Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Do I have a chance with popla?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
SchenJen
Hello.

I think I have made a dog's dinner of this.

I am the keeper of a car which was parked in my residents only car park.

The permit I was given had the wrong details so I informed the management company who said that they'd get a new one out and ensure my car was not ticketed. The driver has not been putting the permit in when they park as the permit's registration does not equal the actual registration.

My car received a windscreen sticker on the 7th with a typo in the reg (attached here).

I received an NTK with the correct reg.

I should have appealed saying "not POFA compliant" but I decided to contact the management company and expected there to be an understanding. Anyway, they rejected my appeal and gave me a popla code on a letter dated 19th April stating that I should appeal to popla within 28 days. I replied saying that they should reconsider and they sent me another rejection letter with the same popla code on a letter dated 26th April saying to appeal to popla within 28 days.

I contacted DVLA to find out if anyone contacted them to get my details about 11 days ago but I haven't heard back yet.

Today I received a letter from a debt recovery company dated 16th May saying to pay up.

Am I too late to contact popla?
KH_
Your lease may say something about parking which doesn't require you to display a permit.
At the very least, if they didn't issue a valid permit there'll be frustration of contract.

Parking prankster has a popla code checker, enter your code and see if it's out of time, although it sounds like it will be.
ostell
There is that sign that says "Residents Parking Only" You are a resident, you parked. Lots of contradictory signs, as a consumer you rely on the one that is advantageous to you.

But get the lease.
Eljayjay
Residential parking cases are often very winnable (by, of course, the resident).

You do, however, have to do your homework and, very often, persevere all the way to court. The parking contractor will be banking on you losing your nerve and backing down. That's how they make their money. Don't let them do it to you.

If you do end up receiving a County Court claim, quite possibly, you will want to make a counterclaim because, when a parking contractor finds itself up against someone willing to assert their rights, the contractor often tries to discontinue the claim just before the court hearing. Submitting a counterclaim prevents this happening.

Your lease is your greatest friend. If you can, get it scanned as a searchable pdf document - you need something better than the free version of Adobe for this. Then conduct a search for "park". Copy and paste every bit of the lease mentioning "park" into a new document.

Then go through it again to look for anything that makes provision for changes to the lease to be made or for rules and regulations to be added by the landlord and/or the management company. Copy and paste those bits to the new document.

Do the same again but, this time, looking for anything about "rights of third parties". Copy and paste again.

Search for "rent", "charge" and "permit". Copy and paste anything of relevance.

Do not just select extracts which suit your case, copy and paste everything of relevance. The reason for this is that, if the parking operator gets a copy of the lease, you need to figure out how to defend yourself from extracts that they throw at you.

On each search, go though the lease from beginning to end.

Post what you find.

SchenJen
QUOTE (KH_ @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 15:55) *
Your lease may say something about parking which doesn't require you to display a permit.
At the very least, if they didn't issue a valid permit there'll be frustration of contract.

Parking prankster has a popla code checker, enter your code and see if it's out of time, although it sounds like it will be.


Thanks, I forgot about the popla code checker. It says I have another 6 days to appeal.

My tenancy agreement (I rent from the landlady) is quite short, 12 pages.

The only things it state relating to the post from @Eljayjay is as follows:
The tenant will not park (or allow to be parked) any caravan, boat or vehicle by the property. if such parking, in the reasonable opinion of the landlord, would cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or to anyone nearby.

The tenant will obey all rules and regulations posted by the landlord regarding the use and care of the building, parking lot, laundry room and other common facilities that are provided for the use of the tenant in and around the building containing the property.

I suggest my next step is to post an appeal to Popla. Does the fact they've sent my details to a debt recovery company help given that they haven't waited until the expiry of the Popla appeal?

Thanks!

