Author Topic: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit  (Read 510 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3593
  • Karma: +157/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2024, 10:03:50 am »
None of those links work. Either use DropBox to host a file or use Imgur.com to host images.

If you're still unsure of how to post files, please re-read the Forum rules thread.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2024, 07:51:51 am »
Here is the further evidence files on imgur…..

https://imgur.com/a/fQUfNqN

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3593
  • Karma: +157/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2024, 09:34:38 am »
Looking at UKPCs site map of sign locations in 2018 and traversing the location in GSV with photos from August 2022, it is obvious that UKPC are lying through their teeth and this should be pointed out in the appeal.

Every red circle in the image below is a location where there is no UKPC sign as claimed:

Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2024, 11:18:44 am »
Ok thank you for that. I will raise that point when I comment on their evidence.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3593
  • Karma: +157/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2024, 12:08:13 pm »
So you add to the summary already provided that not only are UKPC being mendacious when they state:

Quote
These notices are placed throughout the car park.

We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking without a permit may result in a parking charge being issued.

They are outright lying.

However, you cannot upload images to the response to the operator. You will need to respond with links to the image I provided you and also with links to various GSV views showing that the signs are not present.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2025, 08:53:39 am »
Just an update guys. POPLA have declined my appeal. This is what they have said……

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that motorists must be parked within a designated bay with a valid permit displayed, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The parking operator has provided a copy of the templated permit motorists must display whilst on the site. I acknowledge the appellant has explained that they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and the identity of the driver is not admitted, and the parking operator has not provided proof of who was driving. They go onto say that the parking operator has failed to issue the Notice to Keeper as part of PoFA 2012, as no period of parking was specified. They go on to say that the parking operator’s notice images show the start timestamp as 01:53 and the last being 01:54 however, the duration of parking is not indicated. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. Furthermore, the parking operator must issue a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. The parking operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the Registered Keeper. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I can also see that PCN was issued within the relevant period, as the contravention took place on 8 August 2024 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 12 August 2024. I do note that the Notice to Keeper also states the registered keeper will be responsible for the parking charge if the driver’s details are not provided within 28 days. As the appellant has not provided these details, I am satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred liability onto the registered keeper and therefore, I will be considering their liability for the parking charge. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, the onsite parking attendant would have taken photographic images of the contravention and the operator would not have known how long the motorist was parked at the site in total. As the appellant has not stated what the motorist was doing at the site, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the terms or not. As such, these comments about the time stamped images have no bearing on my decision. Having considered the photographic images provided by the parking, the vehicle was parked on the site without a valid permit, matching the templated permit provided in the case file and therefore, the PCN has been issued. I acknowledge the appellant says that a consideration period should be considered to locate and understand the signage under the BPA code of practice. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of five minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. Section 13.4 of the code goes on to state that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not allowed. In this case, as the motorist has stayed on the site without displaying a valid permit, they have already breached the parking terms. As I have already explained earlier in my assessment, the appellant has not explained why the motorist was on the site and therefore, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the signs during their stay. I note the appellant has challenged the signage on the site, stating that the signs are inadequate and do not comply, so no contract can be formed and fails the requirements of PoFA, including that the PCN fee is prominently shown, and the signage is not BPA compliant. They say that there is no entrance sign, the signs cannot be read whilst driving and all the other information on the signs is in small text, apart from the No Unauthorised Parking term. I also note the appellant sys that the signage is inadequate under low light conditions, as the contravention took place early morning, when it was dark. The appellant has also stated that the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the exact location within the business park and numerous areas are un-signposted. They go on to say that the relevant land must be specified under Schedule 4 of PoFA. As part of their extensive comments, the appellant has highlighted the Denning LJ’s "red hand rule" as the £100 PCN is unreasonable and is not prominently displayed for the motorists’ attention, the signage images provided are false Section 19.2 of the code of practice states that entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 continues that 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. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs stating the full terms and conditions. The images and site map show that there are multiple signs displayed across the car park, including a signs at the entrance point to the site, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PCN charge can be read. Appendix B of the code of practice talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. In this case, I can see that the signs are not displayed on lighting poles from the images provided however, there appears to be overhead lighting provided which makes it clear for the signs to be visible and the parking terms clear to see. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. There are minimum standards set out in Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Although I appreciate the appellant says that the Notice to Keeper does not specifically state where the contravention took place and numerous areas are un-signposted, the site map also shows me the boundaries of the site managed by the parking operator, with one entry and exit point. Furthermore, I can see from the image on page 6 of the case summary that a sign is displayed with close proximity to where the vehicle was parked. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied the motorist was parked within the boundaries of the parking operator’s site and the PCN has correctly captured where the breach took place. Whilst I note the appellant’s extensive comments, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the terms. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has referred to the Red Hand Rule this has no bearing on my decision. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to reflect any actual loss incurred by a parking operator or landowner. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant says that the document provided for the landowner does not demonstrate that the parking operator has the legal standing to issue and pursue parking charges so the contract is insufficient. Section 7.1 of the 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. The parking operator has provided two documents, the site map which is signed and dated by the and landowner and a Terms and Conditions document, outlining the agreement that is place. It is clear from these documents that the definition of the land in question has been established. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied that the contract provided meets the requirements of the code of practice. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their listed of grounds of appeal in extensive detail, including that the parking operator has not appropriately rebutted the grounds they have raised. Whilst I note these comments, I have already addressed these grounds and therefore, these comments do not invalidate the issue of the parking charge. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2025, 08:56:09 am »
Am I right in thinking, if I stated in the appeal that the driver had left the vehicle to read the signage then the decision would have been different?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
  • Karma: +75/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2025, 10:24:09 am »
Any chance you can format that decision into paragraphs? In its current form it appears as a solid wall of text and is hard to read.

