Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LPS
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2
HolyNougat
Hello All.
So a car was parked in a LPS managed car park - it was dark, the signage did not comply with the regulations because it was at ground level and the only sign that could possibly have seen had a car parked in front of it. the driver was probably away from the car for five minutes.
The car was ticketed and appealed to POPLA using the fairly standard arguments, with some case specific ones thrown it but my appeal was declined.
I have been a little slapdash here because I appealed before receiving the NtK, however I have still not actually revealed who the driver was.
I've dealt with one of these before from PE that ended up with me settling for a few quid at mediation, so I suppose I'm happy to go down that route again if required, however my question probably is, how likely are LPS to take this to court? and additionally, should I just wait now for the NtK to arrive?
Thanks,
HN
Umkomaas
Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd?
Local Parking Security Ltd?

Whichever, here's details of the number of times they've 'done court' in the 12 months period.

http://[Commercial link removed]/20...ml#comment-form

There's no NtK going to arrive now!
cabbyman
What 'fairly standard arguments' did you use at POPLA? huh.gif
HolyNougat
Well, I suppose they will just issue a court claim.
Anyway, It was Local Parking Security.
That link is not showing I think...
I suppose the question is should I now just cough up, or go to court and risk it?
I used the normal popla appeal points, GPEOL, contracts etc. including the issue about signage. I can't seem to actually find the appeal I lodged. Just had a one liner back saying:

'The operator submits that the appellant parked in the site without clearly
displaying a valid pay & display ticket and therefore breached the terms and
conditions of the site.
The appellant has submitted that the operator does not have the legal right
to pursue parking charge notices. In further submissions made by the
appellant, the appellant has submitted that the signage in the site was not
sufficient in communicating the terms and conditions.
The operator has submitted as evidence a Witness Statement indicating legal
authority to control the site. I therefore find that the operator does have a
legal right to pursue parking charge notices in on the land; I am therefor
unable to allow the appeal on this ground.
The appellant has submitted that the signage in the site was not sufficient; the
evidential burden of proof therefore shifts to the operator to prove on the
balance of probabilities that the signage in the site did adequately
communicate the terms and conditions of the site. The operator has
submitted as evidence a number of photographs taken of signs erected
throughout the site, in these photographs I am clearly able to see that signs
were erected throughout the site clearly stating that the site was a pay &
display car park. I therefore find that the signage in the site did adequately
communicate the terms and conditions.
The appellant parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket
and therefore breached the terms and conditions of the site, on this ground I
refuse the appeal. '
Dennis Basher
Out of interest, did LPS ever send you a copy of the evidence that they submitted to POPLA?
Umkomaas
QUOTE
Well, I suppose they will just issue a court claim.
Anyway, It was Local Parking Security.
That link is not showing I think...


Sorry, it was a link to the Parking Prankster's blog, where he lists court cases where PPCs have been involved. PePiPoo won't allow links to the PP. I keep forgetting!

Local Parking Security was involved in 30 cases - these are 'any' court case, it doesn't necessarily mean they were parking-related - but no way of ascertaining that AFAIAA.
hoohoo
As they have not supplied an NTK there is no keeper liability.

If they did not send you an evidence pack then you should complain to POPLA and ask to reopen the case. You usually need to do this several times. When they reopen the case add the appeal point that keeper liability does not apply as no NTK was supplied.

Edit you original post if there are any clues who the driver is.

HolyNougat
They did send me an 'evidence' pack at the same time they sent it to POPLA. Usual junk that hardly applied to the case in question at all - however, I did notice that my accountant was on the board of directors of the company that appointed LPS to 'manage' the land!
Anyway, this point about 'keeper liability' - they have never served NtK, as it happens I am not the keeper of this car... does the fact that I have appealed make any difference, can they still use PoFA to go after the keeper? - and no I've not identified the driver.
Hellfire8
Can you submit a copy of your Appeal (word for word) on here please as the assessors response has made no mention of GPEOL but you state this was included.

Can I see your original Appeal.

QUOTE (HolyNougat @ Wed, 29 Jul 2015 - 08:02) *
They did send me an 'evidence' pack at the same time they sent it to POPLA. Usual junk that hardly applied to the case in question at all - however, I did notice that my accountant was on the board of directors of the company that appointed LPS to 'manage' the land!
Anyway, this point about 'keeper liability' - they have never served NtK, as it happens I am not the keeper of this car... does the fact that I have appealed make any difference, can they still use PoFA to go after the keeper? - and no I've not identified the driver.



