new NTH (notice to hirer as the NTK notice to keeper went to Arval) without attaching the hire lease paperwork. attaching the paperwork is a requirement of POFA 2012 to make the keeper/Hirer liable. So once you get the NTH without the lease/hire papers you appeal as hirer telling them they messed up and you are not liable. There is no legal requirement to name the driver so they are left looking at themselves.

Posted by: blad4 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 18:26
Post #1429018

QUOTE (kommando @ Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 18:20) *
It's not a fine but an Invoice, so have a look at Arvals T&C's and if they do not mention invoices only fines then you can reclaim any charges they apply.

Onto the PPC, they invariably get the next bit wrong and issue a new NTH (notice to hirer as the NTK notice to keeper went to Arval) without attaching the hire lease paperwork. attaching the paperwork is a requirement of POFA 2012 to make the keeper/Hirer liable. So once you get the NTH without the lease/hire papers you appeal as hirer telling them they messed up and you are not liable. There is no legal requirement to name the driver so they are left looking at themselves.


Aha many thanks!

Posted by: ostell Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 18:59
Post #1429021

So when your notice to hirer arrives without the required documents you write to them so that it arrives a couple of days before day 21 after the date on the NTH so that they don't have time to correct their error.

Sirs

Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

I am the hirer/keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) (a) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the hirer keeper..

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

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc.

Posted by: blad4 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 19:09
Post #1429024

QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 18:59) *
So when your notice to hirer arrives without the required documents you write to them so that it arrives a couple of days before day 21 after the date on the NTH so that they don't have time to correct their error.

Sirs

Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

I am the hirer/keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) (a) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the hirer keeper..

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

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc.


Ah amazing, thank you.

And leading up to that, I am simply stating I haven't received NTH from the lease company

Posted by: ostell Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 19:14
Post #1429026

You won't get the notice to hirer from the lease compnay, it comes form the parking company

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Posted by: blad4 Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 21:51
Post #1429045

Oh excellent, thanks, giving it a read.

Something to note however is the NTH is still not here.. all I have as of yet is an email back from the 13th.. I was anticipating the thing in the post by now as it's been two weeks.

Of course they are happy enough to charge me my admin fee. Out of interest, the email includes the following:

Re: Parking Fine or Penalty Charge Notice

We have been issued with a parking fine or penalty charge notice for a vehicle that you or your company lease from us.

In line with the contract, you are now responsible for paying the charge. We have contacted the Issuer below and asked for
this to be reissued to you for payment.

If you need more information about any of the following please visit the Issuers website and enter the fine or penalty
charge notice number:

• To get a copy of the fine or penalty charge notice
• Evidence of contravention, including images from the Issuer
• Payment options
• Details on how you can appeal
We have also attached a frequently asked questions document which you might find useful
click here
for this information
You should be aware that we have charged you or your company an administration fee of £12.50 +VAT, in line with the
contract with us. This will appear in the next monthly invoice.


Yours sincerely,


Fines Team.



Posted by: kommando Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 22:19
Post #1429049

Check the contract, as long as it is per their letter then your company is not liable for the £12.50 as it was a speculative invoice not a parking fine or a penalty charge notice.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 08:15
Post #1429064

That's a cheap service charge !

The Notice to Hire has to be with you within 21 days of the parking company receiving notification of the identity of the hirer, 14 (2), With an alleged windscreen ticket then the parking company have up to 56 days to get the PCN to the registered keeper.

As the hire company have given the hirer details to the parking company they were also supposed to forward a copy of the PCN they received to the hirer. If you haven't received that then it looks as though the hire company don't really know how to handel private parkingcompnaies.

Posted by: freddy1 Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 19:28
Post #1429184

TNC are not a parking Co , TNC are debt collector , they can apply to the DVLA for your data , but not in relation to parking tickets , WHO is the parking Co that actually issued the ticket

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 04:07
Post #1429207

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 09:15) *
As the hire company have given the hirer details to the parking company they were also supposed to forward a copy of the PCN they received to the hirer. If you haven't received that then it looks as though the hire company don't really know how to handle private parking companies.

Are they? Why are they 'supposed' to do that? I'd agree its best practice but I think 'supposed' is a stretch.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 07:46
Post #1429211

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 05:07) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 09:15) *
As the hire company have given the hirer details to the parking company they were also supposed to forward a copy of the PCN they received to the hirer. If you haven't received that then it looks as though the hire company don't really know how to handle private parking companies.