Edit-I have received letters from the block management company which do state that a contractor has been employed and we will need permits. It's not directly from the landlady.
KH_
Those with more knowledge will want to see the relevant parts of your lease, but the bit you've mentioned makes no mention of permits.
The management can employ a contractor but any impositions that contractor may impose don't have primacy over your lease if those impositions are enacted after your lease without you agreeing to a deed of variation of your lease agreeing to those impositions.

Re. the popla appeal, get a quick appeal prepared and post it here for appraisal.
Concentrate on your lease (again, those with the best knowledge will want to see it) As Ejay said, your lease will no doubt override any impositions by a third party
Redivi
Does the typo mean that the windscreen ticket doesn't match the Notice to Keeper ?
Has the OP identified himself as the driver with his appeal ?

Unless the answers are Yes and No respectively, my personal view is that the OP would do better not to make an appeal to POPLA

The OP's lease requires him to follow the landlord's rules and regulations
Although it doesn't require him to pay a third party contractor, the distinction would be lost on most assessors

It's very likely that the management company has exceeded its authority by employing PPS
This requires a technical argument that would also be beyond the assessors unless the OP can produce a lease that pre-dates the employment of PPS

POPLA assessors are only interested in whether the Parking Notice was issued correctly, not whether the payment is legally owed
Applying this test, the appeal would probably fail

All the OP then achieves is handing an "independent" decision that PPS can wave in court

PS : You've left the Parking Charge number in the picture of the Reminder Notice
SchenJen
QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 20:30) *
Does the typo mean that the windscreen ticket doesn't match the Notice to Keeper ?
Has the OP identified himself as the driver with his appeal ?

Unless the answers are Yes and No respectively, my personal view is that the OP would do better not to make an appeal to POPLA

The OP's lease requires him to follow the landlord's rules and regulations
Although it doesn't require him to pay a third party contractor, the distinction would be lost on most assessors

It's very likely that the management company has exceeded its authority by employing PPS
This requires a technical argument that would also be beyond the assessors unless the OP can produce a lease that pre-dates the employment of PPS

POPLA assessors are only interested in whether the Parking Notice was issued correctly, not whether the payment is legally owed
Applying this test, the appeal would probably fail

All the OP then achieves is handing an "independent" decision that PPS can wave in court

PS : You've left the Parking Charge number in the picture of the Reminder Notice

Hi.

Thanks for this. The windscreen ticket does not match the notice to keeper.
I can also confirm that I never once identified myself as the driver, only as the keeper, I can't remember who the driver was that day.

My tenancy agreement is dated mid 2017 while I have a letter from the management company dated late 2017 stating they will employ PPS.

I was under the impression that given the mistake in the windscreen ticket, the notice is therefore not POFA compliant and POPLA should therefore find in the appelant's favour. I do understand that if they do not, then PPS have the upper hand if it is to be contested further.

I'm torn as to what to do.

Thanks for all your assistances so far
Eljayjay
The management company is almost certainly neither the owner nor occupier of the relevant land - refer to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for the relevance of this.

So, if the management company has not been authorised by the owner or occupier of the land to enter into the parking contract with the parking company, the parking company's scheme is invalid.

Demand a copy of the parking contract from the management company. Check who has signed it using the free facility on the Companies House website. If it is anyone other than a director of the freeholder (e.g. someone purporting to be a director who is not listed as such at Companies House), let us know.
nosferatu1001
You cannot "contest" it further. it is an invoice, there is no furhter "contest" apert from IF they raise a claim at court

Edt your post - you have now, in a public forum, possibly identified the driver!
The Rookie
QUOTE (SchenJen @ Sun, 20 May 2018 - 03:17) *
I do understand that if they do not, then PPS have the upper havd if I wish to contest it further.

