Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: lisapanini on May 09, 2024, 12:29:13 pm

Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: DWMB2 on May 14, 2024, 09:04:14 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on May 14, 2024, 08:44:29 pm
There's a standard form of words for an appeal.
As they say on Blue Peter, "Here's one I made earlier":

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a compliant Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,

If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 35 days, chase them.
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: H C Andersen on May 14, 2024, 08:44:29 pm
OP, do you see the words Protection of Freedoms Act or the term PoFA anywhere on the notice?

If, like me, the answer is no, then this tells you what type of NTK you have.

There are 2 distinct types:

1. That in which the creditor reserves the right to hold the keeper liable in lieu of the driver, and
2. Simply notifying the keeper that the driver has been a scoundrel and not paid the tariff and parking charge but not seeking to hold the keeper liable in lieu. The creditor has 7 months in which to serve this NTK.

Your notice falls under 2, not 1. So do not concern yourself with PoFA-related matters: they're not relying on PoFA, therefore PoFA deadlines don't apply.

The confusing factors are that the British Parking Association(BPA)'s Code of Practice and their independent arbitration service, POPLA, entertain notices sent under either 1 or 2.

The creditor is not relying upon PoFA therefore IMO it's of little value telling them what they know already.

There's a standard form of words for an appeal.
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: b789 on May 14, 2024, 05:59:25 pm
Have a read of it yourself. PoFA 9(5) states:

The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Sub paragraph (4) states:

The notice must be given by—

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(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.

So, look at the dates on the NtK you have shown us. The date of the alleged contravention is 1st April 2024. The date that the notice was issued is 3rd May 2024.

If they wish to rely on PoFA to hold you, the keeper liable and they do not know the identity of the driver (they don't unless you blabbed it to them), then the NtK must have been received by the keeper no later than 1st April plus 14 days. They must allow 2 working days from the date of the NtK for it to have been deemed delivered. So, the date of the NtK should not have been any later than 12th April 2024.

The date on the NtK is 3rd May 2024. So, the NtK was not received in time for it to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 9(5).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: lisapanini on May 14, 2024, 05:47:25 pm
Quote from: b789 on May 09, 2024, 06:19:02 pm
Thank you for showing the other half of the front of the NtK. However, you need to redact the PCN number and your VRN otherwise anyone with an evil sense of humour could lodge an appeal on you behalf that doesn't help your cause.

Aside from that, the notice is not PoFA compliant and only the driver (whose identity they do not know unless you blab it) can be liable. They cannot transfer liability to you, the keeper, because it fails PoFA 9(5) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted).

Assuming the previous one you paid was the same, you could have saved yourself some money and not funded their scam.

You should appeal with the following (verbatim):

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.

Hello,

Thank you for the appeal wording provided. Please could you clarify which part of the PoFA it doesn't comply with? Just so I can understand on what grounds I would be appealing it.

Thank you!


Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: b789 on May 09, 2024, 07:02:31 pm
Never mind. Reposted here, fully redacted:

(https://i.imgur.com/zRlNm4z.jpeg)
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: DWMB2 on May 09, 2024, 06:25:25 pm
CP has removed the attachment.
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: b789 on May 09, 2024, 06:19:02 pm
Thank you for showing the other half of the front of the NtK. However, you need to redact the PCN number and your VRN otherwise anyone with an evil sense of humour could lodge an appeal on you behalf that doesn't help your cause.

Aside from that, the notice is not PoFA compliant and only the driver (whose identity they do not know unless you blab it) can be liable. They cannot transfer liability to you, the keeper, because it fails PoFA 9(5) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted).

Assuming the previous one you paid was the same, you could have saved yourself some money and not funded their scam.

You should appeal with the following (verbatim):

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: lisapanini on May 09, 2024, 05:30:56 pm
Quote from: b789 on May 09, 2024, 12:54:41 pm
Without showing both sides of the NtK, including all dates, there is little to go on.

Having paid one already, you were marked as a “mug” and will continue to be harassed by this. Having admitted liability once, you have made it much more difficult to defend.

It’s good that you’ve come here for assistance but the damage has already been done. It is not irrecoverable, just more problematic to deal with.

Have you tried Plan A yet? What complaints have you made about the problem with “CitiPark”? Are CitiPark the landowner? Why do you continue to park there, knowing about this problem?

Apologies, I have now posted the full page. I continue to park there because it's convenient, the gym offers a 25% discount, and it means I don't have to walk far alone when I go later in the evening. I think Citipark are the landowner and I'm assuming they contract Baysentry to deal with this stuff? I'm not quite sure, sorry, I've only recently started driving and am new to all of this. Any time I speak to them on the phone and complain about the app they just apologise and say they're working on it so I'm not sure how I can further that complaint.
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: b789 on May 09, 2024, 01:29:49 pm
In the NtK, it says that the “vehicle” has breached the terms and conditions. If that is the case, they should hold the “vehicle” liable.

In reality, it is the “driver” who has breached any contractual terms. There is an attempt in the wording to rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the “driver” (whose identity they have no idea”) to the “keeper”. I don’t see anywhere in the NtK (what we can see of it) any mention that the driver is liable which means that the wording is not strictly in compliance with PoFA (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted).
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: b789 on May 09, 2024, 12:58:02 pm
I note that you’ve edited the original post to include the back of the NtK. However, we need to see the dates and times that you’ve hidden on the picture of the front of the NtK.

You only need to redact your personal details, PCN number and your VRN.
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: b789 on May 09, 2024, 12:54:41 pm
Without showing both sides of the NtK, including all dates, there is little to go on.

Having paid one already, you were marked as a “mug” and will continue to be harassed by this. Having admitted liability once, you have made it much more difficult to defend.

It’s good that you’ve come here for assistance but the damage has already been done. It is not irrecoverable, just more problematic to deal with.

Have you tried Plan A yet? What complaints have you made about the problem with “CitiPark”? Are CitiPark the landowner? Why do you continue to park there, knowing about this problem?
Title: Re: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: DWMB2 on May 09, 2024, 12:33:25 pm
To help us help you, please read the following thread and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
Title: Baysentry/Citipark PCNs
Post by: lisapanini on May 09, 2024, 12:29:13 pm
Hey guys,

I've recently started parking at Citipark and the app almost never works, it takes your money so you think you've paid then it will refund you (and if you've already driven off, you won't even notice!). The times I've noticed this has happened, I've called them up the next day and paid but they told me I can't do that anymore. I use the machines when I can but 1) they don't accept ApplePay, 2) they always have a queue and sometimes I forget and am in the car so don't want to go back out. I've now received 2 fines for days that I didn't realise the app didn't work and it's just infuriating as they are providing a service but it doesn't work! There's no signs anywhere in the car park either saying the app doesn't work. I tried to appeal the first one on the grounds that I thought I had paid, that I park there multiple times a week and always pay or call to pay, and that it's THEIR app that doesn't work and is causing this problem but it was rejected, so I paid it. I've now received another one and I've just had enough, is there any better way I can appeal it?

[attachment deleted by admin]