Author Topic: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail Park, WS2 Walsall  (Read 149 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

nothavingthis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi, i was wondering if any of you nice folk would be able to assist me with this.

Took the kids out to play at Ninja Warrior which is located in this retail park, not from the area, did not know this was a private car park, it had TkMaxx, Next and shops like Lidl. From where i am from the north west these are free car parks, i did not see any signs either so parked there for just over an hour.

I got a letter through the post as shown below with a charge notice. I have googled this place up now and straight away have noticed people leaving negative one star reviews saying they got the same letter and the signage must be poor as they also got caught out.

https://ibb.co/ByNfjr5
https://ibb.co/17QW6rw

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Dave65

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Ideally photos of the signage in the area would be helpful.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Well,they left it a day late to send that NtK as it was not deemed given until Monday 10th June. That's over 14 days from the date of the alleged "event". They should have posted it no later than Wednesday 5th June for it to have been deemed as given to you by Friday 7th June.

GroupNexus do not know the identity of the unknown driver unless you the known keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise. DO NOT reveal who was driving by saying things like "I parked...". Only ever use the third person as in "The driver parked..."

Because they missed the NtK a day too late, they cannot relay on PoFA to transfer liability from the unkown driver to the known keeper even though they say that they can in the NtK. Unfortunately, they are intellectually malnourished at GroupNexus and will probably reject the appeal anyway. However, this will be won at POPLA. Simply appeal using the following text (verbatim):

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA as it was deemed given (delivered) on the 10th June 2024, 15 days after the alleged event. PoFA 9(4)(b) applies. 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.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2024, 01:56:57 pm by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.
Like Like x 1 View List

nothavingthis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thank you for this, much appreciated. I will appeal with them online and write what you suggested. Will update here when i have an update  :)


Well,they left it a day late to send that NtK as it was not deemed given until Monday 10th June. That's over 14 days from the date of the alleged "event". They should have posted it no later than Wednesday 5th June for it to have been deemed as given to you by Friday 7th June.

GroupNexus do not know the identity of the unknown driver unless you the known keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise. DO NOT reveal who was driving by saying things like "I parked...". Only ever use the third person as in "The driver parked..."

Because they missed the NtK a day too late, they cannot relay on PoFA to transfer liability from the unkown driver to the known keeper even though they say that they can in the NtK. Unfortunately, they are intellectually malnourished at GroupNexus and will probably reject the appeal anyway. However, this will be won at POPLA. Simply appeal using the following text (verbatim):

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA as it was deemed given (delivered) on the 10th June 2024, 15 days after the alleged event. PoFA 9(4)(b) applies. 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.

nothavingthis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi, got a reply to my appeal from Nexus group via email saying this:

'Dear Sir/Madam,


Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.


The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations. In accordance with the DVLA and BPA rules, Charges can be issued up to seven months from the date of the parking contravention.


Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the need to pay or validate, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.


We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.


In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.


We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.


Please find below the payment options:


Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn

By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784

By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO Box 1750, Northampton, NN1 9PN - made payable to CP Plus Ltd

----------

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.


CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.


Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.  POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.  To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.


Your POPLA reference number is:xxxxxxxxxx[redacted]


Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.


By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.


Yours faithfully,



CP Plus Ltd.

'






Thank you for this, much appreciated. I will appeal with them online and write what you suggested. Will update here when i have an update  :)


Well,they left it a day late to send that NtK as it was not deemed given until Monday 10th June. That's over 14 days from the date of the alleged "event". They should have posted it no later than Wednesday 5th June for it to have been deemed as given to you by Friday 7th June.

GroupNexus do not know the identity of the unknown driver unless you the known keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise. DO NOT reveal who was driving by saying things like "I parked...". Only ever use the third person as in "The driver parked..."

Because they missed the NtK a day too late, they cannot relay on PoFA to transfer liability from the unkown driver to the known keeper even though they say that they can in the NtK. Unfortunately, they are intellectually malnourished at GroupNexus and will probably reject the appeal anyway. However, this will be won at POPLA. Simply appeal using the following text (verbatim):

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA as it was deemed given (delivered) on the 10th June 2024, 15 days after the alleged event. PoFA 9(4)(b) applies. 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.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Not unexpected. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished scammers. They have completely ignored the fact that their NtK failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot e liable for the PCN.

The POPLA code is actually valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection, not the stated 28 days. However, there is no other advantage to delaying the POPLA appeal but you do have a bit more time to prepare it and show us for critique before sending it.

