PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Total Parking Solutions PCN - Unauthorised parking - Biscuit Factory, London
beansprout
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 11:36
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



Here are redacted photos of the letter, and also signage: https://imgur.com/a/vtfXORG

So, the Biscuit Factory is a gated "business hub". It also contains a climbing center that the driver was visiting.

It turns out that the parking situation is such that the majority of the space is for permit holders, and then a small section with extremely faded green lines is a pay by phone setup.

It is not made very clear whether being a customer of the climbing center permits you to park there. You would also have no idea that there was a paid section of parking as it is very badly advertised.

Driver planned to clarify the parking situation when paying at the climbing center, but forgot to.. and then saw a parking warden doing their thing.

There was definitely inadequate signage. No obvious sign at the entrance. There's a sign on the gate which is obviously open so not facing the driver as they enter. There is also a small, easily missed sign placed amongst the rest of the information on the main business park signage.

From where the vehicle was parked there were no noticeable parking signs, just a small one very far away, and one to the right that was perpendicular to the driver so easily overlooked.

There was no signage between the car and the climbing center.

The car park was also about 50% empty.

Worth appealing? Do I just pretty much state the above?

This post has been edited by beansprout: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 11:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 11:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 13:14
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,678
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

POFA 9 (2) (b) not there, No invitation to the keeper in the proscribed form 9 (2) (e)

9 (2) (f) is not quite right. They can claim from the keeper, who is not necessarily the registered keeper

What are the dates?

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 13:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 13:37
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 21 Oct 2021 - 14:14) *
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature.

...

What are the dates?


Thanks for the insights! Letter received today, alleged contravention 10 days ago.

The first sign seen when entering (if you have eagle eyes) is the permit holders only sign, which indeed seems to be saying that as someone without a permit, you are not allowed to be there (punishable by a charge), rather than an invitation to park under certain terms.

The signs displayed in the visitor parking area (that one would not know existed unless they had prior knowledge) I assume aren't too flawed? Although seeing as that isn't where the car was parked, and there wasn't knowledge of those signs it's not too relevant I guess.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 10:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



Okay, I'm not seeing how any of the notice to keeper requirements have been missed..

9 (2) (b): inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
It does seem to state this. Is the issue that it doesn’t say the charges >have not been paid in full<?

No invitation to the keeper in the proscribed form 9 (2) (e)
I’m not clear on how the letter is missing the mark here..
“As we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver…”
“If you were the driver pay the parking charge notice…”
“Notify us if you have sold/hired the vehicle prior to the date of the event or were not the driver…”
That seems to tick the boxes no?

9 (2) (f) is not quite right. They can claim from the keeper, who is not necessarily the registered keeper
What’s the difference between “keeper” and “registered keeper”? I can’t find any information that makes a distinction. I thought the keeper of a vehicle is the registered keeper.


I've drafted something, would be really grateful for any thoughts!

1. Inadequate signage
The driver did not see any signs advertising parking terms. As they were visiting the site to enter a business operating on that site, a reasonable assumption was made that they would be permitted to park there.

No clearly visible sign at the gate when entering the site (the only sign present is on the gate (photo D), which, when the gate is open is not facing the driver and is particularly hard to notice when turning into the entrance from that side).

One small sign that is easily overlooked as it is placed amongst other information on the main business park signage and has identical colour scheme (photo A).

From where the car was parked there were no obvious signs advertising parking restrictions. There was one sign a considerable distance away on a wall in front of the car (photo B). There was also signage to the right of the car, but not facing the car (perpendicular) so easily overlooked (photo C). The signs to the right were also for a separate paid parking section (that one would not even know existed unless they explored the entire carpark), not the main permit holders parking area that the car was parked in.

There were no signs to be seen when walking from the car to the business being visited (Arch climbing centre).

2. Forbidding signage
The sign on the front gate, and then the sign on the business park signage after entering is forbidding in nature. “Private land, authorised vehicles only”, “Permit holders parking only” (photos D and E).

If the parking is explicitly for permit holders only, and there is no invitation for non permit holders to park (given certain terms) then (as someone with no permit) there is no contractual relationship. Only a trespass may have occurred, and that would be a matter for the land owner.