Am I right in thinking, if I stated in the appeal that the driver had left the vehicle to read the signage then the decision would have been different?
I've given up trying to predict how assessors will rule. Can be a lottery. Either way, one can only state things as they were, not as they might have been in order to create a more favourable narrative.

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2025, 10:51:44 am »
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that motorists must be parked within a designated bay with a valid permit displayed, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN.

The parking operator has provided a copy of the templated permit motorists must display whilst on the site. I acknowledge the appellant has explained that they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and the identity of the driver is not admitted, and the parking operator has not provided proof of who was driving.

They go onto say that the parking operator has failed to issue the Notice to Keeper as part of PoFA 2012, as no period of parking was specified. They go on to say that the parking operator’s notice images show the start timestamp as 01:53 and the last being 01:54 however, the duration of parking is not indicated. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. Furthermore, the parking operator must issue a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. The parking operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the Registered Keeper. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I can also see that PCN was issued within the relevant period, as the contravention took place on 8 August 2024 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 12 August 2024.

 I do note that the Notice to Keeper also states the registered keeper will be responsible for the parking charge if the driver’s details are not provided within 28 days.

As the appellant has not provided these details, I am satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred liability onto the registered keeper and therefore, I will be considering their liability for the parking charge. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, the onsite parking attendant would have taken photographic images of the contravention and the operator would not have known how long the motorist was parked at the site in total. As the appellant has not stated what the motorist was doing at the site, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the terms or not. As such, these comments about the time stamped images have no bearing on my decision. Having considered the photographic images provided by the parking, the vehicle was parked on the site without a valid permit, matching the templated permit provided in the case file and therefore, the PCN has been issued.

I acknowledge the appellant says that a consideration period should be considered to locate and understand the signage under the BPA code of practice. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of five minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted.

Section 13.4 of the code goes on to state that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not allowed. In this case, as the motorist has stayed on the site without displaying a valid permit, they have already breached the parking terms.

As I have already explained earlier in my assessment, the appellant has not explained why the motorist was on the site and therefore, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the signs during their stay. I note the appellant has challenged the signage on the site, stating that the signs are inadequate and do not comply, so no contract can be formed and fails the requirements of PoFA, including that the PCN fee is prominently shown, and the signage is not BPA compliant. They say that there is no entrance sign, the signs cannot be read whilst driving and all the other information on the signs is in small text, apart from the No Unauthorised Parking term.

 I also note the appellant sys that the signage is inadequate under low light conditions, as the contravention took place early morning, when it was dark. The appellant has also stated that the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the exact location within the business park and numerous areas are un-signposted. They go on to say that the relevant land must be specified under Schedule 4 of PoFA. As part of their extensive comments, the appellant has highlighted the Denning LJ’s "red hand rule" as the £100 PCN is unreasonable and is not prominently displayed for the motorists’ attention, the signage images provided are false Section 19.2 of the code of practice states that entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 continues that 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. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs stating the full terms and conditions.

The images and site map show that there are multiple signs displayed across the car park, including a signs at the entrance point to the site, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms and the PCN charge can be read. Appendix B of the code of practice talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.

In this case, I can see that the signs are not displayed on lighting poles from the images provided however, there appears to be overhead lighting provided which makes it clear for the signs to be visible and the parking terms clear to see. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. There are minimum standards set out in Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.

Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Although I appreciate the appellant says that the Notice to Keeper does not specifically state where the contravention took place and numerous areas are un-signposted, the site map also shows me the boundaries of the site managed by the parking operator, with one entry and exit point.

Furthermore, I can see from the image on page 6 of the case summary that a sign is displayed with close proximity to where the vehicle was parked. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied the motorist was parked within the boundaries of the parking operator’s site and the PCN has correctly captured where the breach took place.