Are they? Why are they 'supposed' to do that? I'd agree its best practice but I think 'supposed' is a stretch.


9 (2) (e) (ii) and normally written into a NTK

Posted by: nigelbb Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:30
Post #1429226

QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:46) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 05:07) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 09:15) *
As the hire company have given the hirer details to the parking company they were also supposed to forward a copy of the PCN they received to the hirer. If you haven't received that then it looks as though the hire company don't really know how to handle private parking companies.

Are they? Why are they 'supposed' to do that? I'd agree its best practice but I think 'supposed' is a stretch.


9 (2) (e) (ii) and normally written into a NTK

The hire company is not "supposed" to do any of the above however if they don't then they remain liable for any unpaid parking charges incurred by the driver. It's only by fulfilling the requirements of POFA that they can transfer liability to the hirer.

Posted by: kommando Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 10:31
Post #1429253

But the BPA and the hire,lease companies agreed a procedure whereby the agreements are not required so the end result is the NTH do not meet POFA 2012. The lease company's are meeting BPA's requirements so doubt they can be held liable.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 11:38
Post #1429261

QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:46) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 05:07) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 09:15) *
As the hire company have given the hirer details to the parking company they were also supposed to forward a copy of the PCN they received to the hirer. If you haven't received that then it looks as though the hire company don't really know how to handle private parking companies.

Are they? Why are they 'supposed' to do that? I'd agree its best practice but I think 'supposed' is a stretch.


9 (2) (e) (ii) and normally written into a NTK

Indeed, but I can't see how a defendant can use that to any advantage, it's after all an invite and I can't see where not complying creates any liability for the registered keeper as long as the driver is named.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 14:16
Post #1429294

The argument about the original NTK is getting nowhere. The OP has had nothing yet, not a copy of the original PCN from the hire company nor a NTH (with required documents) in his own in n his own right and so far he cannot be held liable for anything nor do any appealing (expect about that admin charge).

So the OP just waits.

Posted by: nigelbb Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 14:59
Post #1429304

QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 11:31) *
But the BPA and the hire,lease companies agreed a procedure whereby the agreements are not required so the end result is the NTH do not meet POFA 2012. The lease company's are meeting BPA's requirements so doubt they can be held liable.

Aside from the fact that not all PPCs are members of the BPA & not all car hire companies are are members of the BVRLA it doesn't matter what agreement is in place as if the car hire don't nominate the hirer as per POFA then legally they are still on the hook for unpaid parking charges incurred by the driver. The hirer is definitely not liable if the car hire company don't transfer liability using the correct method as per POFA

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 22:25
Post #1429407

If I were the OP I would get the PCN number and send ostell's appeal anyway, as hirer/lessee (NEVER say who was driving as a lease case is 100% winnable if you don't).

Posted by: freddy1 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 22:38
Post #1429412

TNC are scum debt collectors they do not issue parking tickets WHO was the company that issued the parking ticket

Posted by: blad4 Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 21:57
Post #1430275

Hi guys, got the NTK worded as 'Notice to Kepper or Hirer' today in the post. It is actually dated the 23rd of October, with the charge dating back to August 17th! And it looks like they've slapped a £25 admin charge on it.. so a grand total of £125 huh.gif huh.gif

And guys can you believe this is for my own residential space, which I pay for by proxy via my rent. So funny.. I can't understand how residents keep paying this allowing companies like this to continue being so parasitic.

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 22:25) *
If I were the OP I would get the PCN number and send ostell's appeal anyway, as hirer/lessee (NEVER say who was driving as a lease case is 100% winnable if you don't).


I'm just wondering if this can apply to actual legit PCNs (council/tfl etc)? I'm assuming obviously it can't.. just making sure

Posted by: ostell Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 22:08
Post #1430279

Presuming there were no other documents with it then send that suggestion in post #4 so that it arrives on about day 19. This is so that they don't realise their mistake in time to send out a valid NTH within the relevant time.

Then get out the lease for your property and see what it actually says about parking and the requirements for permits etc and having to pay a third party stranger for any alleged transgressions of an alleged contract. You may want to raise a claim of your own against them for a breach of the DPA by requesting your personal details from the DVLA when they had no reason to do so. Say about £500?

