Care Parking Charge Notice - HELP!, Ticket fixed to window in train station car park Options

[Manchester_Commu...]

In October whilst my vehicle was parked at the station car park it received a parking charge notice from Care Parking. I was not the driver at the time but I am the registered keeper. I have appealed directly to Care Parking which was rejected (letter below) and now plan to appeal to POPLA. I have never done anything like this before and after reading up feel a little overwhelmed hence this post asking for help!



Background:

The station car park is in two sections; one tarmaced, one gravel. As I understand it, the tarmaced section is owned by the railway and they have CareParking enforce the parking. The gravel section is owned by a local charitable trust who allow commuters to park there and there are no rules/signs. There are also no marked bays on the gravel. The vehicle was parked with two wheels on the tarmac and two on the gravel (see picture). The ticket has been issued for 'parking outside of a marked bay' in contravention of the car park contract which is displayed on the signs and for obstructing other vehicles (which it was not). Is there an argument here about CareParking having the authority to issue the ticket in the first place given this is arguable not relevant land? (I'm assuming the end of the tarmac is the boundary, but cannot be certain).



From reading advice on forums I have pulled together the following arguments:


1. No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge leading to an unenforceable penalty

Given that the vehicle was parked in a free to stay car park, there is no loss to Care Parking or the landowner. Further, as has been evidenced in the Beavis vs ParkingEye case, the charge is therefore a penalty. However, unlike in Beavis vs ParkingEye, Care Parking have no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge (i.e. to deter staying more than 2 hours to ensure customer turnover for commercial reasons). Without an legitimate interest, the charge is deemed an unenforceable penalty under English contract law.


2. Not compliant with POFA (relevant land)

The vehicle was parked in the overflow car park which is owned by [redacted] trust. I do not believe Care Parking’s contract gives them the authority to issue charges for parking on this land. [As mentioned above 2 wheels were on the tarmac, not sure where this puts me with this argument]


3. First time offender [Asking for contract]

As cited in the BPA forum minutes of 3rd November 2015, many car park enforcement contracts have clauses disallowing charges to be made to first time offenders. As this was the first offence, I would like to see a copy of the contract between Care Parking and the landowner so I can ascertain for myself that it has been issued in accordance with the contract.


In addition to the above, I note that the parking charge notice was issued on 11 October but I am yet to receive a Notice to Keeper (it's now 11th December). I have read that a Notice to Keeper should be received not less than 28 days after the notice to driver but not more than 56 days after, although I have seen contradictory comments on this. As I am yet to receive a Notice to Keeper is this in contravention of POFA? I appealed on the 23rd October to Care Parking and received the rejection on 21 November. - does that 'stop the clock'? Advice appreciated.

Any advice you can give on the above points and anything else you think I could add would be appreciated. Please ask for any additional information you think I've missed.
I plan on appealing to POPLA next week (19/20 December).

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

If you apply the Duck Test, it's a parking bay

[Manchester_Commu...]

Hi All,

Care Parking have responded (37 pages!) and I wondered if you could help clarify one point for me. One of the grounds for my appeal was that they had failed to issue NTK.

Their response to this point is that 'whilst a PCN is going through the appeals process all correspondence is placed on hold'. This is different to the wording in their first appeal rejection letter which said 'On receipt of an appeal the PCN is placed on hold'.

PCN was issued on 11th October, I appealed directly to Care Parking on 24th October, which was rejected on 21 November. I then appealed to POPLA on 20 December.
Within their response, Care Parking state they requested my details (as the registered keeper) from the DVLA on 20 December and received them on 21 December. I have still never received a NTK.

Is it worth me, in my response to POPLA, reiterating that I haven't received NTK or is it not relevant given the appeals process?

I plan on submitting my response either today or tomorrow.

Thanks,

[ostell]

Yes it is relevant. Without a NTK issued correctly they cannot hold the keeper liable. They may have requested the details from the DVLA but they still have to issue a NTK. They do not know the driver.

Anything in their statement that you disagree with please say so as if you don't dispute then it is assumed that you agree with their statement.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:22

[Manchester_Commu...]

Thank you Ostell! I thought that would be the case.
In the 36 pages theres quite a lot I disagree with, but I've done my best to cover it in the 2000 character limit I'm permitted. The wording I have drafted for the NTK point specifically is below:
If anyone spots any issues with it please let me know! I'll be submitting later today. (CP = Care Parking)

Whether POPLA believes this is relevant land or not, I have still not received a NTK despite the PCN being issued over 3 months ago. CP state this is due to the appeals process putting ‘all correspondence on hold’ (para 33). However, there is no mention of appeal impacting the time period in which the NTK must be issued in PoFA or BPA AOS Code of Practice. Indeed, para 8.5 of sch 4 of PoFA states the NTK must be issued within the ‘28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given’. Per POPLA guidance I understand these standards are now also used as a guide to assess penalties issued on railway land. We are now way beyond the 56 day period.

[ostell]

Yes get that non issue of NTK and hence no keeper liability early on in the appeal so that POPLA don't have to go any further.

[cabbyman]

I believe it may be possible to rebut their submissions by E mail; if so, that removes the 2000 character limit. If not, then I would suggest reducing the prose narrative and using bullet points. That will enable you to rebut more of their claptrap.

[Manchester_Commu...]

Thanks both - I have submitted my response this morning, so next step is the POPLA decision.
I made full use of the 2000 character limit and bullet pointed most of my response.

[cabbyman]

Did you take a screenshot before you submitted it?

[bearclaw]

Don't submit stuff without running the final draft past people on here. You could well have missed a criticval point out or put something inadvertant in....

[Manchester_Commu...]

UPDATE: the appeal was upheld!!

They have summarised the case and written a lengthy reply, but I've posted the key bit regarding the decision below - all due to the boundaries of the car park. Thank you for everyones help and input with this. I'm glad its over and with a favourable conclusion



"The appellant says the car was parked at the end of a row of cars within the gravel section of the car park. The appellant says there are no marked bays in this area and cars are not issued with PCNs. The appellant says they have since learned this section of the car park is owned by a charity and not subject to the operator’s jurisdiction. The appellant says the operator’s signage does not refer to this area. The appellant questions the boundary if the site. The appellant says parking on double yellow lines is not permitted. The appellant says this happens daily at the site. The appellant says the operator fails to enforce the parking conditions in a consistent basis. The appellant says this is misleading and implies they are happy to allow customers to park sensibly even when in contravention of the parking rules. The appellant says they were not causing an obstruction. The appellant says there was large space to the left of their vehicle. The appellant says the gap is large enough for vehicles on the left cannot be seen. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided several photographs of their vehicle parked at the site, photographs of signs at the site and a Google Image of station road from May 2018. I acknowledge why the operator issued the PCN, however, upon review of the photographs provided by both parties, I am not satisfied the operator has clearly defined the boundary of the site. The area where the appellant parked does not have signage on the fence to indicate the end of the land the operator manages and the start of the charity’s land. I would expect there to be a clear indication where the land ends, this has not been implemented. Due to this, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

[bearclaw]

Excellent news well done!

If you could stick a one post summary in the completed cases section I'm sure if could prove useful for others in future.

[cabbyman]

Excellent news well done!

If you could stick a one post summary in the completed cases section I'm sure if could prove useful for others in future.

With a link back to this thread.

Well done. Excellent work and great result!