Received a notice to registered keeper today from PCN Admin Centre, who it says are a trading name for ZZPS Ltd, who's website is www.iPayMYPcn.net and the creditor is Highview Parking ltd. What a trail!

Anyway, reading FAQs, etc the only thing about the notice that I think may be non compliant is that it only states a contravention date & time and issue reason "Vehicle parked on private property in breach of the priminently displayed terms and conditions".

Does this comply with POFA 9(2)(a) which requires the "specified period" and 9(2)© which requires the "circumstances".

It all implies that the vehicle overstayed in a retail car park and photos on their website show two photos 2hr 38m apart, presumably one entering and one exiting the car park. They have given no photos of the signage or explicitly stated that the vehicle overstayed by a certain time or anything. I have looked on street view and there is signage (but can't tell how compliant without visiting).

Thanks.

Unfortunately, a strong appeal to Highview originally would have seen them cancel this, possibly within 2 hours!

Ignore ZZPS, etc. The next thing that will need a proper response is a Letter before Claim. Highview have not been known to do court but they do have 6 years to try.

Thanks cabbyman. When you say that a strong appeal originally would have seen them cancel it; this is the first parking charge notice (to keeper) received today, so it can be appealed now. Do you think the appeal has a chance on the POFA clauses I mentioned?

I have attached the PCN that was received...
Click to view attachment

So Highview have finally woken up and smelt the coffee... After years and years of issuing non-PoFA notices they've outsourced it.

They've never gone to court and I don't see that changing.

Shame they still can't get it right (well not really). Where is 9 (2) (e) and period of parking?

I have started to draft an appeal based on:

- PCN does not specify the period of parking, as required by 9(2)(a)

- PCN does not specify the circumstances, as required by 9(2)©

- PCN does not explicitly state that the creditor does not know the name and address of the driver as required by 9(2)(e) [thanks ostell]

- photos show the car at two times (presumably entering and leaving, though that isn't stated) but the car is on the move and no details/evidence of actual parking has been given. (I am told that this was the Black Friday weekend and that there were horrendous queues entering and leaving that car park.)

- add that I require proof of the terms that were supposedly breached (i.e. photos of signs) and details of their authorisation from the landowner and if this is about an overstay then grace periods and exclusions.

I'm not convinced that the signage is compliant, especially with warnings about ANPR, but I would need to take a trip there to check that so it might have the wait until later in the process if they reject the appeal.


Can anyone spot any other issues with the PCN that I can raise?

Thanks,

The '29 days/date given' doesn't feel quite right...

It's not quite right but if it went to court I don't think it would get anywhere the actual words are "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given". pedantically not correct but it is still correct.

I
Yes, but POPLA can be pedants.

Indeed, I often say that 'substantively compliant' will be ok with the Judge...

I just noticed that the NtK doesn't specify the total amount of the charge, only "£60 if paid within 14 days". No mention of what happens to that amount after 14 days.

Does this help with any arguments?

I'm guessing that at the very least this means the most they can ever demand is £60, under paragraph 4(5).

Yep, the amount on the NtK is £60. There is no higher amount so nothing else can be claimed.

Appeal to PPC rejected. Surprise, Surprise. On to POPLA.

Obviously a standard reject template with all the waffle about Beavis which was nothing to do with the appeal points I made.

Click to view attachment

'It is without doubt your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforceable'.

That's a bold statement.

In case it isn't obvious, if an appeal is rejected, ZZPS puts on its debt collector hat to chase the payment

The only surprise is that it's issued a POPLA code
It used to go to enormous lengths to find reasons that there hadn't been a real appeal so it didn't have to issue one

Might have something to do with the £30 that POPLA charges if the code is used

Very interesting that ZZPS have mucked this up so that the NTK fails to state the amount of the unpaid parking charge (which the sign and the rejection letter have at £100 but the NTK omits).

Nicely dropped ball by ZZPS (PCN Admin Centre).

Highview are not practised in POPLA appeal evidence against decent registered keeper appeals, as they used to duck out of them until now.

So throw all the POFA omissions into point #1, including an embedded image of that NTK, proving to POPLA that it fails to mention £100 and thus, there can be no £100 in play at all.

Then add the usual other POPLA template points from MSE parking forum NEWBIES thread (post #3 of that sticky thread on MSE). Show us your POPLA draft.

lengthy popla appeal in progress thanks to this fantastic forum and stickies on MSE. Just waiting to take a trip to photo the signs.

Will post when ready. Thanks!

Do POPLA publish their decisions? I can't find them if so, but many templates I am looking at quote previous decisions (e.g. one MSE template references POPLA decision 5960956830).

No but if you look on completed cases, you should find some cases.

So having now become very familiar with PoFA, this forum and the MSE forum (and quite enjoyed the learning curve), I have drafted what I think is a robust appeal based largely on the MSE newbies template. Amazing how many holes can be found when you look closely.
Not sure if readers would prefer it to be pasted here directly, but as it contains photos I have attached as pdf.

Click to view attachment

Yep that looks good to me.

great. thanks. will update when result is received.

Response from popla:

Highview Parking ZZPS have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Thanks for all the help!

For anybody finding this in future who may be able to use the details, this was at Chaul End Lane Retail Park, Luton.

It's wrong. It doesn't follow statute and the notice is bad.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html






(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (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;

(4)The notice must be given by—

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

Highview cases are easy to win - many thanks for confirming for newbies to see it is true!