Because you appealed the NTD (Notice to Driver) they will (wrongly) believe you're the driver.
HolyNougat
So if I just write to them and say, Look, I was not the driver, nor am I the keeper, your window to go after the keeper is now closed - please get stuffed, that should be the end of it?! ;-)
I will try to dig out the original appeal.
Hellfire8
QUOTE (HolyNougat @ Wed, 29 Jul 2015 - 09:00) *
So if I just write to them and say, Look, I was not the driver, nor am I the keeper, your window to go after the keeper is now closed - please get stuffed, that should be the end of it?! ;-)
I will try to dig out the original appeal.



I honestly don't see that working.

Best bet might be getting POPLA to re rule, but this depends on your Appeal contents.

LPS do, rarely go to court but they do go, and now you've lost a POPLA appeal you'll be marked as an easy target as loosing POPLA goes against you.

HolyNougat
Interesting.
I can actually prove that I was not the driver.... If it did go to court I don't really see how they could make it stick... under what authority could they pin the charge?
Hellfire8
That changes things a little bit yes.

I still think your best course of action is getting POPLA to review their decision. if the Assessor has failed/missed a point (GPEOL) then they should rule in your favour.
HolyNougat
I can't seem to find my popla evidence...
I think I will just write to LPS saying I'm not the driver, I'm not the keeper, drop the case or I'll see you in court.
hoohoo
Hahaha.

The parking company have fallen for the old switcheroo! They failed to check if you were appealing as driver or keeper; you were neither, and now the keeper liability window is shut.

Well done for accidentally pulling that off. They do it all the time (with the agent/principal thing) so it is amusing to see the biter bit for once.

I would go with your letter but just state you were not the driver.

Dear LPS,

I confirm that I was appealing on behalf of the driver, but was nt the driver. I can prove this as follows (your proof you mentioned here).
Any further contact with myself, other than to confirm you will not be pursuing me, will class as harassment. If you believe the charge is valid you must contact the driver directly from this point onwards.

Hellfire8
I'd amend that a little bit



Dear LPS

I am writing to instruct you to cease contacting me with regards to the following PCN. As I was not the driver in question (Proof attached) and you have failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act I am not liable for the charge.

Please direct all future correspondance to the driver, which I am not required to disclosed

Regards

XXXXXXX
HolyNougat
OK - will be interesting to see what they come back with.
Something along the lines of 'oh - it must have been you' or something like that! ;-)
Is there always a requirement to issue a NtK? seems odd that they don't just do it automatically.
hoohoo
QUOTE (HolyNougat @ Wed, 29 Jul 2015 - 13:15) *
OK - will be interesting to see what they come back with.
Something along the lines of 'oh - it must have been you' or something like that! ;-)
Is there always a requirement to issue a NtK? seems odd that they don't just do it automatically.


There is no requirement to issue an NTK, but they have to if they want to pursue the keeper.

The clued up operators therefore issue one anyway. The knuckle-draggers don't.
Churchmouse
POPLA seemed to think the Appellant was the driver: "The appellant parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket..." What proof do you have that you were not the driver? Would it outweigh the "proof" (assuming POPLA didn't just assume) that you were the driver?

--Churchmouse
HolyNougat
Well, I was working at the time of the incident.
Additionally I have never admitted to driving the car.
The PP blog has an entry about pretty much exactly this situation where POPLA ruled again the parking company.
Basically it seems that they should always issue an NtK to be PoFA compliant, they can't assume they know who the driver is!
HolyNougat
So, following on from this, I wrote to LPS as above no response.

Today a letter dated 30th July Arrived addressed to the Keeper, where they state keeper liability and that they have accessed the keepers details from DVLA.

The Parking Charge was from the 14th May.

Am I OK just to ignore this?
Jlc
Keeper liability when they haven't met the conditions?

You could ignore but there's far more fun to be had!

Firstly, you should correct them on the keeper liability front... (I presume they are referencing the PoFA?)

Secondary, they appear to be abusing the DVLA as they have accessed personal information when they had no right to do so and appear to be incorrectly (illegally?) processing it? Complaints to the DVLA and ICO if you want to push it...
HolyNougat
So this is the letter.

I guess I'll write back to them again and copy the DVLA etc...
Jlc
Hmmm, claims to be a 'reminder notice' - just as well as it's not a 'notice to keeper', no way compliant for keeper liability.

Indeed, they don't directly claim the keeper is liable. Therefore, no real complaint to the DVLA/ICO.

