PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LPS Parking Charge - Portsmouth, Received PCN on day 14 post issue date - but broken down
theeagleman
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Hi,

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

The driver had a punctured tyre on the main road, but was not allowed to wait there because it was not permitted under the local council rules, so the police moved them on.
The driver entered this cark park to wait for breakdown, however did not realise one had to pay. They left, then re-entered shortly after and realised they had to pay, so bought a ticket. there is also breakdown car which initially entered, but was unable to help the car so left.

The ANPR picked it up, however the PCN was only received on Tuesday (which is day 14 from issue date).

Anything that can be done about this?
Many thanks


2012 c63 amg sedan 0 60

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 32)
Advertisement
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 19:01
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,821
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You are mentioning POFA paragraph 7 which is all about the requirements for a notice to driver. As there was no notice to driver (?) then this is not relevant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 12:11
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 19:02) *
It's about a quarter the length and "extenuating circumstances " is not right.

Frustration of contract. Specific phrase.

What about signage and standing? Literally every appeal to popla includes this.


Thanks

Car park was quite small judging by the looks of it. Unable to go and get current pictures due to living in another part of the country, however on google maps (street view) can see sign at the entrance although not prominent.

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 20:01) *
You are mentioning POFA paragraph 7 which is all about the requirements for a notice to driver. As there was no notice to driver (?) then this is not relevant


Thanks amended
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 16:50
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXX
I am the registered keeper of vehicle G4NLJ and am appealing a parking charge from Local Parking Security (LPS Ltd) – Their Reference: XXXXXXX on the following points:
1. Car was broken down, therefore frustration of contract
2. The Notice to Keeper was not compliant with POFA (2012) – no Keeper Liability can apply.
3. Signs in car park was not prominent,


Car was broken down, therefore frustration of contract


The reason why the driver actually went into the carpark was as a result of the car suffering a punctured tyre on the road due a nail insertion. Once the driver entered into the car park, they attempted to see if the situation could be remedied. Unfortunately, that was not the case, therefore a recovery service was called. Please see attached email confirmation from the recovery services indicating the full breakdown of recovery on that day.
There was no contract entered into with LPS at any point due to the breakdown, as it was not even the driver’s priority at that point. As a result this was a frustration of contract due to these circumstances.

The Notice to Keeper was not compliant with POFA (2012) – no Keeper Liability applicable

The POFA (2012) are stated in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted
Finally POFA (2012) Paragraph 9 (2) details what the Notice to Keeper must contain in order to hold the keeper liable.
(2)The notice must—
(a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(e) 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;
(h) Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

- They have failed to state period of parking, as by definition moving in front of ANPR camera cannot be parking.
- There was absolutely no mention of invitation to the keeper at all
- The creditor which is assumed to be LPS was not identified as strictly prescribed by POFA (2012).
That was also pointed out to them in the original appeal letter, however there was absolutely no acknowledgement that they reject the claim of non-compliance, hence the appeal on these grounds alone should be upheld.

Inadequate signage
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, A reasonable standard to use when making an assessment, as an appellant, is the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012,it is of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size, which is illegible in most photographs is NOT sufficient to bring about a parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. Therefore, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge also given the circumstances that they were in.

All the grounds I believe make this PCN unfair, and hence I ask you to consider the above points and cancel this PCN

Yours sincerely,

RK

Amended.. snipped parts from another POPLA appeal

Any further thoughts on this.
I really have not much else to say, but happy with anymore suggestions smile.gif


Thanks again for all your help!

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 16:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 13:08
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



I think that is about it really that I can add.

I was wondering in email confirmation, there is no mention of driver and is referred to as Mr/Ms Surname of Keeper - is it an assumption for them to assume that this person was the driver?

Also, whether I should actually Quote BPA section 18 in its entirety?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 18:10
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Again, standing. Always always always raise that unless you know they own the land.

I've no idea about your keeper driver question. It doesn't make sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 20:48
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Thank you, so the contract that they have with the owner of the land to operate within this car park?
I will just snip it off another POPLA appeal in that case.

And the email one, is can they assume it was the driver that called the breakdown and identify them as the driver?

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 20:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 07:03
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, contract to operate. MUST be with the land*holder*

Most cars can have more than one person in them. So you point out an occupant of the vehicle called the breakdown. Its really hard to be any more specific - you just have to work out: does this actually identify the driver? If YES then you just redact the name. Easy . Its not info they need to know. Call it GDPR reasons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 13:56
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Thanks for the suggestions


Landowner Authority
Paragraph 7 from the BPA code of practice states the following:
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
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then they should produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name.