Posted by: blad4 Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 22:26
Post #1430283

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 22:08) *
Presuming there were no other documents with it then send that suggestion in post #4 so that it arrives on about day 19. This is so that they don't realise their mistake in time to send out a valid NTH within the relevant time.

Then get out the lease for your property and see what it actually says about parking and the requirements for permits etc and having to pay a third party stranger for any alleged transgressions of an alleged contract. You may want to raise a claim of your own against them for a breach of the DPA by requesting your personal details from the DVLA when they had no reason to do so. Say about £500?


Yes I'd definitely like to do something like that.. but I am only a rental tenant, not a leaseholder. The tenancy doc is the only thing I have and does not include anything about the parking whatsoever, as I have read it over a few times since I moved in

Posted by: ostell Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 08:12
Post #1430317

So how do you know that you have the right to park there?

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 09:42
Post #1430341

They gave me a permit and the fob at concierge when I moved in.. I assumed it was allocated parking as in 1 bay per apartment in each block's underground, but then a year later I found out that all of the undergrounds were actually shared. Hence the permit system. It must be less effort for them and more money to just have a warden patrol 24-7, and the last appeal I did I recall them stating I 'entered a contract when entering those premises' due to the signage on the wall and all that nonsense

Posted by: ostell Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 11:27
Post #1430360

You do not need to enter into a contract for parking as you already have that right in the landlord's lease, or so it seems. Please find out the actual situation by contacting your landlord and asking aout the parking in his lease. But do send that letter I suggested. And don't talk to them.

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 11:39
Post #1430364

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 11:27) *
You do not need to enter into a contract for parking as you already have that right in the landlord's lease, or so it seems. Please find out the actual situation by contacting your landlord and asking aout the parking in his lease. But do send that letter I suggested. And don't talk to them.


Nice, yep I've asking the managing agent and she said there is a 'Right to Park' in the lease, but not an allocated bay. She is contacting the landlord to ask for the specific clause and from there I'll begin escalation

Many thanks also for the letter template, will be using that at the right time.

Posted by: blad4 Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 13:50
Post #1430920

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 11:27) *
You do not need to enter into a contract for parking as you already have that right in the landlord's lease, or so it seems. Please find out the actual situation by contacting your landlord and asking aout the parking in his lease. But do send that letter I suggested. And don't talk to them.


you were right about the clauses within the lease.. got hold of it:

A right for the Tenant for the use of the occupiers of the Premises to park a private motor car in a parking space within aeras designated from time by the landlord within the car park provided that:-

7.1
the landlord gives no warranty.. nor that there will always be .. immediately available..

7.2
not have the right to park in any particular space within the car park

7.3
the LL may temporarily either suspend the right to park or designate an lternative area within the Estaet for exercise of the right to parkin either case for limited periods of time (which shall be as short as reasonably practicable) during the term where necessary for the purposes of repair mantenance decoration replacement or renewal of the car park or any plant and equipment therein or any other works to the Estate or adjoining land.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 14:50
Post #1430933

So you send off that letter I suggested and then you take them to task, and the managing agents, about issuing parking charges when you have the right to park written into the lease. Your lease has primacy. The display of a permit is not intended to imply any contractual relationship between yourself and the parking company but merely an aid for the parking company's employees to recognise that the vehicle is entitled to park at that location.

You can also have a go at the managing agents to cancel any PCNs issued to residents.

Perhaps post up the Notice to Hirer suitably redacted so that we can see is there are other errors that they have made.

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 10:00
Post #1431189

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 14:50) *
So you send off that letter I suggested and then you take them to task, and the managing agents, about issuing parking charges when you have the right to park written into the lease. Your lease has primacy. The display of a permit is not intended to imply any contractual relationship between yourself and the parking company but merely an aid for the parking company's employees to recognise that the vehicle is entitled to park at that location.

You can also have a go at the managing agents to cancel any PCNs issued to residents.

Perhaps post up the Notice to Hirer suitably redacted so that we can see is there are other errors that they have made.