 Whilst I note the appellant’s extensive comments, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the terms. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has referred to the Red Hand Rule this has no bearing on my decision.

The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to reflect any actual loss incurred by a parking operator or landowner. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it.

 In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant says that the document provided for the landowner does not demonstrate that the parking operator has the legal standing to issue and pursue parking charges so the contract is insufficient. Section 7.1 of the 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.

The parking operator has provided two documents, the site map which is signed and dated by the and landowner and a Terms and Conditions document, outlining the agreement that is place. It is clear from these documents that the definition of the land in question has been established.

I am satisfied that the contract provided meets the requirements of the code of practice. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their listed of grounds of appeal in extensive detail, including that the parking operator has not appropriately rebutted the grounds they have raised. Whilst I note these comments, I have already addressed these grounds and therefore, these comments do not invalidate the issue of the parking charge.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2025, 10:59:25 am »
I have also just written out a letter of complaint to the landowner which I will copy underneath. If you can think of anything else to add please let me know. Thanks

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you to complain about the predacious actions of the parking agent operating at your business premises, UKPC, who have issued a parking charge notice to the vehicle of which I am the registered keeper, xxxx xxx, on 08.08.2024. The PCN reference is xxxxxxxxxxxxx, issued on 12.08.2024.

The driver of the vehicle was making a delivery to a local business on the business park. Unfortunately, they couldn’t locate the business as it was dark and they couldn’t see any signage. They couldn’t pull over on the road, as this was the night of the potential riots in Hackney, and as such, there were multiple police vehicles parked along the road.
So they pulled into your car park to check their delivery details and read the parking signage on display.

I then received a PCN as the registered keeper. The evidence was a few photos taken of the vehicle, presumably taken whilst the driver was reading the signage.

I find this very unfair that I have received a PCN, with evidence of the vehicle being ‘parked’ for a minute. As consumers of your products, this attempt to extort money from me in the form of an unregulated parking 'ticket' has left a bitter taste in my mouth to be honest. And I now begrudge buying any of your products.

I am reaching out to you, asking can you get this PCN cancelled as a gesture of goodwill, as my solicitor has advised me that you, as the landowner, are capable of having this PCN cancelled. I will go to court with UKPC to defend this ‘ticket’ as I feel I have been treated unfairly, but I thought I would write to you to save the agonising court process I will endure.
I would welcome your own view on this harassment and hope you see fit to ensure that UKPC cancel the 'ticket' forthwith.

Yours faithfully,

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3593
  • Karma: +157/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2025, 12:30:30 pm »
Don't worry. The POPLA decision is not binding on you. Please tell us the name of the feckwit assessor. There are a few that are in serious need of re-training.

You won't be paying a penny to UKPC. If you ar cup for it you could send a formal complaint to POPLA but it won't change their decision, even though you can show that the assessor has erred in law. It may give some satisfaction knowing that they must respond to a formal complaint.

What is going to happen, going forward, assuming your landowner complaint doesn't get the PCN cancelled, is that you will start to receive useless debt collector letters from their Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) of choice. Probably DCBL but could any of a number of powerless DRAs.

You can safely ignore all DRA letters. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breach by the driver. All they can do is try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Never, ever, ever, communicate with a useless DRA. Just ignore them.

Was you will be looking out for is a Letter of Claim (LoC), most likely going to be issued by DCB Legal, a pathetic firm of failed wannabe legals. What I can assure you of, is that any claim issued by DCB Legal, as long as it is defended, will eventually be discontinued.

We will advise on all stages of the process and you can be safe in the knowledge that they won't be getting a penny out of you if you follow the advice. For now, please tell us the POPLA assessors name and whether you want to send POPLA a formal letter of complaint about their assessors error in law.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #56 on: February 03, 2025, 12:46:00 pm »
Hi, thank you for that info which I will be following. The assessors name was Michael Pirks. And yes, I’ve come this far now I may as well complain to POPLA about the decision.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3593
  • Karma: +157/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #57 on: February 03, 2025, 02:13:51 pm »
Here is a suggested formal complaint to POPLA:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Decision Contains Legal Errors

POPLA reference: [POPLA reference No.]

To: POPLA Complaints Team

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is a formal complaint regarding the fundamentally flawed decision made by POPLA Assessor Michael Pirks in my appeal against UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). Your assessor has erred in law, demonstrating either a complete misunderstanding of PoFA 2012 or deliberate disregard for the law in order to favour the parking operator.

I have no expectation that POPLA will reverse its decision—I am well aware that your organisation never admits fault, no matter how blatant the error. However, I insist that this complaint be formally recorded, as it highlights not just the ineptitude of one assessor, but the substandard legal training provided to POPLA staff.