It would depend on whether a judge felt the adjudication persuasive or not and that would depend on the facts of the case itself, POPLA rulings are black and white so if it came down to a judge making a decision on the facts based on conflicting evidence he shouldn't find the POPLA ruling at all persuasive.
Eljayjay
As your tenancy agreement says "The tenant will not park (or allow to be parked) any caravan, boat or vehicle by the property. if such parking, in the reasonable opinion of the landlord, would cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or to anyone nearby" then, provided that you did not cause "nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or to anyone nearby" causing someone to complain, the landlord might be hard pressed to hold a contrary reasonable opinion.
Even if that had been the case, it may put you in breach of your contract with the landlord, but it would not put you in breach of a contract with the parking company.

Your tenancy agreement also says "The tenant will obey all rules and regulations posted by the landlord regarding the use and care of the building, parking lot, laundry room and other common facilities that are provided for the use of the tenant in and around the building containing the property". Have any rules and/or regulations been posted by the landlord? If yes, what do they say and how were they posted?
This clause from your lease could put you in breach of a contract with the parking company, but only if some relevant rule and/or regulations have been posted by the LANDLORD.
nosferatu1001
For you to be in breach of a contract with the parking company, there would have to be a contract, and for there to be a contrac,t there would have to be something the parking cpompany can offer, of value.

Given that the right granted in the TA cannot be derogated by the landlord, the tenant has a right to park. The PPC cannot offer you that - you already have it - and so has absolutley noithing to offer you. Nothing to offer? no contract.
Eljayjay
nosferatu1001 meant to type "derogated, not "detograted". The principle of non-derogation from grant is implied in every contract including your tenancy agreement. Google "derogation from grant" for more information.
nosferatu1001
Thanks, I've edited smile.gif
SchenJen
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:37) *
You cannot "contest" it further. it is an invoice, there is no furhter "contest" apert from IF they raise a claim at court

Edt your post - you have now, in a public forum, possibly identified the driver!


I don't know what could be construed as me identifying the driver, I have not done so, but I have edited my posts to remove assumptions one can make, is it better now?


QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 09:59) *
As your tenancy agreement says "The tenant will not park (or allow to be parked) any caravan, boat or vehicle by the property. if such parking, in the reasonable opinion of the landlord, would cause nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or to anyone nearby" then, provided that you did not cause "nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or to anyone nearby" causing someone to complain, the landlord might be hard pressed to hold a contrary reasonable opinion.
Even if that had been the case, it may put you in breach of your contract with the landlord, but it would not put you in breach of a contract with the parking company.

Your tenancy agreement also says "The tenant will obey all rules and regulations posted by the landlord regarding the use and care of the building, parking lot, laundry room and other common facilities that are provided for the use of the tenant in and around the building containing the property". Have any rules and/or regulations been posted by the landlord? If yes, what do they say and how were they posted?
This clause from your lease could put you in breach of a contract with the parking company, but only if some relevant rule and/or regulations have been posted by the LANDLORD.

I have asked for a copy of the parking contract and will revert soon.

Nothing has been posted in writing by the landlord.
nosferatu1001
the line about not identifying could be construed as saying who the driver is.
I would always be very careful, and state "I was not the driver" if you can, and if you cant "state I have never identified the driver as I am unsure who the driver is that day, and I am not required to identify the driver" or somesuch.

Being explicit leaves no room for a "ahaah" ebvil laugh moent by a PPC.
SchenJen
OK so DVLA still haven't got back to me and the management company have said they will revert shortly.

I have one day left for my Popla appeal. Is it worth appealing to Popla stating that the penalty is not POFA compliant because the windscreen ticket reg does not match the NTK?

Thanks.
nosferatu1001
Yes, of coruse you do.
Dont drop the chance of a POPLA appeal.
SchenJen
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 08:46) *
Yes, of coruse you do.
Dont drop the chance of a POPLA appeal.


Managem,ent company refuse to give me a copy of the contract but state it is a contract between them and PPS.

Can I have some assistance with my POPLA appeal please? I need to apply tonight.
Points I need to look at (referenced from here: https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/):
NTD:
Which car the ticket relates to
Not my car
What land the car was parked on
Accurate
The period the car was parked
It doesn't state "date of offence", does this matter?