Here we go

https://ibb.co/hv53cf

https://ibb.co/h4y9Hf

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 11:24
Post #1431210

Remove the PCN number from that picture

Parking companies and their spawn follow this forum and, if they recognise a case, will use any information they find

As an aside, your management company has clearly been negligent and failed to perform any research before it employed P4P
It's impossible to employ a worse company

P4Parking (UK) Ltd has the same ownership as a notorious former clamper that turned to aggressive ticketing when its practice was banned
Its previous name was "Towed Away Ltd"

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 12:07
Post #1431225

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 11:24) *
Remove the PCN number from that picture

Parking companies and their spawn follow this forum and, if they recognise a case, will use any information they find

As an aside, your management company has clearly been negligent and failed to perform any research before it employed P4P
It's impossible to employ a worse company

P4Parking (UK) Ltd has the same ownership as a notorious former clamper that turned to aggressive ticketing when its practice was banned
Its previous name was "Towed Away Ltd"


Oh great, doesn't surprise me, but what a P'take for a name. Many thanks, edited

Posted by: ostell Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 13:17
Post #1431260

I presume that the required documents weren't with the NTH so that my original suggested letter still applies.

You may also want to take them to task about their statement that the have obtained you details from the DVLA as the registered keeper. Completely untrue.

The rest of that PCN does not conform to the requirements of POFA in several places but for the time being just go with the failure of documents. Remember to wait. In this case so that your appeal gets there after day 21 and before the 28 days they give you.

They will probably refuse the appeal but give you a POPLA code, where POFA failure should produce a win.

Again, if by post, then first class and free certificate of posting from a post office

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 13:30
Post #1431265

QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 13:17) *
I presume that the required documents weren't with the NTH so that my original suggested letter still applies.

You may also want to take them to task about their statement that the have obtained you details from the DVLA as the registered keeper. Completely untrue.

The rest of that PCN does not conform to the requirements of POFA in several places but for the time being just go with the failure of documents. Remember to wait. In this case so that your appeal gets there after day 21 and before the 28 days they give you.

They will probably refuse the appeal but give you a POPLA code, where POFA failure should produce a win.

Again, if by post, then first class and free certificate of posting from a post office


Thank you and actually an amusing point about using details from the DVLA vs. being the registered keeper.

I will perhaps file the email/online appeal on say Day 27? What do you think, or is a letter preferred here?

And I'm completely up for starting a case against P4Parking, and the management company for employing them too and going against their own lease agreements.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 15:45
Post #1431321

email is fine. put on the option, if you can, to get delivery status Notification. At least you get informed when it gets to their mail server. BCC your self so that you can show that it went out

If this goes to POPLA then it will be a surefire win with all the POFA fails. Then start on getting not to issue notices.

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:36
Post #1432534

QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 15:45) *
email is fine. put on the option, if you can, to get delivery status Notification. At least you get informed when it gets to their mail server. BCC your self so that you can show that it went out

If this goes to POPLA then it will be a surefire win with all the POFA fails. Then start on getting not to issue notices.


Two questions. Can the same thing could apply to tfl/council PCNs? As in they through the same route 'Reasonable Cause requests' therefore requiring the leaseholder paperwork to legitimise the NTH? Or being Penalty Charges as opposed to Parking Charges is there a different route?

My lease company keeps stating

'All customers must provide evidence that the notices were issued in error such as official confirmation the ticket was issued in error from the site or parking company/council so we can refund the admin fee. As the admin fee is contractual, credits are only raised in goodwill for any mitigating circumstances.'

But appeal outcomes even when successful never want to directly admit liability when emailing me confirmation that my appeal is successful. That is to say, the PCN was bogus in the first place. Quite frustrating as the lease company seems to make money out of nothing. Not sure what else to do as the clause is fair and clear, but I did not assume I'd have a residential vs. private parking problem after I initiated the lease.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:42
Post #1432556

Shockingly enough there is real regulatiomn of this area, under (usually) the TMA2004 , and there is no need to have reaosnable cause. this ius a REAL "P"enalty as opposed to the fake penalties contained in these notices

How much is the admin fee? If above about £10 or so, theyw ill struggle to justify that it is purely to cover their administration.

Posted by: ostell Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:46
Post #1432559

Without reading back through the previous entries I assume that you have a copy of your vehicle lease and it has a section about an admin fee for handling parking fines and penalties etc? What exactly does i say? Does it actually mention invoices from private parking companies, because this is certainly not a fine nor a penalty.

When you actually win you can then state the win to the lease company and state that it has been cancelled so can I have my money back please.