However, write back to them and thank them for their letter and that they have written to the registered keeper but as such liability cannot exist to the keeper then they should cease and desist and pursue the driver instead.
nosferatu1001
Well they claim the "right" to recover money left unpaid by the driver, so I would definitely correct them that that "right" is, in fact, non-existent. Possibly remind them of the Fraud Act 2006 section 2 about misrepresentation as well.
Jlc
It kind of hints are keeper liability but doesn't explicitly state it imho. The 'right' to claim from the driver may well be correct (notwithstanding the usual arguments) though? But as they have written to the keeper (assumed to be the registered keeper) they don't know who the driver was...
HolyNougat
OK - but the thing here is that they never did issue a NtK, but are now claiming keeper liability.
How long do they have to issue a NtK under PoFA?
Actually the letter is rather silly - they state that the 'driver is liable to pay the charge', but then go on to say that they have requested the details of the keeper...
Jlc
Are they really claiming 'keeper liability'? It's not explicit...

After a ticket on the car they have to wait 28 days but deliver with 56. (But to pursue the driver there's no such limit)
HolyNougat
Well it does say 'parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge.

They then say that they requested the keepers details 'through the reasonable cause criteria of perusing a parking charge' - but does that mean that they are claiming keeper liability? - and can they now insist the keeper name the driver? - or can I just write back and say 'The keeper was not the driver, and is not required to name the driver'.
Gan
Dear Sir

Ref ****

Thank You for your letter dated **** stating that you have a right to pursue the driver for payment.

I note that you have obviously recognised that you did not meet the conditions of POFA to hold the keeper liable, and have made no such claim.

I was not, however, the driver.
I decline to identify him/her

As your letter de facto recognises that I have no liability as keeper, it follows that you also know that you have no right to pursue me for payment

I will therefore ignore any letters from a debt collector in the knowledge that any legal action by your company has no prospect of success.

As a gesture of goodwill, in order to bring the matter to a conclusion, I am prepared to refer the matter yet again to POPLA.
If we both indicate that it had based its previous decision on the incorrect assumption that I was driving, perhaps it will revert the charge.

Please provide the validation code within seven days
If I receive any other response, I will regard the matter as closed

Yours Faithfully



HolyNougat
Great - will send that. Thanks.
hoohoo
If you have not already replied then I would be more forceful. The keeper has never yet appealed - this is the first letter they got. Someone, who was not the driver (you) has appealed.

Therefore the keeper has full rights of appeal.

Dear Idiots,

I wish to appeal your charge. I am appealing as keeper. My appeal is on the basis that keeper liability does not apply because no notice to keeper was served within the allowed timescale.
I also confirm I was not the driver and so driver liability does not apply either.

As per the BPA code of practice I require you to either cancel the charge or provide a POPLA code within 35 days.

HolyNougat
just had this back from LPS:

I sent the message that hoohoo suggested... looks like they just ignored that. The question remains I suppose as to who their 'standard debt recovery letters' will be addressed to!

Dear Sir/Madam,

Parking Charge Notice:

Thank you for your email dated X August.

The original appeal against the above parking charge notice was unsuccessful with us and we provided the option to appeal further to the independent appeals service POPLA.

An appeal to POPLA was submitted and all evidence for this case was provided to the independent appeals assessor to make a decision.

The independent POPLA appeals assessor looked at all evidence and refused the appeal on the 28 July 2015.

As POPLA have refused the appeal the parking charge notice currently stands at £85.00, if no payment is received the parking charge notice will go through our standard debt recovery process.

Yours sincerely,

Local Parking Security Ltd.
nosferatu1001
"I will regard the matter as closed"

Thats wha tyou do. They provided "any other" response, so the matter is closed

Retain this for the 6 years they can file a claim for...
HolyNougat
I just think that this likely to result in a pile of debt collector letters to the RK...
hoohoo
The keeper should complain to the BPA.

Dear BPA,
I wish to complain that I appealed a notice to keeper and the appeal was turned down but I was not provided a POPLA code.

The sequence of events is as follows.

My vehicle was issued a windscreen ticket. I was not the driver.

The driver appealed this with assistance. This appeal was turned down and the driver appealed to POPLA, again with assistance.
The POPLA appeal was turned down. The parking company were then free to pursue the driver.

However, they did not. Instead, they issued me a notice to keeper. This was issued after the 56 day window and therefore keeper liability does not apply. I therefore appealed on this basis.

If the parking company wish to pursue me, then must allow me the right to appeal to POPLA. Their notice to keeper states that I can appeal to POPLA if they reject my appeal.

The fact that the driver has previously appealed to POPLA is not material to my situation; if they wish to pursue the driver they of course can.

Churchmouse
It sounds like you did not mention in your POPLA appeal that you were not the driver...

