Free Traffic Legal Advice

Why would you send anything by post if you can email it? Email is instant and you have a record of sending and delivery. No trees are harmed in the process either!

I refer you to the answer I just gave you in this thread regarding change of address:

Re: Alliance Parking PCN - Padstow Harbour South Quay car park

You need to see the POPLA assessors reasoning for refusing the appeal. You can log into the POPLA website and see the adjudication. Please post it here but do us all al favour and add in a few paragraph breaks to make it more readable.

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified to POPLA or the operator. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the provisions laid out in Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event.
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the PCN correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signs make it clear that there is a 2 hour free stay and any time up to 3 hours is £2.00 and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £70 will be issued. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land 2 hours and 40 minutes. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments as I understand that the crux of their appeal is that the notice to keeper has not met PoFA 2012 requirements. As stated at the start I am satisfied PoFA 2012 has been met, however, will explain my reasons for this finding this below.
They say specifically Schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2) (e) (i) where it states the operator must invite the keeper to pay. They say there is no invitation and only the invitation to the driver to pay. It states in this paragraph: “9 (2) : The notice must— (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;” The notice states: you are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the date issued) the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.” I am satisfied that this wording complies as it is advising the registered keeper should they fail to identify the driver that the operator will pursue them as the registered keeper.
I note they say that the notice does not meet section 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, 2.4 of the BPA Code of Practice as PoFA 2012 has not been met. The BPA monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. These sections of the Code of Practice the appellant is referring to are related to the operator’s membership with the BPA and not POPLA within POPLA’s remit, with as the BPA itself sets out this criterion for operators to meet. If the appellant believes the operator has not met these requirements, I recommend they discuss this with the BPA directly.
I note they mention section 22.6 and 24.3 not being met. Section 22.6 discusses the requirement of following PoFA 2012 requirements if a notice to driver was not issued in the direst instance. As stated above I am satisfied the operator met the requirements. The operator has issued the PCN within the relevant timescales as such I am satisfied it has complied. The date of the event was 8 May 2024 and the PCN was issued to the appellant as the keeper on 11 May 2024, therefore within the 14 day relevant period which begun on 9 May 2024. The notice to keeper does contain this wording yet with ‘if after 29 days’ however, as such I am satisfied as stated that PoFA 2012 requirements were met as amount this time period includes the ‘28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given’. If the appellant is unhappy they did not receive a response from the operator to each point they raised, they would need to take this up separately with the operator and can do so via the following link: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/,
I note they challenge the operator’s rights to enforce parking on this land. They say there is no evidence of landowner authority. They put the operator to strict proof of providing an unredacted evidence of a contract with the landowner and this must meet the BPA Code of Practice section 7 requirements. The contract must set out any genuine exemptions or customer/resident exemptions. They say witness statements are not of sound evidence of the above as they are often pre-signed and generic. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. Section 7.3 lists the contract requirements. The operator has provided a contract with the landowner ASDA Stores Limited. This document confirms that the operator has permission granted by the landowner to enforce and the land it relates to which ASDA Rugby car park. The contract began on 1 May 2016 and on the balance of probabilities the operator is still enforcing and therefore I am satisfied that authority is still in place. The operator would not grant permission for signs to be in place on its land if this was not the case. I do understand there may be differing tariffs on this agreement, however I do not find this has any bearing on the ability for them to comply with the terms and tariffs displayed on the signs on the date. In this case it is clear that the vehicle was parked without paying the relevant tariff to cover their stay after the 2-hour free stay period had been exceeded. There were 40 minutes unpaid and a payment of £2.00 would have been required to cover this time. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the car park. As the vehicle parked without a valid payment, I am satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is refused.

This not the appeal but the counter to the operators response. Also, yes, it may be unsuccessful. SO what? You move on to the next stage.

Quote

IMO, the simple fact that the PCN has been sent to you with detailed payment information-front and centre- including a discount would be taken by many to be an invitation to pay.

PCNs do not have a single mandated form of words but must convey the meaning required.

Having discussed the point about the "invitation" to the keeper with a district judge, the lack of an actual "invitation" to the keeper does indeed invalidate the NtK. In the judges own words regarding PoFA 9(2)(e)... "(e) - not compliant. Not even close".

An "Invitation to Pay"... The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The PE NtK does not and if you believe that the wording "conveys" the "invitation" then, thankfully, you are not a judge. However, your opinion is noted. 

Whilst the POPLA assessor may not agree, a judge certainly is likely to if you can show it.

Whatever happens with your POPLA appeal, should it be unsuccessful, then so be it. It makes no difference to any future action. Don't be put off by the seemingly negativity of the above poster.

The main thing is to point out at this stage, the omissions that PE have made in their operator response.

The ultimate dispute resolution service is the small claims track in the county court.

OP, if this is your first time at POPLA then you should know that assessors have seen everything you've written before. As far as I can see nothing in your shotgun list of points addresses the key issue of whether a parking charge is owing.