When and how the parking rules were broken
"Permit required"
What the parking charges are for the infringement of the rules, and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and the date by which those parking charges should be paid
I think this is accurate
Any discounts for paying within 14 days – which should be at least 40% of the full charge under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only)
Accurate
How to pay and to whom (this must be the person legally entitled to the money – the “Creditor”)
Accurate
The date the time the notice was issued
Accurate
How appeals and complaints can be dealt with – for parking companies who are members of the B PA
Accurate

NTK
Which car the ticket relates to
Accurate
What land the car was parked on
Accurate
The period the car was parked
It doesn't state "date of offence", does this matter?

Advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and the amount and that it has not been paid in full
Accurate
State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when
I think this is accurate
Specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and of the dispute resolution arrangements
It doesn't state "maximum", does this matter?
Invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if he was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver
Accurate
Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge
Accurate
Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.
Accurate
Details of the discount for payment within 14 days, The Discount should be at least 40% of the full charge under the BPA Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only)
DOES NOT EXIST
Date of the notice
Accurate

This is what I have so far:
Dear POPLA,

I am appealing on the following three grounds:
1-The Notice to Driver is not POFA compliant (schedule 4 paragraph 7) as it does not relate to my car (picture provided). Failure to be POFA-compliant means they cannot hold me, the keeper, liable.
2-The Notice To Keeper is not POFA compliant (Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9) as it does not give details of the discount for payment within 14 days, despite the issuer being a member of the BPA (picture provided). Failure to be POFA-compliant means they cannot hold me, the keeper, liable.
3-The driver parked in accordance with the occupier of the land's instructions and the contract formed with them is superior to any offer and consideration of the signage, a few of which state that it is for residents only, and I, the keeper (I cannot remember which of the residents was the driver on that day) am a resident. Should the parking company believe that their contract with the landlord overrides this then they should provide sight of that contract as proof of their right to make such a claim. In any case I require sight of the contract with the landlord to show strict proof of their right to form contracts, make claims and take legal action in their own name.
If such contracts exist then it is claimed that no loss to the company has been caused by the driver obeying the lawful instruction of the occupier (parking for residents only) and therefore the amount claimed for breach of this supposed contract does not represent any loss.


Thanks.



"I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Private Parking Solutions London (Ltd). I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge



1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability
The original Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx presented as Notice To Driver, has a registration number given which does not match any vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper. This was therefore not compliant with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and further fails the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, schedule 4., which therefore nullifies the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number (VRN).
Therefore the Notice to Driver was NOT given correctly.
The Notice to Keeper, dated XXXXX and referenced as Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fails schedule 4 of PoFA as it does not accurately repeat the (incorrect) information given on the original Notice to Driver (referenced as Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx), nor does it give details of the discount for payment within 14 days, despite the issuer being a member of the BPA.
Without a valid Notice To Driver, any Notice to Keeper would have to have been served by day 14 to be PoFA 2012 compliant. PPS (ltd) have failed in this regard, and I am merely the registered keeper so am not liable.

Therefore, Private Parking Solutions Limited has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As UK Private Parking Solutions Limited have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.


2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they 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 (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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



3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, still relevant with Private Parking Solutions (Ltd) where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


This concludes my POPLA appeal."
nosferatu1001
Sorry was busy last night.

It surely had the date of the supposed incident on it? If not thats a missing element and POFA has not been complied with.
SchenJen
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 07:02) *
Sorry was busy last night.

It surely had the date of the supposed incident on it? If not thats a missing element and POFA has not been complied with.


No need to apologise, I wasn't requesting assistance only from you, sorry if it seemed that way. This is nothing but a forum and we all know that we only come here when we want to and we are not obligated to smile.gif

I had posted by appeal before the deadline.

If you read the NTD (attached in first post) it doesn't state date the supposed incident, only when it was issued. Doesn't that make the NTD invalid?