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:25
Post #1432570

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:42) *
Shockingly enough there is real regulatiomn of this area, under (usually) the TMA2004 , and there is no need to have reaosnable cause. this ius a REAL "P"enalty as opposed to the fake penalties contained in these notices


I see. Does that mean the importance of POFA is highly downgraded?

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:42) *
How much is the admin fee? If above about £10 or so, theyw ill struggle to justify that it is purely to cover their administration.


It is £12.50 + VAT

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:46) *
Without reading back through the previous entries I assume that you have a copy of your vehicle lease and it has a section about an admin fee for handling parking fines and penalties etc? What exactly does i say? Does it actually mention invoices from private parking companies, because this is certainly not a fine nor a penalty.



In respect of any responsibility, claims, liabilities, losses, damages or expenses, including legal fees, and any liability resulting from legislation for the payment of fines or penalties for parking, driving or similar offences or contraventions in connection with the Vehicles (the “Liability”): (a) Arval has no responsibility for the Liability; (b) the Hirer accepts all responsibility for the Liability including taking all appropriate action; and © the Hirer indemnifies ARVAL and holds ARVAL harmless against the Liability. Arval shall be entitled to charge the Hirer a reasonable administration fee for any work carried out or documentation processed relating to the Liability.

So yes the problem lies within their definition of a fine or penalty vs. an invoice, which you educated me on earlier in the thread.

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:46) *
When you actually win you can then state the win to the lease company and state that it has been cancelled so can I have my money back please.


Herein lies the problem. They still claim that if I don't follow the 'rules' of these fake PCNs, (example overstay, forget to display etc), then they are liable to keep the admin charge due to 'driver error' being the cause of the administration and thus the charge.

They say that there is no mention of refunds in the lease contract, therefore any refund is still only a 'goodwill gesture', which they can consider if the parking company made the error, not the driver. I sense this is BS so they can cover their a$$ in the future.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:26
Post #1432571

POFA is about PRIVATE land, which has nothing whatsoever to do with public roads controlled bythe RTAs, TMA2004, the London acts etc

Complete red herring. Stop even considering the two as being in any way shape or form similar to eachother. They are not. For a start a council penalty charge is a proscribed in law penalty, not a mere invoice.

£15 is likely entirely unchallenageble. Reference is the bank admin charges.
Its when it gets up to £30+ that you can point out this charge is clealry not purely to cover expended costs but incluides profit, as it does not cost £30 to spend 5 minutessending a standard letter.

Posted by: ostell Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:27
Post #1432572

TMA covers REAL penalties from real authorities like the police and local government, POFA is for private invoices from private companies. Chalk and Cheese

POFA cannot be applied to the real penalties, it's for private parking only.

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:01
Post #1432584

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:26) *
£15 is likely entirely unchallenageble. Reference is the bank admin charges.
Its when it gets up to £30+ that you can point out this charge is clealry not purely to cover expended costs but incluides profit, as it does not cost £30 to spend 5 minutessending a standard letter.


Ok so conclusion is leaseholders are still coerced to abide by the private company parking rules in order to save the admin charge, regardless of ongoing/recurring issues between the two parties. And also the point that they cannot discern between an invoice and a penalty is also defunct more because they do not need to do this as opposed to shouldn't.

In principle it means I could do the same thing and send 1000 bogus invoices after establishing the 'reasonable cause' to gain details from the DVLA, netting the lease company £1250.

Unless of course there is a way to make a case against them, that they are not identifying a parking fine/penalty vs. an invoice. I did not sign the contract under the knowledge that I will be paying admin charges on invoices being forwarded, only fines?

Posted by: ostell Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:34
Post #1432603

That's why I said get out your contract and look at what it actually says about these charges and when you have to pay them. Many forget to include private parking invoices in their terms and are forced to refund as they haven't followed their own rules.

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 15:08
Post #1432613

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:34) *
That's why I said get out your contract and look at what it actually says about these charges and when you have to pay them. Many forget to include private parking invoices in their terms and are forced to refund as they haven't followed their own rules.


Yep and I am grateful for that.