I understand that POPLA’s decision is not binding on me. However, should the operator persist and try to litigate, I have no issue contesting this matter before a properly trained judge in an actual court of law, where the glaring legal errors made in this POPLA decision will be exposed and dismissed accordingly.

1. Assessor’s Failure to Apply PoFA 2012 – No "Period of Parking" Specified

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which states that the notice must:

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Instead of providing a period of parking, UKPC’s NtK merely states a single timestamp (01:54).

This is a critical failure for two reasons:

• A single moment in time does not constitute a "period of parking". A period, by definition, requires a duration—a start time and an end time, or at least a recorded timespan of observation.

• In the persuasive appellate court decision, Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023), it was confirmed that a parking charge notice must specify a period of parking that the notice relates to, not just a timestamp.

Your assessor completely ignored this fundamental requirement and erroneously concluded that the NtK was PoFA-compliant. This is a clear and undoubted misapplication of the law.

2. The "Period of Parking" Must Also Exceed the Minimum Consideration Period

Not only must a Notice to Keeper specify a period of parking, but that period must exceed the minimum consideration period.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice v9, Section 13.1 states:

"The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the 'parking contract' with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary depending on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

The Brennan ruling explicitly stated that the "period of parking" recorded on a Notice to Keeper must be at least a short duration.

If the operator’s own evidence only records 1 minute, it is legally insufficient because it does not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked for longer than the consideration period. Your assessor has not accounted for this requirement at all, despite the fact that it is a basic, established principle of parking enforcement.

Had Michael Pirks been adequately trained, he would know that an NtK which fails to:

• Specify a period of parking (rather than just a timestamp); and

• Demonstrate that the period exceeded the minimum consideration time

does not comply with PoFA 2012, and thus, keeper liability cannot be established. This failure to apply both the law and the BPA Code of Practice is a clear demonstration of either negligence or bias.

3. Assessor’s Nonsensical Reasoning Regarding the Driver’s Actions

Your assessor stated:

"As the appellant has not stated what the motorist was doing at the site, I am unable to determine if they were reviewing the terms or not."

This is an absurd and legally irrelevant argument.

• The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator to prove a contravention occurred.

• If the assessor "is unable to determine" whether the driver was reviewing the signs, then he is equally unable to determine that they were NOT reviewing the signs.

• By default, this means the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show a contract was formed before the motorist left the site.

This completely nonsensical statement exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of burden of proof and basic legal fairness.

4. Wilful Disregard of the Prohibitory Nature of Signage – No Contract Formed

The signage in question states: "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING."

This is not an offer of parking under specific terms—it is a prohibition. The signage is prohibitory in nature and therefore cannot form a contract.

The most prominent wording on the sign is "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING." This is a prohibition, not an offer of parking under specific terms. A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration, yet this sign does not offer parking—it simply forbids unauthorised vehicles. This aligns with the legal principle that prohibitory notices do not create a contractual agreement, because they do not extend an invitation to park under specific conditions.

Furthermore, UKPC’s signage does not prominently display the parking charge amount in a manner that would make it an obvious term of any alleged contract. The Supreme Court ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) established that terms must be prominently displayed to be binding. After providing photographic evidence and comparing the signs with the one in the Beavis case, this was simply dismissed.



5. POPLA’s Systemic Problem – Substandard Training & Bias

This decision does not just expose the inadequacy of a single assessor—it demonstrates a wider problem within POPLA.

• Your assessors fail to understand PoFA.

• Your assessors fail to apply basic contract law.

• Your assessors consistently favour operators, applying different standards to appellants and operators.

If Michael Pirks is considered "trained", then POPLA’s training standards are clearly substandard and exhibit a deficiency in your assessors legal knowledge.

6. My Request (Although I expect it to be ignored)

Given the catalogue of legal errors, misinterpretations, and biased reasoning in this case, I formally request the following:

1. A written response acknowledging that the decision contained material legal errors. (I don't expect this will be forthcoming, but I’m asking anyway.)

2. An internal review of how PoFA training is delivered to your assessors.

3. Confirmation that this complaint has been recorded and that a review of Michael Pirks’ competence will be conducted.

4. A response explaining why POPLA continues to misapply PoFA, despite these issues being raised in multiple formal complaints.

I fully expect POPLA to refuse to admit fault, because that is what POPLA does. However, I understand that your decision has no legal weight and is not binding on me.

Should the operator try and litigate over this, I will argue this case before a properly trained judge in court, where your assessors legally flawed determination will be exposed.

I expect a formal response within 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
« Last Edit: February 03, 2025, 02:15:40 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Natedog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2025, 03:57:25 pm »
That is perfect. Thanks, I will be sending that reply.