Additionally, the NTK does not state this, only when it was "issued" doesn't this also make the NTK invalid?

Can anyone correct me?

Thanks.
nosferatu1001
It must state the relevant date , absolutely.
SchoolRunMum
But the fact it was a windscreen PCN, clearly tells any reasonable person that the date stated IS the date of the parking event.

QUOTE
Doesn't that make the NTD invalid?

No.

QUOTE
Additionally, the NTK does not state this,
Yes it does.
QUOTE
doesn't this also make the NTK invalid?
No.
SchenJen
Ok...Thanks.

Parking cowboy states that the NTK needs to state all the info on the NTD, does that mean the NTK also needs to state the acceptance of a reduced amount if paid within two weeks?
SchoolRunMum
No, it does not.

And don't read anything on the ParkingCowboys website, have seen flawed advice there. Not good IMHO, steer well clear.
SchenJen
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 31 May 2018 - 00:26) *
No, it does not.

And don't read anything on the ParkingCowboys website, have seen flawed advice there. Not good IMHO, steer well clear.

Ok thanks for your help.

But I'm lost, apart from the error on the NTD is there anything wrong with the NTK that I can use in my defence?
ostell
Well, here's POFA , check 8 (2) and see if the REQUIRED wroding and information has been given. For a start period of parking where is it. Does the data on NTD and NTK match
SchenJen
Hello. Apologies for the delay.

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 07:30) *
Well, here's POFA , check 8 (2) and see if the REQUIRED wroding and information has been given. For a start period of parking where is it. Does the data on NTD and NTK match


No period of parking but schoolrunmum says that "the fact it was a windscreen PCN, clearly tells any reasonable person that the date stated IS the date of the parking event." The date and time of pcn issue match but the reg number doesn't, I know that's something I can use, but what about the rest?

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;
all yes except for period of parking however schoolrunmum states that "the fact it was a windscreen PCN, clearly tells any reasonable person that the date stated IS the date of the parking event."


(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;
Can i say it does not meet this point because it doesn't say that the charges have not been paid in full?


©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);
7(2)(b)inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;

7(2)©inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);

7(2)(f)specify the time when the notice is given and the date

Can i say it does not meet this point because it doesn't say that the charges have not been paid in full? I can't see anything else of benefit in this point


(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)© have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

Not applicable


(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;

It doesn't state explicitly that they don't know who the driver is, they just invite the keeper to do i and ii above, is there any merit in stating this point is not met?



(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

I think this has been met


(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
No discount amount shown, but maybe they aren't offering any, my understanding of this point that it is optional



(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

I think this is met


(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
I think this is met


Can anyone help me with my questions above please?

Thanks all.
nosferatu1001
Any deficiency you can use

Period of parking is the time from start of parking to end of parking / time of ticket that they are claiming against. it is NOT the date.

If the vehicle reg is WRONGon the NtD but CORRECT on the NtK then this is an ABSOLUTE fail of POFA. POFA states that the NtK must *repeat* the info on th eNtD.
SchenJen
deleted
ostell
So you write back to POPLA pointing out that the PCN they presented was a modified version of the one you actually received. As the original PCN and the NTK did not agree then this was a failure to comply with POFA and therefore the there could be no keeper liability and the appeal should have been upheld.
Redivi
Advised you in Post #7 not to appeal to POPLA

As all the early posts pointed out, it's your lease that gives to the right to park, not the PPS signs
POPLA isn't interested in the legal points, only whether the PCN was issued correctly - and can't even get this right

I would send complaints to both POPLA and the British Parking Association

PPS sent a forged NtK to POPLA who accepted it, knowing it was forged

Regarding the result of the assessment - tell PPS you're exercising your right to reject the decision

PS You still haven't removed the PCN number from your picture
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 09:16) *
Advised you in Post #7 not to appeal to POPLA

And she was also advised to appeal to POPLA. POPLA is becoming increasingly useless, but it still amounts to a virtually risk-free opportunity to nip the PCN in the bud. It was worth the effort, and may still be useful if they can be made to understand that the PPC has deceived them. Unfortunately, POPLA now has a world-class head-in-sand tendency, so I wouldn't count on anything coming from a complaint to POPLA apart from their usual form letter.

