Free Traffic Legal Advice

@DWMB2, thank you for your reply, and @b789 for your prior suggestions which I have leant on heavily!

I intend to appeal to POPLA as follows; grateful for any suggestions (in particular, I am tempted to remove anything apart from POFA failure, or at least remove [3] and [4]: since the POFA failure on its own means they have no case to pursue, introducing the rest seems as though it may invite discussion that is not necessary?)

with thanks for your input,

A6


= = = = = =  DRAFT  = = = = = =
POPLA Appeal, ref xxxxxxxx
‘Parking Charge’, ref: AT5144746
 
The Parking Charge ref. AT5144746 is appealed, on the same grounds as prior correspondence with TPS.

I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
 

[1] The Parking Charge notice is not POFA compliant

1.1       The Parking Charge letter, sent to the Registered Keeper, fails to “specify the period of parking” (POFA Paragraph 9, (2)(a)). The letter shows “observation times” rather than a “period of parking”, which falls short of the statutory wording and intent.
 
1.2       The Parking Charge letter, sent to the Registered Keeper, fails to invite the Registered Keeper to pay the parking charges sought; which is required by POFA (POFA Paragraph 9, (2)(e)(i)).

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by TPS does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, TPS is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance with POFA 2012 is not sufficient. TPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only, TPS fails to identify the driver, and TPS may make no inference or assumption as to the identity of the driver. This Parking Charge cannot be pursued further by TPS, and should be cancelled.
 
 
 
While either (and both) of the POFA failures (above) is sufficient on its own merits to warrant the cancellation of the Parking Charge, I additionally appeal on the grounds that:
 

[2] Unfair / Unclear term: lack of transparency of qualifying condition
A qualifying condition / term was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver (see Consumer Rights Act 2015, transparency & prominence).

TPS's own signage photographs (which are not contemporaneous with the date of the alleged event) demonstrate that “patients and visitors may park” and contain, in small print, a further requirement to “validate” parking inside the surgery. TPS have provided no contemporaneous evidence that this qualifying term was prominently and clearly brought to the driver’s attention at the point of parking or decision-making, as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (transparency and prominence).

The driver fell within the class of “patients and visitors” who are entitled to park. Any alleged failure to follow a hidden or insufficiently prominent validation process is a direct consequence of TPS's inadequate signage. If users of the car park must enter the Vehicle Registration Mark at the reception desk, this is a “qualifying condition” for parking. Details must be prominent at the point of decision, but the signage does not make this adequately clear.


[3] Proof & Signage: No proof of parking
The Parking Charge letter, and TPS’ online portal, show only ANPR-style images at entry and exit. TPS has not shown that the vehicle was parked in a location to which terms applied, nor provided firm evidence for a ‘period of parking’. The breach and applicable sign for the location have not been proven. The vehicle was not left unattended, and no contract was formed.


[4] Entitlement to park
Even if ‘parked’ (which is not admitted), a "visitor or patient" was present, and thus had entitlement to free parking. Any breach was caused by the parking operator’s failure to signpost the Vehicle Registration Mark entry process adequately.


TPS's failure to fully comply with the statutory requirements of POFA (2012) is sufficient reason for this Parking Charge to be cancelled; with the additional factors noted also taken into account, it is proportionate and reasonable that the Parking Charge should be cancelled.

Yours,

A6

= = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = =

Greetings. Thank you, @b789, for your help previously; an update to this one:

TPS have replied as follows:
Letter: https://ibb.co/HTfJT3Rc
Images: https://ibb.co/fdxhH9SG

As far as I can see, they haven't got much to go on. There's not even a renewed request or threat to pay up.

- TPS say I have said I am not the driver, and ask for the driver's details. This is not correct. My appeal wrote only "There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.".

- TPS attempt to use a threat of POFA. In fairness to them they do say "subject to meeting the requirements of the act", but we already know they have failed to do so... so as I understand it they cannot hold the keeper liable.

- TPS claimed their signage is adequate, and attach two images (both from March 2024).
These are unhelpful inasmuch as the larger sign says (small print!) "patients and visitors must validate their parking inside the surgery"; and also helpful, as they are clear that both patients and visitors may park.

- TPS ask for an appointment letter, presumably to show a patient was parking to attend an appointment.
I do not think this is necessary to produce (and the driver does not have one): the T&C's do not say "only patients attending an appointment" (as opposed to, e.g., going in to confirm details, drop off a sample, or return / collect a form, etc.), and clearly additionally states "Visitors".


Instinctively I would reply to the effect that:
A = They have failed POFA compliance (as before: did not specify period of parking; failure to invite keeper; no stat. warning per POFA 9-2-f). On these ground alone the charge must be cancelled.
B = correction on acknowledgement of driver (I did not say I wasn't the driver, I said there will be no admission, etc.)
C = the part of the signage requesting parking to be 'registered inside' was neither prominent nor conspicuous, so not adequately brought to the attention of the driver (CRA 2015 — transparency and prominence).
D = None of the terms now shown make a requirement for a "patient or visitor" to be in possession of an appointment letter, so this is an irrelevance.


Does this seem a sensible approach? Or is it clearer to simply reply and rely on POFA, without bothering with the rest (which might stimulate unnecessary discussion and correspondence), if POFA failures are the clear-cut route to dismissal?

with thanks for your thoughts,


A6.


 

Hello all,

I am in receipt of a Parking Charge notice from TPS, image below.

From reading round FTLA, it looks to me as though there are grounds for appeal:
[1]
- the notice fails to comply with POFA para 9, (2) (e) (i), as it does not invite the RK to pay the charges

May I ask your advice / opinion as to whether this is sufficient?
(My understanding is that the RK is under no obligation to identify the driver, and if the NtK does not comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, the RK cannot hold me liable for the charge.)

https://ibb.co/twP6BN1S

Other: as a secondary, and less clear-cut approach, I'd be interested in whether it could be argued that:
[2]
- the driver did not, in fact, park

The evidence provided shows the vehicle entering and exiting, which the drive would, I suspect, not dispute.
The carpark in question is signed as for the use of patients and doctors of the NHS; as a patient under current care of that NHS Trust, the driver was perfectly entitled to park free-of-charge. They did not, however, leave the vehicle to go in to reception (where it transpires, but unknown at the time, they would have needed to enter the numberplate in to a system). If the driver simply waited in their vehicle, not parked in a parking space (in order, for example, to change and soothe a soiled and screaming infant), would this be 'not parking'? Does the lack of good evidence for 'parking' count for anything? Or is this line of enquiry too vague or specious to be of use?

with thanks for your thoughts,


A6.

Thank you. I don't disagree there are more important things, but I do consider this to be of some importance too. At one level, it's 'thin end of the wedge' territory.

There are established procedures to go through - including consultation - to turn a road in to a genuine 20mph zone. If councils and others start to believe they can shortcut the standards of having professionals (traffic and roadway design in this case) make an assessment, giving notice, taking opinions, allowing objections to be heard, assessing carefully, etc. etc., and simply shortcut to whatever a few councillors wish, by putting up look-a-like signs, where will it stop? Not at speed signs, that's for sure.