Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Notice to Keeper - Staines Road Retail Park
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
aldermartin
Dear Colleagues,

I received a Notice to Keeper whilst parked at Staines Road Retail Park.

Previously the parking was free for two hours but now it's ninety minutes. I entered at 14:10 and left at 16:01. So 90 pounds for a half-hour overstay feels excessive.
I do have a receipt for a purchase I made at a store in the car park on the day of the visit.

Have noticed the signage states 'no return within 2 hours' and yet maximum stay is 90 minutes ? - is this not confusing ?

I have scanned and uploaded the Notice to Keeper - not sure if it is correctly worded and also the sign in the car park.

Not sure what argument to use as I know that the genuine pre-estimate of loss argument has been weakened by the Supreme Court.

Any help is appreciated

Thanks
Sheffield Dave
if they change the parking conditions, they're supposed to have prominent signs warning you of the fact.
aldermartin
Have noticed the signage states 'no return within 2 hours' and yet maximum stay is 90 minutes ? - is this not confusing ?
ostell
I think this should do for starters:

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc

First class post with free certificate of posting from any post office

Has the driver contacted the shops they were visiting?

There also the period of parking that is not stated.

The period was probably reduced because they were not getting enough income from the greater period
aldermartin
Para 9(2): Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(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;

Ostell, the Notice to Keeper states "You are notified under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of the POFA2012....that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them".

Are you saying that the wrong section has been quoted by the parking company as Para 9(2)(b) ( when it should be Para 9(2)(e) - making the Notice to Keeper defective ?

Also, the fifth paragraph of the Notice to Keeper, the parking company has stated 29 days ( instead of 28 days which is required under the POFA2012 under section 9(2)(f) ) - is this a further defect ?


Thanks
ostell
They have quoted the correct section for the statement that follows about the driver being liable. They haven't invited the keeper to pay, only name the driver. Both required by (e)

The 29 days is because POFA states 28 days beginning with the day after, ie 29 from. Strictly incorrect but close enough.
aldermartin
Thank you ostell

Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, section 13 (1) states that a contract ( should it be formed ), is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided.

If the sign states 'maximum stay 90 minutes' but it also states 'no return within 2 hours' - these terms conflict and will confuse the consumer. How can you remain parked for 90 minutes ( and leave on the 90th minute ) but not return within two hours ( which includes the 90 minutes ) to remove the car ?.

Shall I include this in the letter or wait until the letter is rejected by the car parking company, and put this argument to POPLA ?.
ostell
I don't believe the statements contradict. You can park for 90 minutes but once you've left with car then you can't return to park again for 2 hours.
Sheffield Dave
The terms don't conflict. After entering the car park, the car must leave the park within 90 minutes. Once left, the car must not return for 2 hours.

Interpreting "no return within 2 hours" as "the driver may not physically walk into the the car park" is not going to swing with POPLA or a judge.
aldermartin
Thank you guys.

So it looks like the only strength in my case is the defective 'Notice to Keeper' whereby it doesn't comply in regards to compulsory wording required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ?.
nosferatu1001
Not the only one, obviously. Every single case also challenges standing and signage. But pofa should be enough.
ostell
So no period of parking given. Moving in front of a camera cannot, by definition, be parking

And the failure to comply with the requirements of PIFA so the keeper cannot be held liable
aldermartin
Dear Colleagues,

Eurocar parks have sent me a Notice of Rejection to my representations ( link below ).
Please can someone help with a draft appeal - The original notice to owner is also attached - please click on the links

If you look at the sentences underlined in red, apparently there is another outstanding notice. If I manage to find it (assuming they have sent it to me ), then I will scan and upload it.

Thank you.

Scan of Letter of Rejection from EuroCar Parks
Original Notice to Owner
nosferatu1001
No, its a NtK, not NtO

No, you look on the website for the dozens of popla appeals and tailor one to suit.

You need to appeak that other PCN as well, pointing out that no NtK has been served on you therefore there is no Keeper liability.
aldermartin
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 16:09) *
No, its a NtK, not NtO

No, you look on the website for the dozens of popla appeals and tailor one to suit.

You need to appeak that other PCN as well, pointing out that no NtK has been served on you therefore there is no Keeper liability.


Can I send my appeal to POPLA by email ( to: appeals.admin@popla.org.uk ) or should I go to POPLA's website and submit the appeal on line ? ( I have just noticed that POPLA's website does not have the option that the Parking Charge Notice was not issued correctly ( doesn't comply with POFA 2012 ) - which option do I use ? )

Thanks
The Rookie
Option - 'Other' obviously!

Just enter 'see attached' for the appeal and attach your appeal printed as a PDF.
aldermartin
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 16:18) *
Option - 'Other' obviously!

Just enter 'see attached' for the appeal and attach your appeal printed as a PDF.


Hi, thanks.

I've typed my appeal in Microsoft Word format and uploaded it as a doc file on the POPLA website. Thank you for your help.
nosferatu1001
Pdf output is better. Means it can't view incorrectly on their systems.
aldermartin
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 16:18) *
Option - 'Other' obviously!

Just enter 'see attached' for the appeal and attach your appeal printed as a PDF.