In any event, a court will be better equipped to understand a legal argument based on the absence of contract with the PPC. The OP can do nothing, however, but wait for the court papers to appear sometime before 14 March 2024.

--Churchmouse
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Sun, 20 May 2018 - 16:38) *
Demand a copy of the parking contract from the management company. Check who has signed it using the free facility on the Companies House website. If it is anyone other than a director of the freeholder (e.g. someone purporting to be a director who is not listed as such at Companies House), let us know.

This would be unlikely to be of any use, because contracts do not need to be executed by directors. However, there is at least one district judge in this country who is infamously unaware of s43 of the Companies Act, so there could be some hope there...

--Churchmouse
SchenJen
deleted

Thanks again all.
hcandersen
Process, process, process.........

BUT as pointed out:

As all the early posts pointed out, it's your lease that gives to the right to park, not the PPS signs

So, why p**s about wih process? According to you, you were permitted to park irrespective of the signs - they weren’t put there for you.

Implicit contract conditions ...which ALSO include any explicit or implicit terms agreed with a competent person.

If you were permitted to park there, to which I cannot fnd any reference in your POPLA transcript!!!!!!!, then you were permitted. End of.

But why didn’t you contact the ‘management company’ in the first instance? Maybe you did, but we’re so immersed in process that maybe it’s been overlooked.

A valid permit was not displayed;
A valid permit was not held;
I am entitled to a valid permit....
So get off your a**e .....l

Could have been a natural reaction.

And what’s happened since? Any more parking charge notices? Maybe the permit came through?

But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of process.....

Rant over.
Churchmouse
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 11:24) *
If you were permitted to park there, to which I cannot fnd any reference in your POPLA transcript!!!!!!!, then you were permitted. End of.

Apologies for interrupting your rant, but to further develop this line of reasoning:

If the driver was entitled to park at the location, by virtue of the OP's lease with the landowner/occupier of the land, then there was nothing being offered by the PPC to the OP/driver which could have formed the basis for a contract with the PPC. Most PPC signs in residential areas offer nothing, but instead seek to impose a series of restrictions. So, rather than offering the driver something of value in exchange for his/her agreement to abide by the conditions (one of which being a penalty provision), the offer from the PPC likely included no consideration for the driver's implied agreement with the conditions disclosed on the signage. In order to be enforceable a contract must include an offer, an acceptance and consideration (and intent to enter into legal relations, but this is often implied). Such a PPC contract is legally unenforceable.

But, what about the OP/driver's alleged failure to comply with the parking rules specified in the lease? Yes, if such rules are contained in the lease, or otherwise provided for or referred to in the lease, then the OP would be obliged to comply with them--in exactly the same way the OP is obliged to comply with all other provisions of the lease, such as paying rent, etc. The lease may specify how breaches are to be dealt with, and in extreme cases, the breach of a lease could result in eviction. But the alleged contract with the PPC is completely separate from the OP's lease, and if there is no enforceable contract with the PPC (as explained above), the penalty provisions of the PPC contract are irrelevant. In general, one cannot be forced to enter into a contract with a third party.

--Churchmouse
hcandersen
So why concern oneself with this process?

You want my money for breach of contract? Fine, take me to court and stop p*****g about with all these intermediate steps.

We seem to get so immersed in trying to save motorists who are bang to rights with technical defences that when ( according to the OP) a clear-cut defence hoves into view it’s ignored.

Rant 2 over, pending the OP’s comments.
SchenJen
deleted
Eljayjay
As you are not getting very far with this, I think you need to take stock and try something different.