Is there any template I should go by when contacting them?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25
Post #1432631

No, because the first thing you're doing is getting YOUR signed t and c out, which you already hold I would hope,

Posted by: blad4 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 22:53
Post #1432742

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:25) *
No, because the first thing you're doing is getting YOUR signed t and c out, which you already hold I would hope,


Hi yeah the above clause was within the lease T&Cs, which is the contract I signed

This bit:

In respect of any responsibility, claims, liabilities, losses, damages or expenses, including legal fees, and any liability resulting from legislation for the payment of fines or penalties for parking, driving or similar offences or contraventions in connection with the Vehicles (the “Liability”): (a) Arval has no responsibility for the Liability; (b) the Hirer accepts all responsibility for the Liability including taking all appropriate action; and © the Hirer indemnifies ARVAL and holds ARVAL harmless against the Liability. Arval shall be entitled to charge the Hirer a reasonable administration fee for any work carried out or documentation processed relating to the Liability.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 23:01
Post #1432744

QUOTE
and any liability resulting from legislation for the payment of fines or penalties for parking, driving or similar offences or contraventions


As we knew already, the above only covers 'fines & penalties, offences and contraventions' and a private parking charge is no such thing (quote the opposite, or the PPC would not be able to issue it!). A private one is based on alleged breach of contract with the driver and represents a charge as a deterrent, not a fine/penalty or offence.

A tip for the future, as you have a leased car, NEVER NEVER wait for something to arrive in the post when the car gets a windscreen PCN! Keep the lease firm right out of the loop by appealing as keeper of the car, on day 26, using the MSE template and ARVAL will never be contacted by most PPCs who are too stupid to know they could:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

In this case though, as this has happened:

QUOTE
Arval has written to the parking company and asked them to transfer liability of the fine to your address. It depends on the authority on how quickly they reissue the fine. Once you have received the fine in the post you can either pay or dispute it directly with the parking company.


...when you get the NTH in the post, instead use the lease/hire appeal, lower down the first post on MSE, the one written by Edna Basher (Dennis Basher on here).

Posted by: blad4 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 13:56
Post #1433747

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 23:01) *
A tip for the future, as you have a leased car, NEVER NEVER wait for something to arrive in the post when the car gets a windscreen PCN! Keep the lease firm right out of the loop by appealing as keeper of the car, on day 26, using the MSE template and ARVAL will never be contacted by most PPCs who are too stupid to know they could:


Ah brilliant. Good to know.

Sending the appeal recorded today, which is day 21.

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 14:24
Post #1433755

Don't send it recorded, send it 1st class, but take it to a post office and ask for a free certificate of posting. Then keep that very safe.

Posted by: blad4 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 14:54
Post #1433762

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 14:24) *
Don't send it recorded, send it 1st class, but take it to a post office and ask for a free certificate of posting. Then keep that very safe.


Ok thank you

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 21:17
Post #1434175

To P4Parking, not to TNC I hope (the PCN you showed us tells you where to appeal to - not TNC - and you are close to the time limit).

Posted by: blad4 Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 08:55
Post #1434298

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 21:17) *
To P4Parking, not to TNC I hope (the PCN you showed us tells you where to appeal to - not TNC - and you are close to the time limit).


Yep well I was going to do it via the online portal but the PCN no. did not work, so I called and they said this is due to it being passed to TNC, meaning I have to do it in writing. Today first class should get there tomorrow, and I should have till the 21st minimum, if it is counted as calendar days not working days

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 09:09
Post #1439081

An update on the matter. Received a confirmation letter regarding my appeal, but only in combination with a letter dated the day after telling me I'd not appealed on time

https://ibb.co/nfHdB7m


https://ibb.co/9NtwchW


Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 09:25
Post #1439089

So was it out of time?

You can respond pointingo out, assuming it WAS in time, that their letter of X date gave Y days to appeal, the appeal was deemed received on Z date which is within the time for appeals

Also, you note that are claiming to have followed POFA yet have clearly not done so, and their statemernt is misleading. You require a full accounting of how they claim to have complied, taking into account your psecific proof otherwise. You await their explanation with baited breath.

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 09:30
Post #1439091

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 09:25) *
So was it out of time?

You can respond pointingo out, assuming it WAS in time, that their letter of X date gave Y days to appeal, the appeal was deemed received on Z date which is within the time for appeals

Also, you note that are claiming to have followed POFA yet have clearly not done so, and their statemernt is misleading. You require a full accounting of how they claim to have complied, taking into account your psecific proof otherwise. You await their explanation with baited breath.


