Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is this a valied POPLA appeal?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Mummy139
Hello,

I was issued with a NTK after someone parked my car and is supposed to have not displayed a ticket. The picture taken is only of the windscreen, there is no picture of the side window. The appeal was unsurprisingly turned down by the PPC but they included pictures of the signage at the ticket machine which shows none of their logo, or BPA, or the rules and regs they operate under.

I genuinely have no idea who had the car that day, the joys of having conveniently forgetful teenage children when they may be required to pay!

They also only include one shot of the car with one time displayed, no period of time is alluded to hence point d).

Does this have legs or do I just part with the hundred pounds as they only gave 14 days after the rejection of appeal letter to pay sixty pounds and we are now on day 20 so I need to submit this appeal.

I am terribly nervous about it, but in my opinion there is not sufficient evidence to support their claim.

In the fullness of time I will put all the details on here, but I do not want to prejudice my appeal in any way before it is submitted, therefore have changed the name of the PPC to PPC for this exercise.

Thank you hopefully in advance for your help and advice.



POPLA appeal

a) There is insufficient evidence that no ticket was not displayed.
b) The signage present at the ticket machine does not comply with the (British Parking Association) BPA code of practice.
c) PPC who are trying to enforce this fine are not the landlords of the car park, have refused to provide strict proof of the contract term terms with the landlord and therefore have shown no evidence that they are entitled to pursue these charges.
d) PPC notice fails to comply with the POFA 2012 in respect of there being no period of parking referred to so there can be no keeper liability.
f) PPC failed to follow the BPA guidelines on appealing to POPLA.

There is insufficient evidence that no ticket was not displayed.

Point 20.5 of the BPA code of practice (COP) states:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photo must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised.”
As stated in my appeal to PPC I was not driving the vehicle on the day in question and do not know who was. However I have no reason to believe that anyone driving the car would not have purchased a ticket. It is perfectly possible that the ticket was displayed on the driver's side window but no clear picture of this has been taken and therefore I do not accept the accusation no ticket had been displayed and indeed claim that PPC have failed to comply with the BPA COP. There is no signage to indicate the ticket must be displayed on the windscreen at the ticket machine (Picture 1).

The signage present at the ticket machine does not comply with the BPA code of practice.

Point 2.7 of the BPA COP
“All Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) members must make that the AOS logo is prominently displayed in all car parks and make it clear to the public that they are governed by the code.”

This clearly is not met. Point 18.8 of the BPA COP is also contravened therefore.

Point 18.4 of the BPA COP
“ If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:
• specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
• adequately bringing the charges to the attention of
drivers, and
• following any applicable government signage
regulations.

This is also not met by the signage at the ticket booth. Indeed point 2.10 of the BPA COP states:
“ Clamping is illegal”. It is clearly stated on the notice displayed that clamping is operational in this car park directly breaking the BPA COP.

PPC who are trying to enforce this fine are not the landlords of the car park, have refused to provide strict proof of the contract term terms with the landlord and therefore have shown no evidence that they are entitled to pursue these charges.
PPC has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning right to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. BPA COP points 7.1 and 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I asked PPC to provide strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent. NPE have not provided evidence of any legal status to enforce this charge or assignment of rights to pursue PC's in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and “ticket” vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that PPC are entitled to purse these charges in their own right.

I require PPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous signed and dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA COP and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for his sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with point 7 of the BPA COP, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an “agreement” with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

Your notice fails to comply with the POFA 2012 in respect of there being no period of parking referred to so there can be no keeper liability.

“Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 (Sch4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) 8(2)©state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7 (2)(b), © and (f);

The pictures provided in the PCN state only the time the picture was taken (15.09pm) and not a time period as stated under paragraph 4 of the PoFA. My opinion is that by not specify the period of parking, that makes the PCN Notice to Keeper invalid with regards to keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore keeper liability cannot be established under PoFA. To enforce this notice, you must provide evidence of the identity of the driver.

PPC failed to follow the BPA guidelines on appealing to POPLA.

Point 22.12 BPA COP;
“If you reject a challenge you must:
• tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or
a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and the 10-digit verification code.
• give the driver a reasonable amount of time to pay the charge before restarting the collection process.
We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from the date you rejected the challenge.

PPC have gone against the COP on both these points neither providing a template “notice of appeal” form and demanding payment of fine within 14 days of the rejection of appeal.


In summary, if the basis of law is innocence unless proved guilt then there is insufficient evidence provided by PPC that a ticket was not purchased on the day in question and I as registered keeper of the vehicle am not responsible for any fine due to the contravention of Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. PPC have demonstrated at various points that they are not following the BPA COP and I will be reporting their behaviour directly to the BPA as I would argue their practice falls short of that recquired for their AOS status.
emanresu
Sounds like a UKPC one. They have form for this kind of behaviour.

You've missed out signs and the amount.

Do you have a pic of the signs and what is says about displaying.

Also challenge the amount as being extravagant in comparison with local authority charges elsewhere in the area.

Have a look at the other POPLA challenges for the same parking company.

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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.