It sounds pretty obvious from what you have said that you are the tenant of a buy-to-rent landlady who owns the head lease to the property.

That being so, you need to get a copy of her head lease as it will give details of her parking rights and the covenants which go with those rights.

If your landlady will not provide a copy of the head lease, you can obtain your own copy from the Land Registry by completing form OC2 and paying a fee.

So, get a copy of the head lease and come back when you have it. I shall then gladly tell you what you need to look for in the lease.

In a residential case, the head lease is a key document and is likely to be your greatest friend.



Alternatively, you could give the parking company the opportunity to do some work for its money by trying to get your head around the letter below and, if you like it, send it.

In effect, the letter is saying to the parking company, if you believe that you have a right to issue tickets in my parking space, prove it.

The letter was originally drafted for a residential case as a response to a letter before claim/letter of claim – they are the same thing – but it can be sent at any time.

If the parking company does not reply to the letter when it is first used, then you would have lost nothing. Furthermore, you can use a slightly modified version of it as a response to whatever else you receive up to and including the letter before claim/letter of claim.

Of course, in the very unlikely event that the parking company provides a complete response to the draft letter, the information and documentation supplied by them will be very useful to you.

If I were you, I would send the letter today – using first class mail, handing it in at a Post Office counter, and requesting a free certificate of posting – sit back and relax until you receive what, if anything, comes next.



Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your <letter/email/parking charge notice> reference <their ref> of <date> in relation to a parking issue at <location>.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle on which the parking charge notice was placed.

If your company wishes to continue its attempt to recover the alleged parking charge, it will need to establish its right to the money through the County Court.

Before taking court action against me, however, in accordance with The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims as made by the Master of the Rolls as Head of Civil Justice, your company must send me a letter of claim.

The purpose of The Pre-Action Protocol is to give both your company and myself an opportunity to narrow the issues between us. That being so, after the letter of claim has been sent, your company must give me a window of time in which to respond to the letter and to request information and documents from it.

If your company would like me to reconsider my position before we get to that stage, it may wish to provide now the information and documents, which I shall otherwise request later, so that we can attempt to narrow the issues between us now. If so, please arrange for your company to send me the following:-

<tab> the parking agreement between your company and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your company to charge for parking on the land;

<tab> the site plan provided by your company to its accredited trade association;

<tab> a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;

<tab> the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your company claims to adhere;

<tab> if there is a lease governing parking on the land, a copy of the lease;

<tab> if a lease exists and contains express provision to allow your company to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease applicable to this situation;

<tab> if a lease exists and any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with its provisions to allow your company to operate a parking scheme on the land:-

<tab><tab> (a) a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and
<tab><tab> (b) a note of the specific clauses in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

<tab> if a lease exists and it granted individual rights to park on the land to a particular person, e.g. the lessee, a note of the name and address of that person and a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from that person to your company or transferred a share of those individual rights from that person to your company – if there is more than one such person, please provide the same information and documentation for each of them;

<tab> if a lease exists and its terms do not permit third parties, e.g. your company, to enforce the lease’s terms, a note explaining how your company has concluded that it has acquired such a right;

<tab> if a lease exists and your company’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with its provisions, a note explaining how your company has concluded that its alleged parking contract with the driver has acquired primacy of contract over the lease; and

<tab> notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your company to ensure that not only the contract between your company and its principal but also the purported contract between your company and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

Of course, I am sure that, like me, your company has great respect for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and, particularly, its aims as expressed in its paragraph 2. In these circumstances, I am sure that your company would like to narrow and, if at all possible, resolve the issues between us by providing the information and documents requested above at the earliest possible opportunity.

In that event, I shall gladly reconsider my position on receipt of them.

As I am sure you will realise, in the event that your company does not provide the information and documents prior to court action being taken against me, I shall apply to the court for your company’s claim to be struck out for its failure to comply with The Protocol.