I've appealed to POPLA and Euro Car Parks have submitted their evidence ( file scans below ). POPLA are asking for my response to Euro Car Parks evidence. I've enclosed a scan of my appeal letter to POPLA below ( when I first submitted my evidence ).
Can I ask how I respond to their evidence or do I refer POPLA to my first appeal letter ?.

Any help much appreciated.

My Initial POPLA Appeal Letter Page 1
POPLA Appeal Letter Page 2
POPLA Appeal Letter Page 3
POPLA Appeal Letter Page 4

Euro Car Parks Evidence Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
ostell
So you rebut anything that you disagree with in the ECP statement, such as there is NO responsibility on the keeper to inform them of the driver details.
nosferatu1001
WHy do peope ask this like it is somehow new?
There are dozens of threads showing you how to question the PPCs evidence. Its easy. I wont reiterate it here.
aldermartin
Dear Colleagues,

As an update. Both appeals for the two private parking tickets have been refused. I don't understand how the adjudicators arrived at the decision that both Notices are POFA 2012 compliant and liability can be transferred to the keeper, when arguments were made stating they clearly did not comply ?.
The adjudicator appears to have put more weight on the vehicle using the car park on two different occasions as grounds for validating two non-compliant private parking tickets from Parking Eye.

I have now received two letters from Debt Recovery Plus each demanding 150 pounds each.

Please can someone tell me what the next course of action is and the likelihood of Parking Eye enforcing this in the County Court ?.


My appeal letter to POPLA on scanned links:
Appeal Letter Page 1
POPLA Appeal Page 2
POPLA Page 3
POPLA Page 4


A summary of the Adjudicators decision below:

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below.
The appellant states the PCN does not comply with various aspects of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
The appellant says the PCN does not comply with The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice.
The appellant questions the operator’s authority to act on the land.
The appellant has questioned signage at the site.
The appellant has questioned the validity of the images used by the operator on the PCN.
The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal. 

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle was. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of PoFA 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle.


The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the PoFA 2012 raised by the appellant, and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle, and it is their liability for the PCN I will be considering.
nosferatu1001
If its gone to DRP, basically zero chance they will go ot court. PE dont mess about, if they see a winning claim, they file quickly.

If youve been following many threads, you will see how poorly POPLA assessors are trained
They ve been told PE NtKs are compliant, so you will never get them to rule against them on that point.

What response did you give to their evidnce? Did they fully answer every appeal? Is that the ENTIRE POPLA assessors rationle?
ostell
How did the IPC get into the appeal?
aldermartin
This is the adjudicators full decision:

Assessor summary of reasons:

 The signage at the site states: “…THIS CAR PARK IS CONTROLL, FAILURE TO COMPLY WIH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £90 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…MAXIMUM STAY 90 MINUTES MONDAY – SUNDAY (06:00 TO 20:59)…”.

The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the motorist was at the car park for one hour 51 minutes, which is 21 minutes longer than allowed.


Having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions offered with a helpline number to use if a motorist needs assistance.


The operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to parking for longer than the maximum time allowed.
As the appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, I will address each in turn.
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle was. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of PoFA 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle.


The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the PoFA 2012 raised by the appellant, and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle, and it is their liability for the PCN I will be considering.

The operator that issued the PCN are not a member of the IPC, not have they claimed to be, therefore, this ground raised by the appellant has no relevance and does not need to be considered.

Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a redacted license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Further, there is signage situated around the site as well as cameras, if the landowner did not want the operator to manage the site, I am fairly confident they would not all such equipment within the site.

In relation to signage, Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states:

“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states,

“You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. The entrance sign at the site states: “…Private land…”, and not the wording claimed by the appellant. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site.

The parking operator has provided specific evidence documenting the vehicle entering and leaving the site at the times mentioned on the PCN, while the appellant has been unable to provide any evidence, which would cast doubt on the legitimacy of these images. , I must accept that the images provided are a true reflection of the vehicles’ movements on the date of the contravention.

As the site has a maximum time, it is the responsibility of the motorist to make adjustments and leave the site before they exceed the time allowed.

It is the duty of the motorist to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions.

As they exceeded the maximum time allowed, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions.

As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. 

Kind regards


POPLA Team
nosferatu1001
Thank you, but I asked 3 questions and you answered one...
aldermartin
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 10:36) *
Thank you, but I asked 3 questions and you answered one...


Hi nosferatu1001,

What response did you give to their evidence? - Please see my post dated the 30th January

Did they fully answer every appeal? - No reasons given as to why they thought the NTK was POFA 2012 compliant.

Is that the ENTIRE POPLA assessors rationle? - yes it is.
nosferatu1001
WHich post number? No post gives YOUR response to THEIR evidence upload = the one where you get 7 days to comment

aldermartin


Should I write to the Retail Stores at that site ? or should I write to the owners of the retail park ? to request that the tickets be cancelled ?.
nosferatu1001
Owners of the retail park, but theyll likely tell you that, as its gone to POPLA, its too late for them to intervene. Of course its not too late for them to requewst cancellation, but it might be past the poit at which the PPC is *required* to cancel upon request - it depends on their contract.

You didnt answer my questions.
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.