I thought to add this as a final point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 18:43
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



So they responded in POPLA appeal, but made no mention of any of the points i raised except for sign which cannot be confirmed because of the corrupted PDF.

My comments are as follows.

- LPS did not acknowledge that the vehicle had broken down due to a punctured tyre and was a frustration of contract, and extenuating circumstances, therefore on that basis the appeal must be upheld.
- The vehicle left the premises at 18:27, so parking purchased afterwards is irrelevant in this. Also payment was likely made by a third party due to their being a local wedding of which many individuals knew of the cars situation
- LPS have uploaded a PDF with the Fleet/Popworld signage, however on trying 3 different devices, the PDF is mentioned as corrupted, hence it is unable to be viewed by anyone, therefore cannot comment their claim as evidence is unusable.
- For POFA 2012, it was clearly and unequivocally stated in the appeal that the notice to keeper did not meet (a), (e) or (h) of paragraph 9 section 2. LPS did not acknowledge this and mentioned ©, (d) and (f) made their notice to keeper POFA compliant. It must comply with all of paragraph 9, section 2 as clearly laid out in legislation.
- Landowner consent to operate as laid out in the BPA was not provided by LPS.
- All claims made in the initial appeal, of which none of them were rejected by LPS, but just avoided, therefore on that basis alone the appeal should be upheld


This post has been edited by theeagleman: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 14:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 14:46
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Any further thoughts on these comments?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 11:38
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,818
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It was a weekend. Give people chance!

What corrupted PDF? First I can recall. Did you not ask for one that could be read? An obvious step.

- NOT extenuating circumstances. Frustration of contract - there was no contract in place, so no charge can be levied.

- 2nd bullet makes zero sense to me, so likely less to POPLA.

- you shoudl include evidence of this. But better is to actually ask POLPA if they can read it, and have asked for a copy if so. AS if they CAN and you CANT, guess who they believe...

- then be stronger on this point. Have this as the FIRST bullet point. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO OPERATE therfore cannot be in compliance with the CoP, and the appeal MUST be upheld

- list the X claims they failed to address, and point out that this means the operator agrees that these issues were present, and so they must uphold the appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 19:09
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



Sorry, I did not mean to seem as though I was impatient or pushy.

When car operator gives evidence (in this case the signage) to POPLA to comment on, that particular file is corrupted, i.e. it not viewable with any PDF reader, that is what was meant.

- Thanks, will word it that way.
- A ticket was bought, but for later on (after vehicle left car park). Anyways this point is irrelavant.
- I got only screenshot evidence, and I have just tried again. Completely understand that if they are able to read it, and I cannot...
- Thanks, will put that at the top.
- Will point out and make more clear.

Thank you for your help. Will draft something tomorrow maybe and give POPLA a call regarding the corrupted PDF.

This post has been edited by theeagleman: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 23:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
theeagleman
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 12:47
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 4 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,740



- LPS have not provided any Landowner consent as requested in the appeal, therefore as a result they have no authority to operate on this land, therefore cannot be compliant with the BPA code of practice, hence the appeal must be upheld.
- There was no contract made with LPS upon entering, as there was a frustration of contract due to the circumstances, therefore no charge is liable to be levied.
- In POFA 2012, it was clearly and unequivocally stated in the appeal that the notice to keeper did not meet (a), (e) or (h) of paragraph 9 section 2. LPS glossed over the claims made and mentioned © ,(d) and (f) made their notice to keeper POFA compliant. It must comply with ALL of paragraph 9, section 2 as clearly laid out in legislation. For the information of the assessor:
(2)The notice must—
(a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(e) 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;
(h) Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
The above was not met, hence there can be no keeper liability.
- The signage images provided by LPS are unreadable, with the quality of images being quite poor, therefore making the writing illegible, so the original point of the inadequate signage still stands.
- In the original appeal it was pointed out that there is no Landowner Authority, there was a frustration of contract, POFA 2012 was non-compliant and inadequate signage. Inadequate signage was in part addressed by LPS, although poor image quality. Therefore, the operator agrees that these issues were present as laid out in the original appeal, and did not dispute them in anyway, hence appeal must be upheld as a result of this.


Called POPLA this morning, and they said they can read the PDF (although it was a duplicate file, which did not appear in the appeal portal on POPLA). So they sent it to me, and the quality of images was left to be desired.
Due tomorrow by midnight, so any thoughts appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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, 22nd November 2019 - 05:42
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.