See the following cases: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 11:14
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,678
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You must put in the POFA fails

POFA 9 (2) starts with "must

9 (2) (a) no period of parking given

9 (2) (b) yes they've missed off the wording therefore not in compliance

9 (2) (e) where is the straight invitation for the keeper to pay? Compare POFA to what is in the NTK

9 (2) (f) states keeper and not registered keeper. Often the same but frequently not. Think of hire cars
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 11:51
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



ostell, thank you for your help and patience!

I think as a lay person it can be quite hard to grasp whether the requirements are laying out strict wording that needs to be included, and where that line is drawn.

I'll make sure to include all those points in the appeal!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 13:24
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



One question, do I have to make my appeal using their appeals portal with it's limited number of photos I can upload.. or would I be able to email them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 13:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,484
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



You have to use one of the appeal options detailed on the notice to keeper. They don't mention email, so I wouldn't submit via email.

If the online form won't let you submit in the format you want, then send it by post to the address shown. Use first class (not recorded) with a free certificate of posting from a Post Office.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 14:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



There's a drop down in the form to select whether you were the keeper, driver or hirer. Should the appeal be submitted as the keeper in the 3rd person, or does it have to be submitted by the driver?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 14:58
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,484
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



The keeper submits the appeal. The driver is unknown, and must remain that way, otherwise the PoFA fails don't matter.

Show us a draft before you submit. The text should make clear that you are appealing as the keeper - that there is no obligation for you to name the driver, and that you will not be doing so.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Fri, 22 Oct 2021 - 15:59
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



I've selected that I was the keeper of the vehicle, so it is clear that I'm the keeper rather than the driver.

This is what I wrote:

1. Inadequate signage
The driver did not see any signs advertising parking terms. As they were visiting as a patron of a business operating on that site (Arch Climbing Centre), a reasonable assumption was made that they would be permitted to park there.

No clearly visible sign at the gate when entering the site (the only sign present is on the gate, which when open is not facing the driver and particularly hard to see when turning into the entrance from that side).

One small sign that is easily overlooked as it is placed amongst other information on the main business park signage and has identical colour scheme (see photo #1 attached).

From where the car was parked there were no obvious signs advertising parking restrictions. There was one sign a considerable distance away on a wall in front of the car (see photo #2 attached). There was also signage to the right of the car, but not facing the car (perpendicular) so easily overlooked (photo #3 attached). The signs to the right were also for a separate paid parking section (that one would not even know existed unless they explored the entire carpark), not the main parking area that the car was parked in.

There were no signs to be seen when walking from the car to the business being visited (Arch climbing centre).

2. Forbidding signage
The sign on the front gate, and then the sign on the business park signage after entering is forbidding in nature. “Private land, authorised vehicles only”, “Permit holders parking only” (photos D and E).

If the parking is explicitly for permit holders only, and there is no invitation for non permit holders to park (given certain terms) then (as someone with no permit) there is no contractual relationship. Only a trespass may have occurred, and that would be a matter for the land owner.

See the following cases: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]


3. Notice to keeper does not fulfil requirements as laid out in Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: 9 (2)

9 (2) (a):
No period of parking is given, just an observation time.

9 (2) (b):
Does not state that “the parking charges have not been paid in full”

9 (2) (e):
Does not “invite the keeper … to pay the unpaid parking charges”.

9 (2) (f):
Requires that you “warn the keeper …”, but the letter refers to the “registered keeper” rather than the “keeper”. “we do have the right … to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding”.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beansprout
post Mon, 22 Nov 2021 - 22:48
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,735



Okay, internal appeal rejected on 18/11/2021

Letter states I have until 16/12/2021 to appeal to POPLA, POPLA code is included.

Any changes I should make to the appeal? Does it matter when I send it before the deadline?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 22 Nov 2021 - 22:54
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,005
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Doesn't matter when you send befor deadline.

Yes, you send in a full popla appeal. Look for recent examples.
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: Thursday, 9th December 2021 - 06:58
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.