I think PE are one of the largest, if not the largest, private parking company. They have not issued a bespoke PCN to you, it's their standard.

And just as you've got a standard PCN, so POPLA assessors have pooh-poohed your standard defence hundreds of times.

IMO, if you have stand-out points then make them, don't obfuscate them. I didn't get any further than your first points one of which was simply a repeat of what you've already said and one of which was simply inapplicable as regards your sitution.

In short: weight of evidence should not be taken literally; assessors have heard it all before - and in truth some have found in favour of appellants; manage your expectations.

And on the point of 'it doesn't really matter', well it will to you if you lose because courts aren't interested in the minutiae of the Code of Practice, they're concerned with legal issues. And PE do take keepers to court.

If all you think you have is failure to 'invite', then bring it front and centre. IMO the missing word 'invite'(or synonym) is not a silver bullet. IMO, the simple fact that the PCN has been sent to you with detailed payment information-front and centre- including a discount would be taken by many to be an invitation to pay.

PCNs do not have a single mandated form of words but must convey the meaning required.

There are several issues with the “Operator Case Summary” provided, which I will detail below:
1.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 1 from my appeal (The Notice to Keeper (attached copy for reference) does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Specifically, in PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, item 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must "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 to pay the unpaid parking charges".
The NtK does not fulfil the requirements of 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation (or synonym thereof) to pay the unpaid parking charges as the registered keeper. There is only the invitation to pay as the driver, or nominate someone else as the driver.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that the NtK does not fulfil the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, item 9(2)(e)(i) & therefore ParkingEye have no right to recover any unpaid charges from myself, as registered keeper.
2.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 2 from my appeal (The NtK does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, e.g. items 2.4, 21.2, 21.13, 22.6 & 24.3.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that they do not comply with the British Parking Association CoP & therefore the appeal should be upheld.
3.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 2.1 from my appeal (BPA CoP item 2.4 states that all AOS  member should be aware of their legal obligations, include the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, which is shown above in point 1 that ParkingEye do not comply with.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that they do not comply with the British Parking Association CoP item 2.4 & therefore ParkingEye have no right to recover any unpaid charges from myself, as registered keeper.
4.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 2.2 from my appeal (BPA CoP item 21.2 states that as long as the strict conditions of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 are met, unpaid parking charges can be reclaimed from the keeper, rather than the driver of the vehicle. As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 aren't met and therefore there is no right to reclaim the unpaid parking charge from myself, as the registered keeper of the vehicle.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that they do not comply with the British Parking Association CoP item 21.2 & therefore the liability of the PCN cannot be passed to myself, as registered keeper.
5.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 2.3 from my appeal (BPA CoP item 21.13 states "You should see the relevant part of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to make sure you know: what contents you need to include in the Notice to Keeper (paragraph 8(2) or 9(2))" As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 is not met.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that they do not comply with the British Parking Association CoP item 21.13 & therefore ParkingEye have no right to recover any unpaid charges from myself, as registered keeper.
6.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 2.4 from my appeal (BPA CoP item 22.6 states "If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9)." As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 is not met.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that they do not comply with the British Parking Association CoP item 22.6 & therefore the liability of the PCN cannot be passed to myself, as registered keeper.
7.   ParkingEye have not attempted to counter point 2.5 from my appeal (BPA CoP item 24.3 states "Under POFA 2012, you can gain the right to recover unpaid charges from keepers only if particular conditions have been met. Once the conditions are met you may use your right to recover, after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the Notice to Keeper was given. You should read paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to understand what these conditions are" As shown above in point 1, Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 is not met, and therefore there is no right to recover unpaid charges from the myself, as the registered keeper.), therefore it can be considered accepted by ParkingEye that they do not comply with the British Parking Association CoP item 24.3 & therefore ParkingEye have no right to recover any unpaid charges from myself, as registered keeper.
8.   As shown above, ParkingEye have made no attempt to rebuttal any of the points made in my appeal, therefore it can be assumed that they have accepted these points & as a result, the Appeal should be upheld & the PCN cancelled.
9.   ParkingEye have not provided a contract that meets the requirements in point 3 from my appeal, as the Contract shown on on page 10/11 has the grace period redacted. This is an integral part of the contract, and therefore a contract with this information redacted should not be accepted.
10.   The Rules and Conditions stated on Page 4 specify a 2 hour free stay, with a tariff applying upto a maximum stay of 3 hours (which matches the photos of the signage), whereas the contract provided on page 10 &11 states 1 hour free stay, with a maximum stay of 2 hours, indicating the published T&Cs do not follow the contract ParkingEye has with the land owner.
11.   On page 5, it states "You have stated that you do not believe that theParking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant,unfair or unreasonable". I have made no such claim in my appeal wording.

I have demonstrated multiple reasons why my appeal should be upheld.