Furthermore, in the event of court action being taken against me, I shall launch a counterclaim against your company.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,
nosferatu1001
All that messes about with your crfedit score is a CCJ

The "J" is for JUDGEMENT. A pending claim can do NOTHING. Only if you lose AND you refuse to pay within one month with a CCJ stay on your file. So STOP PANICKING. Also, you need to get out your thread adn read up. Youve asked nothing that hasnt been asked before - its a common issue, you can comfort yourself by seeing youre not alone, or unique here!

Churchmouse
QUOTE (SchenJen @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 22:28) *
1-What IF the contract doesn't explicitly state anything about parking apart from the one or two lines already mentioned in the thread? That doesn't explicitly state that one parking spot is included in the rental agreement. Will that alone stand up in court?

Your situation is not the same as would apply to a leaseholder with a specific assigned space, but it is a common one. Those two "parking" provisions certainly imply that parking is allowed under the terms of your tenancy agreement. It is impossible to say for certain what might "stand up in court" because there are always different ways of looking at things. You could get a judge that irrationally hates PPCs, or one who thinks that if you got a ticket, you must have done something wrong...

But, as I mentioned earlier, the ball's in their court. Nothing will happen unless the PPC decides to file a court claim.

--Churchmouse
hcandersen
If you don’t have your correspondence with the management company, then get it.

Do you have this in writing? If not, get it now.

Dear ****,
You’ll remember that I spoke/wrote to you on *** and *** about the situation regarding the demands from *** for parking wihout a permit. You will recall that you advised me ******.

However, I still do not have the permit, they have not cancelled their demands and ******.

Frankly IMO until you get court papers from **, then your main focus on the offensive should be the management company.

Don’t sideline this part and risk getting drowned in parking process. You have a legitimate complaint, pursue it and don’t go into defensive mode.
SchenJen
Further to my complaint to the BPA, POPLA have re-assessed the evidence properly and have overturned their decision.

I cannot thank the contributors to this thread (and the wider pepipoo community) enough.

@Eljayjay I have kept a copy of your letter and will be trying to get a copy of the head lease (not sre if it will help me as per churchmouse's comment, I might just ask the landlady to amend the contract), so thank you for your effort.

@hcandersen, I do have it in writing and I assure you I will be writing a strongly worded letter to them telling them to work harder for their money.

I am not a rich person by any measure (otherwise I would have put down a deposit for a flat of my own) but if there's a pot that we can contribute to to help with court costs of a user's invalid pcn then I would be happy to contribute.

One thing I noticed from POPLA's response was that it seems they can still issue a valid NTK if they reference the incorrect VRN on the NTD...Can someone explain this to me please?

QUOTE
As the recording of the vehicle registration has been questioned and has been shown differently on the NTD issued to the vehicle the operator must validate its issuance of it. In this instance, the operator supplied a copy of a NTD and NTK recording the correct vehicle details without referencing any incorrect recording of the vehicle details on the NTD issued.
Albert Ross
The only use would be to acknowledge a mistake; and ask you to name the driver, they couldn't invoke keeper liability.
There still would be no requirement to name the driver.
Redivi
Valid for what ?
It still fails POFA

The Notice to Driver is the document attached to the windscreen, not the corrected one sitting in the operator's filing cabinet

Valid to whom ?
If it references the incorrect registration number, it's not the OP's vehicle
Eljayjay
Well done!

Obviously, I hope that your problems are over but...

If you live in a leasehold property (even if you are not the lessee), it is always worth having a copy of the head lease because it sets out the rights and obligations of those who are parties to it.

For a sub-tenant, such as yourself, it is useful to know what your landlord's rights and obligations are.

So, just in case there is a next time, I would obtain a copy of the lease now.

I have probably mentioned before that, if your landlord will not let you have a copy, you can obtain your own copy from the Land Registry by completing a form OC2 and paying the appropriate fee.
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.