Haha thank you, indeed I do!

But I think it is more simple than that, and they simply could not stop their poorly constructed automated system and delegates in sending out the eagerly anticipated 'Outstanding PCN charge' letter. I'll take the first upload as proof enough I appealed on time, just feels like some timewasting as per within their cleverly worded 'further enquiries', 'If as a result' etc.

These people really are vultures.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 12:37
Post #1439148

Its more - they have made a faslse and misleading statement, which is that you have liabilty. As you have proven to them that you do not, nad more importantly - they KNOW they havent complied, as POFA has been out long enough they really have no excuse not to know otherwise - theyre misleading you.

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 15:45
Post #1439194

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 12:37) *
Its more - they have made a faslse and misleading statement, which is that you have liabilty. As you have proven to them that you do not, nad more importantly - they KNOW they havent complied, as POFA has been out long enough they really have no excuse not to know otherwise - theyre misleading you.


Ok cool. I really want to make a case against my lease company now for allowing false invoices to get to me in the first place (and then charging me for it, or at least causing me to appeal both the invoice and their admin charge, wasting time), using all of the material in this thread and others.

Is there any starting point for letters to lease companies? I will also add a variation to the estate management company as they are twisting the 'right to park' entitlement to suit themselves.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 08:53
Post #1439353

Theyre not "false" invoices; theyre just invoices that fail to meet the conditions of POFA to hold a hirer liable, because they fail to include the mandatory ebclosures.
You have no claim against thm for passing these invoices along - IF they didnt, they would potentially have liability.
When it comes to charging you, you look at your T and C and see if private invoices, not issued by any "authority", are included - usually not. If not, then you complain, if they dont cancel the charge (as they have no authority)_ you do a chargeback.


Posted by: blad4 Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 10:38
Post #1439377

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 08:53) *
When it comes to charging you, you look at your T and C and see if private invoices, not issued by any "authority", are included - usually not. If not, then you complain, if they dont cancel the charge (as they have no authority)_ you do a chargeback.


Ok thanks so in the T&Cs private invoices are not included.. but their stance is that they will only occasionally goodwill a refund of the admin charge, i.e. they don't want to admit the above. Should I try and structure a letter in which they are forced to admit that I have a genuine right to not get charged once proven the private invoice fails to meet POFA conditions?

Posted by: ostell Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 12:20
Post #1439414

From the argument point of view it's probably better to wait until the PCN is cancelled and then fight the lease compnay. But if that does not appear to be imminent then get into the argument that the charge is not in their T&Cs

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:05
Post #1439494

Meeting POFA or otherwise has NOTHING to do with whether or not they can charge you for passing your details along.

That charge is purely contractual, between you and your leasing company

You cannot force them to admit anything. What you CAN do is make it uncomfrtable
So you make a WRITTEN COMPLAINT about the admin fee because it is being charged without any allowance in the terms and conditions of your contract with them.

You then require them to refund you the money with 14 days
Failure to do so will result in a chargeback request being made to your bank
Shoudl they disagree with your assessment, tehy msut fully explain how a private invoice meet the defintion under... (give the actual definition they use here)

Posted by: blad4 Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 12:09
Post #1439780

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:05) *
Meeting POFA or otherwise has NOTHING to do with whether or not they can charge you for passing your details along.

That charge is purely contractual, between you and your leasing company

You cannot force them to admit anything. What you CAN do is make it uncomfrtable
So you make a WRITTEN COMPLAINT about the admin fee because it is being charged without any allowance in the terms and conditions of your contract with them.

You then require them to refund you the money with 14 days
Failure to do so will result in a chargeback request being made to your bank
Shoudl they disagree with your assessment, tehy msut fully explain how a private invoice meet the defintion under... (give the actual definition they use here)


Thank you very much for this. The further caveat they have which I forgot to mention, was if the parking operator words their cancellation of the charge as 'goodwill', then the leasing company still blame my driver error for their admin work which caused the charge, and then do not want to refund it. But I suppose I can still go through the same route etc of threatening a chargeback, as it is still nowhere in the t and cs.

Additionally, the only charges I really have to fight are in my own estate, where I have the right to park as the sole tenant within the lease. It is for this reason I'd protest even displaying a permit, if it wasn't for needing to go through this saga with my lease company again and again.