In any event, if you have proof that you were not the driver at the time of the parking incident--and if a court accepts your evidence--you cannot be held liable for breaching a contract you never entered into. End of.

--Churchmouse
hoohoo
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 12 Aug 2015 - 20:16) *
It sounds like you did not mention in your POPLA appeal that you were not the driver...

In any event, if you have proof that you were not the driver at the time of the parking incident--and if a court accepts your evidence--you cannot be held liable for breaching a contract you never entered into. End of.

--Churchmouse

The OP was neither driver nor keeper but appealed on behalf of the driver, then appealed again to POPLA.

The operator, after the POPLA appeal, then served a notice to keeper on the keeper and are pursuing the keeper rather than the driver, or the OP
HolyNougat
I've written to the BPA and I've also written back to LPS telling them that I've written to the BPA.
So for nothing back!
HolyNougat
This is not the case for me, but what would happen if a motorist just made up a 'driver' for the purposes of getting these parasites off their back?
E.g. - the driver was Mr. Tom Jones, address 123 Far Away Street, Singapore. Is there any requirement to be honest?
Churchmouse
QUOTE (hoohoo @ Wed, 12 Aug 2015 - 22:15) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 12 Aug 2015 - 20:16) *
It sounds like you did not mention in your POPLA appeal that you were not the driver...

In any event, if you have proof that you were not the driver at the time of the parking incident--and if a court accepts your evidence--you cannot be held liable for breaching a contract you never entered into. End of.

--Churchmouse

The OP was neither driver nor keeper but appealed on behalf of the driver, then appealed again to POPLA.

The operator, after the POPLA appeal, then served a notice to keeper on the keeper and are pursuing the keeper rather than the driver, or the OP

I admire your ability to extract clarity from this rather confusing set of facts. The OP has indeed stated that he was not the driver, and not the keeper, but then he says he appealed to POPLA. POPLA has apparently addressed him as the Appellant, and the PPC also seems to think he was the driver. Perhaps the PPC (and POPLA) simply jumped to conclusions, or perhaps the OP's submissions have implicated him in some way...

Later, when a letter addressed to the keeper arrives, the OP says he will write back to the PPC, noting that "the keeper was not the driver". Why would the OP be doing this, if he is not the keeper? In any event, the keeper should have written the letter, stating that "I" was not the driver.

And then there's "his" missing POPLA appeal "using the fairly standard arguments, with some case specific ones thrown i[n]", which was strangely unsuccessful. I am very curious to learn how the OP actually managed to accomplish this. It's a shame that the POPLA documents appear to be missing, because they would likely answer most of the questions raised in this thread.

It is certainly reasonable to omit or remove identifying information from public forum posts (my own are quite extreme in this regard), but in my opinion the OP is making helping him unusually (and inexplicably) difficult.

QUOTE (HolyNougat @ Sat, 15 Aug 2015 - 17:53) *
This is not the case for me, but what would happen if a motorist just made up a 'driver' for the purposes of getting these parasites off their back?
E.g. - the driver was Mr. Tom Jones, address 123 Far Away Street, Singapore. Is there any requirement to be honest?

Honesty is the best policy, isn't it? POFA 2012 states that the PPC can recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if the PPC does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

“current address for service” means—
(a) in the case of the keeper, an address which is either—
(i) an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(ii) the keeper’s registered address (if there is one); or
(b) in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted;


By identifying the driver by name and address where he "can conveniently be contacted", the keeper would (in theory) be off the hook. But if the driver cannot actually be contacted at such address, the keeper could still be pursued. However, if the PPC contacted Tom Jones in Singapore and Tom Jones of Singapore wrote back to the PPC suggesting where the PPC might usefully stick their Parking Charge invoice, I'm not sure what the PPC could actually do in response. It would, of course, be most helpful if Tom Jones kept the keeper in the correspondence loop, in case his response to the PPC somehow went missing from the PPC's files prior to the PPC's subsequent (and futile) small claims court case against the keeper.

--Churchmouse
HolyNougat
I'm always loath to start being entirely frank on these forums, because I've heard stories of the PPC actually producing print outs of the threads in court.

It is true to say that I was neither the driver, nor the keeper in this case - the car is actually registered to my mother (although it is 'mine' in all other respects) and my partner was driving at the time; because I hate the idea of these charges I've been dealing with this case since the beginning and as such have been writing in on behalf of the RK and the Driver, although I have not admitted to being the driver myself, as that is not the case, something LPS have obviously realized as they are now trying to pin this on the RK.

