Free Traffic Legal Advice

Got the result today - Appeal Unsuccessful! This seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Here is the semi-literate reasoning from the assessor:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • Registered keeper/ driver • Failure to comply with PoFA • Understanding keeper liability • Rejection of appeal In support of this appeal the appellant has evidence the following: • A word document elaborating on their grounds of appeal I will take the above into account. The appellant has commented on the parking operators case file reiterating their grounds of appeal and expanding on those.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signs at this site advise that parking tariffs apply. Up to 3 hours is £3.00. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator has evidenced the appellant’s vehicle parked on site for the duration of 2 hours and 35 minutes. A payment report has been provided which shows that the appellant purchased 2 hours parking time that day. The appellant has overstayed the parking time by 35 minutes. No payment was made for the additional overstay. I note the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal and so, I will be addressing each ground individually.

• Registered keeper/ driver/ Understanding keeper liability They say they are the registered keeper and was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the event. They raise the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. When a parking operator does not know who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the alleged offence, it will look to pursue the registered keeper using PoFA 2012. When doing so, schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA must be followed. Paragraph 9 states; 9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (4)The notice must be given by— (5)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. I have reviewed the notice to keeper and I can see that the date of the contravention was 27 July 2023 and the PCN was issued on 1 August 2023. This was within the 14 day time limit. As such, PoFA 2012 has been met and the appellant as the registered keeper can now be held liable for any unpaid parking charges.

The appellant has referred to a statement made by a barrister [who is the former head of POPLA] in regards to keeper liability. As stated above the notice has met the requirements laid out in PoFA 2012 [except it hasn't] and so I will not comment on the information noted by the barrister. Within their comments, they say the parking operator has stated, “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. They say this contradicts what is on the PCN itself as it states it has been issued under PoFA. I understand the confusion caused however it is my view that a typographical error has been made in the case file. It can be seen that the PCN was issued under PoFA. [And what about the second PCN issued three weeks later stated not to be under POFA? Was the whole thing a typo?]

• Failure to comply with PoFA. The parking operator has failed to specify the location of the relevant land as required in paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012. They say a google search shows that there are 9 different ‘St Michaels courts’. Whilst I appreciate their concerns, within PoFA 2012 under schedule 4, paragraph 9 it states; “The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. By stating relevant land, it does not require a full site address including postal code. Therefore, I am satisfied that ‘St Michaels Court’ does identify the car park where the appellant parked and meets PoFA 2012 paragraph 9. • Rejection of appeal They say that the parking operator has failed to respond to the key points of their appeal regarding the location of the car park. I do understand how frustrating this may be not having received a detailed response to their appeal from the parking operator however POPLA does not work for or on behalf of the parking operator’s and so, we cannot become involved in any complaints regarding failures in its service. The appellant would need to raise this to the parking operator directly- [which of course I did on  several occasions]. On reviewing this case, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly as insufficient time was purchased for their stay. This appeal has been refused.

So all that matters is whether the vehicle overstayed the time purchased it seems. It matters not a jot whether the PPC is pursuing the keeper or the driver, it matters not a jot whether the PPC gives an identifiable address for the "relevant land" [suppose it had just said High Street?], it does not matter whether they meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012, it does not matter if they issue the PCN under POFA and then contradict themselves by saying it is not issued under POFA because this is just a typo [did the assessor go back to Parking Eye and ask them if it was a typo?]. To my mind this has all the hallmarks of an "independent" adjudicator that is firmly in the pocket of the private parking industry. I feel pretty confident that the London Tribunals would have thrown this one out if it had been a LA behaving like this. Anything further I can do here?

Do you mean that if I don't pay up PE would pursue me through the courts? I was really meaning was there anything further I could do to challenge the decision? It really seems perverse - all this Ashlea has concentrated on is "did the car exceed the time paid for?" and the answer is yes. I have never disputed that. And no I wasn't the driver and I have exercised my right not to say who was.

But to say that it's fine for PE just to put the name of the car park on the PCN with no other form of address and that counts as  "specifying the relevant land" is bizarre! What about if  the address of the car park was High Street Anytown and all they put down was High Street, there would be hundreds of them! And as for the issue of a second PCN this time expressed not to be under POFA, the whole thing was a typo? Did she ask PE if it was a typo?

And the adjudicator herself has mixed up  the driver and the registered keeper. Note this:

the appellant purchased 2 hours parking time that day. The appellant has overstayed the parking time by 35 minutes

Oh no I didn't. I am the appellant and the registered keeper but I did not park the car in the car park nor pay for a ticket! And as for sympathising with me that PE never addressed the question of location "but there's nothing we can do about that because we don't act for the operator" this is just wholly disingenuous. As well as dismissing what the previous head of POPLA said about the need for strict compliance with POFA. Frankly the whole judgment is just so riddled with holes that it makes me wonder whether there was a backhander involved 

And I would not be going to court on the grounds of "prove it was me that was driving" because PE has been given the thumbs up by POPLA to pursue me as the registered keeper because "the notice has met the requirements laid out in POFA" and so they don't have to show I was the driver. Despite saying they hadn't issued the notice under POFA!

But it seems there is no possibility of a formal review of the decision as there would be with London Tribunals. I can obviously write to POPLA and point out the holes in the judgment but are they likely just to say "this is not appealable to us so it's going in the bin?"

If I do want to take it further is it me initiating the court case or do I sit back, not pay, and wait for PE to take me to court?

The main issue seems to be one of judgement rather than fact (I.e. The assessor judged that the location was specific enough for PoFA liability to apply)

She also judged that the issue of a new PCN with no reference to POFA, and to which the log obtained from PE referred to as "non-POFA" was a "typo" which is a hell of a leap  of judgement! I think it must be worth me writing to POPLA and pointing out this plus the fact that the assessor continually refers to the appellant as though he (i.e. me/I) was the driver which shows a basic lack of understanding of a) the facts and b) my whole argument. Can't hurt.

I have drafted up a letter to send to POPLA. I am thinking it should go to the Chief Adjudicator. Does anyone have a name? I will send it by post as any attempt to send it on-line will probably be met with a "case closed" automated reply. Whether they do anything with it is up to them.

Does anyone have any insight into the process/procedure if I was to allow PE to take me to court for non-payment? I would represent myself. What other costs might I be up for and could  the £100 penalty be increased (I presume yes)?

The more I think about it the more I am gobsmacked that the assessor could come up with such a one-sided verdict, ignoring all mistakes, inconsistencies, untruths and obtuseness from PE while layering on her own inability to tell the difference between the RK as appellant and the driver.

All thoughts welcome!



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Well this is odd. It’s almost a month on and I haven’t heard a thing from Parking Eye. Am I safe just to keep my head down and say nothing? I have also heard nothing from John Gallagher at POPLA either.

You have answered my question - ball in PE court.