Here is their response, so not a surprise and now I have my POFA code.

https://ibb.co/WptzHSh https://ibb.co/wBwjqM3 https://ibb.co/Nxgjmdh

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 15:30
Post #1439828

TELL your MA to remove your demised land from the scheme
THey had no right to start using this operator on your land (assuming this IS demised to you) and certainly, now you have withdrawn any form of possible permission they can think they had, implied or otherwise, they certainly cannot continue

They must instruct their current agent that your land is not to be trespassed upon, nor your goods parked there, otherwise they, aliong with the MA, will be liable for damages and an injunction

WIth regards lease co - nope, thats no wrinkle

Theyre either authorised to charge you, or they arent.
Thats it.
If theyre not, then you tell them in a complaint, state you require a refund within 14 days, or you iwll issue a chargeback.

Posted by: blad4 Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:14
Post #1441188

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 15:30) *
TELL your MA to remove your demised land from the scheme
THey had no right to start using this operator on your land (assuming this IS demised to you) and certainly, now you have withdrawn any form of possible permission they can think they had, implied or otherwise, they certainly cannot continue

They must instruct their current agent that your land is not to be trespassed upon, nor your goods parked there, otherwise they, aliong with the MA, will be liable for damages and an injunction

WIth regards lease co - nope, thats no wrinkle

Theyre either authorised to charge you, or they arent.
Thats it.
If theyre not, then you tell them in a complaint, state you require a refund within 14 days, or you iwll issue a chargeback.


Awesome I will be doing that as soon as the charge comes to me. But bear in mind, this 'right to park' operates on a first come first serve basis for the parking bays. I.e. in theory we would have to scatter all around the development. Would this constitute as not being demised to me and alter the rights they have to use the MA on what they regard as their land?

I got some more letters highlighting more of their inconsistencies, attached below. May I ask if I should send the same letter in my POPLA appeal as the one I used for the operator?

https://ibb.co/LhD6H6v https://ibb.co/r2JgYVn

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:21
Post #1441191

No, a POPLA appeal is longer & more detailed - and you can use the templates from the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread on MSE forum.

Land that is first come first served shared parking, is not demised/owned by you. And none of that goes into a POPLA appeal anyway as POPLA Assessors aren't trained in land ownership law (or any law...).

Here's one where it's just worked:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124061

A lot simpler than you think.

Show us your draft based on that sort of POPLA appeal.

Posted by: blad4 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:41
Post #1441344

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 19:21) *
No, a POPLA appeal is longer & more detailed - and you can use the templates from the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread on MSE forum.

Land that is first come first served shared parking, is not demised/owned by you. And none of that goes into a POPLA appeal anyway as POPLA Assessors aren't trained in land ownership law (or any law...).

Here's one where it's just worked:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124061

A lot simpler than you think.

Show us your draft based on that sort of POPLA appeal.


Thanks so much. Not so much of a draft as a blatant rip-off. I'm hesitant to add anything too personal i.e. the fact that I'm a resident as that is tantamount to declaring I may have been the driver. I also know that 1 of the 3 points would be enough to win this appeal.. underground residents-only car park with fob entry.. signage or no signage, NOTHING was ever contracted by either party so how on earth can they use contract law as their justification. So I kept the three relevant points and removed the one about signage.. shall I replace it with hints that the MA is acting irresponsibly by allowing the operator to issue fines with extreme ambiguity? I.e. section 3 of Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP.. none of these are presented when a resident moves in?




POPLA Verification Code: XXXX
Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXX
Operator: XXXX

I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and am appealing a PCN which was issued for no valid parking permit on visible display on [date]. An appeal to the operator was submitted and acknowledged on [date] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [date]. Therefore, I am now elevating this appeal to POPLA on the following grounds:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) 'The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) - (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further 'If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.'

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper's address within the 'relevant period' which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially 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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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.''

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

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

I consider any one of the above reasons as sufficient for you to uphold my appeal. I look forward to your positive response.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 12:29
Post #1441369

POPLA only really consider if the charge should have been raised, not whether it is legally owed
A resident with a pre-existing right to park has no need to ever enter a contract ith a parking company, but POPLA is unlikely to think that or even consider it.
Youre dealing with poorly trained minimum wage staff.

Posted by: blad4 Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:09
Post #1449676

Email received this morning containing:

P4 Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team


Thank you everyone

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)