I have actually received some excellent help on the forum, in the first case I dealt with I managed to score a slight victory against PE; I decided against going to court, but settled in mediation for literally pennies on the pound and this case seems to be going quite well so far, I'll be interested to see what LPS come back with.

With regard to what I wrote on behalf of the Keeper:

Dear Sir,

I wish to appeal your charge. I am appealing as keeper. My appeal is on the basis that keeper liability does not apply because no notice to keeper was served within the allowed timescale.
I also confirm I was not the driver and so driver liability does not apply either.
As per the BPA code of practice I require you to either cancel the charge or provide a POPLA code within 35 days.

Yours Faithfully,
HolyNougat
So this from BPA - very helpful!

Good morning

As the case has already been appealed by POPLA and the decision was in favour of the operator, that is the end of the appeals process. POPLA can be approached to see if they will rehear the appeal but it is their decision if they wish to do so. We are not able to intervene, overturn or influence any POPLA decisions as they are an independent appeals service.

The Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) and its Code of Practice was developed by the BPA to bring a degree of regulation to an industry without primary legislation. Regrettably as we are not a regulatory authority, we are not empowered to become involved in individual disputes between the motorist and the car park operator and have no authority to overturn an operator’s decision. Therefore, any action regarding your individual circumstances are out of our control and should be directed to the operator.

As a membership association and not a regulatory body we cannot recall charges progressed to a debt collection and have no power to intervene in the appeals procedure with either the operator or POPLA and cannot request an operator to cancel, refund or recall any parking charge notices referred to a debt collection agency.

We can however investigate evidence of a possible breach of any of the points raised in the Code of Practice.

The private parking landscape significantly improved for motorists who had received a PCN and felt that it had been issued inappropriately issued on 1st October 2012 when the BPA launched POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) in England and Wales – a service that gave the motorist the chance to have their case independently heard by suitably qualified assessors after having their initial representations to the parking operator rejected. POPLA is free to the motorist, fully funded by the private parking sector and its decisions are binding on the operator but not on the motorist. Since the arrival of POPLA over 35,000 motorists have had their appeal independently assessed and at no cost to them.
Gan
To LPS :

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I note your letter dated ****
Your comments, however, are irrelevant

You have previously stated that you have a right to pursue the driver for payment.
You have never claimed to hold the keeper liable for payment and, as you failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act, have never had any such right.

I was not the driver.
I decline to identify him/her

I have offered to provide POPLA with an opportunity to correct its mistaken assumption that I had appealed as the driver.
You have unreasonably rejected my offer

If you believe differently, please send within 14 days a properly formatted Letter Before Claim that meets the requirements of Annex A of the Practice Direction for Pre-action Conduct and Protocols.
After this date I will regard the matter as closed.

Yours Faithfully
HolyNougat
So just had this back to the RK...
They have totally ignored my previous mails...

Dear Sir/Madam,

Parking Charge Notice:

Thank you for your email dated 19th August.

The registered keeper is liable for payment of the unpaid Parking Charge Notice if they are unable to provide us with the driver’s details at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued.

Please refer to Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule four, paragraph four for further details on this.

If you are able to provide us with the drivers details at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued we will contact them directly. If you cannot provide us with these details we will have no option but to pursue the claim against you as the registered keeper.

Yours Sincerely,

Local Parking Security Ltd.

PO Box 6321
Warwick
Warwickshire
CV34 9QB

Telephone: 01789 293273
Fax: 01789 293315
www.localparkingsecurity.co.uk
Gan
Dear Sir

Ref ****

Thank You for your letter dated ****

I have referred to Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 4 as you suggested.
Para 4(2)(b) says that your right to hold me liable as keeper applies only if you met certain conditions.

You didn't
Your intended claim is doomed to failure

Yours Faithfully
hoohoo
The sad thing is that LPC probably totally believe that POFA 2012 means that keepers are always liable if the driver is not identified.
HolyNougat
Dear Sir


Thank You for your letter dated

I have referred to Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 4
as you suggested.

Para 4(2)(b) says that your right to hold me liable as keeper applies
only if you have met certain conditions. You have failed to do so
because you have not complied with the PoFA, in particular Para 8(5) -
among others.

Your intended claim is doomed to failure and additionally by claiming
that you have a right to recover money when you do not is possibly an
offence under Fraud Act 2006 section 2:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

Yours Faithfully
Gan
I draft minimalist letters specifically to give them nothing to debate or use as a distraction

"I'm sorry I wrote you such a long letter; I didn't have time to write a short one." Blaise Pascal
HolyNougat
Fair point! -
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.