You should appeal as the keeper and list all the points you wil be appealing on and the expand on each point individually. The primary point should be that the operator has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. The second point would be that the operator has not provided any evidence that the person the PCN was issued to was the driver.

The points will be, but not limited to,

(1) Failure to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
(2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
(3) Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
(4) No evidence of landholder authority
(5) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

nothavingthis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi, thank you for that. Would the following be ok?

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Reference [redacted]

Appellant: [redacted] (Registered Keeper)

Date of Issue: 06/06/2024

Grounds for Appeal:

1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

According to Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b) of PoFA 2012, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention if no Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued. In this case, the alleged parking incident occurred on 26/05/2024, and the NtK was deemed delivered on 10/06/2024, which is 15 days later. This exceeds the statutory 14-day period, rendering the NtK invalid and eliminating keeper liability. Group Nexus has ignored this crucial point, thereby failing to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

Legislative Reference:

    PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b): “The notice must be given by... 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 of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is in Fact the Driver Who May Have Been Potentially Liable for the Charge

As the registered keeper, I have no obligation to identify the driver, and the operator has not provided any evidence that the person to whom the PCN was issued was the driver at the time of the alleged incident. Without such evidence, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

3. Inadequate Signage Leading to Failure to Adhere to PoFA 2012 and Breach of the BPA Code of Practice

The signage at the location in question is insufficient, unclear, and not compliant with the standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Adequate signage is a mandatory requirement for compliance with PoFA 2012, and the operator has failed to ensure that the signage meets these requirements. This lack of clear and conspicuous signage means that drivers are not properly informed of the parking terms and conditions, thus invalidating any alleged contract formed.

4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

Group Nexus has not provided any evidence that they have the authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices on the land in question. In order to have the right to form contracts with drivers and to pursue charges to POPLA, Group Nexus must produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. Without this, the operator has no legal standing to enforce the charge.

5. Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice General Principles for ANPR

The operator uses ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology to issue PCNs. The BPA Code of Practice requires that the use of ANPR technology is fully compliant with the BPA's guidelines and that it ensures accurate and fair enforcement. The operator has not provided evidence that the ANPR system is maintained and operated correctly. This includes ensuring the data collected is accurate and fairly processed, which is fundamental to justifying the PCN issued.


6. Misleading and Predatory Tactics

The BPA Code of Practice prohibits operators from using predatory tactics to issue PCNs. The unclear and insufficient signage, coupled with the use of ANPR technology without proper notification, constitutes misleading and predatory behaviour aimed at ensnaring unsuspecting drivers.

Legislative Reference:

    BPA Code of Practice, Section 14: This section prohibits the use of predatory tactics and requires transparency in enforcement practices.

7. Failure to Respond to Appeal Points

In their rejection letter, Group Nexus did not address the specific points raised in my initial appeal, particularly the failure to comply with PoFA 2012 requirements. This demonstrates a lack of proper consideration and due process in handling appeals, as required by both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice.

Legislative Reference:

    BPA Code of Practice, Section 22: This section requires operators to respond to all points raised in an appeal comprehensively and fairly.

Conclusion

Given the multiple failures by Group Nexus to adhere to statutory requirements and BPA guidelines, the Parking Charge Notice issued is invalid. I request POPLA to consider the clear breaches outlined above and cancel the Parking Charge Notice accordingly.

Yours faithfully,







Not unexpected. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished scammers. They have completely ignored the fact that their NtK failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot e liable for the PCN.

The POPLA code is actually valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection, not the stated 28 days. However, there is no other advantage to delaying the POPLA appeal but you do have a bit more time to prepare it and show us for critique before sending it.

You should appeal as the keeper and list all the points you wil be appealing on and the expand on each point individually. The primary point should be that the operator has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. The second point would be that the operator has not provided any evidence that the person the PCN was issued to was the driver.

The points will be, but not limited to,

(1) Failure to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
(2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
(3) Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
(4) No evidence of landholder authority
(5) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR
« Last Edit: July 05, 2024, 06:19:45 pm by nothavingthis »

nothavingthis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Any feedback from anyone on my draft before i send it off? thank you

Hi, thank you for that. Would the following be ok?

POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Reference [redacted]

Appellant: [redacted] (Registered Keeper)

Date of Issue: 06/06/2024

Grounds for Appeal:

1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

According to Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b) of PoFA 2012, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention if no Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued. In this case, the alleged parking incident occurred on 26/05/2024, and the NtK was deemed delivered on 10/06/2024, which is 15 days later. This exceeds the statutory 14-day period, rendering the NtK invalid and eliminating keeper liability. Group Nexus has ignored this crucial point, thereby failing to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

Legislative Reference:

    PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b): “The notice must be given by... 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 of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is in Fact the Driver Who May Have Been Potentially Liable for the Charge

As the registered keeper, I have no obligation to identify the driver, and the operator has not provided any evidence that the person to whom the PCN was issued was the driver at the time of the alleged incident. Without such evidence, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

3. Inadequate Signage Leading to Failure to Adhere to PoFA 2012 and Breach of the BPA Code of Practice

The signage at the location in question is insufficient, unclear, and not compliant with the standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Adequate signage is a mandatory requirement for compliance with PoFA 2012, and the operator has failed to ensure that the signage meets these requirements. This lack of clear and conspicuous signage means that drivers are not properly informed of the parking terms and conditions, thus invalidating any alleged contract formed.

4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority

Group Nexus has not provided any evidence that they have the authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices on the land in question. In order to have the right to form contracts with drivers and to pursue charges to POPLA, Group Nexus must produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. Without this, the operator has no legal standing to enforce the charge.

5. Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice General Principles for ANPR

The operator uses ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology to issue PCNs. The BPA Code of Practice requires that the use of ANPR technology is fully compliant with the BPA's guidelines and that it ensures accurate and fair enforcement. The operator has not provided evidence that the ANPR system is maintained and operated correctly. This includes ensuring the data collected is accurate and fairly processed, which is fundamental to justifying the PCN issued.


6. Misleading and Predatory Tactics

The BPA Code of Practice prohibits operators from using predatory tactics to issue PCNs. The unclear and insufficient signage, coupled with the use of ANPR technology without proper notification, constitutes misleading and predatory behaviour aimed at ensnaring unsuspecting drivers.

Legislative Reference:

    BPA Code of Practice, Section 14: This section prohibits the use of predatory tactics and requires transparency in enforcement practices.

7. Failure to Respond to Appeal Points

In their rejection letter, Group Nexus did not address the specific points raised in my initial appeal, particularly the failure to comply with PoFA 2012 requirements. This demonstrates a lack of proper consideration and due process in handling appeals, as required by both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice.

Legislative Reference:

    BPA Code of Practice, Section 22: This section requires operators to respond to all points raised in an appeal comprehensively and fairly.

Conclusion

Given the multiple failures by Group Nexus to adhere to statutory requirements and BPA guidelines, the Parking Charge Notice issued is invalid. I request POPLA to consider the clear breaches outlined above and cancel the Parking Charge Notice accordingly.

Yours faithfully,







Not unexpected. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished scammers. They have completely ignored the fact that their NtK failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot e liable for the PCN.

The POPLA code is actually valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection, not the stated 28 days. However, there is no other advantage to delaying the POPLA appeal but you do have a bit more time to prepare it and show us for critique before sending it.

You should appeal as the keeper and list all the points you wil be appealing on and the expand on each point individually. The primary point should be that the operator has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. The second point would be that the operator has not provided any evidence that the person the PCN was issued to was the driver.

The points will be, but not limited to,

(1) Failure to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
(2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
(3) Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
(4) No evidence of landholder authority
(5) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
What is your rush to send the POPLA appeal? What you have shown us is weak. You should list all the points first and then expand on each point with much more detail.

Where have you stated that you are appealing as the keeper only and declining to identify the driver? You have to lead the POPLA assessor by the nose over each and every point.

For the first point, you need to explain better why the NtK has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA. You state the date of the alleged parking event and the date the NtK was deemed delivered without explaining what PoFA says about this. You must explain the process and how the date of service is calculated. It is calculated as having been delivered 2 working days after the date of issue. Show the calculation of the dates to prove it was delivered on day 15 and therefore the NtK does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot be liable, only the driver. As you are the keeper and you have declined to identify the driver, you cannot be liable for the charge.

The same applies for all your points. They need much more "meat on the bone". Do a search. I have provided some examples of POPLA appeals over the last few days which you can get some inspiration from.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Here is an example of a section on landowner authority:

4. No evidence of landholder authority
 
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.

Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

nothavingthis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Just double checking dates, itit correct it was delivered late?
we have calculated it like this:
The statutory requirement for service of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is that it must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the day after the alleged parking event. The alleged parking incident occurred on 26/05/2024. Therefore, the day after the incident is 27/05/2024. The 14-day period starts from this date, making the last day for delivery 09/06/2024.

However, the 27th of may was a bank holiday if i am not mistaken, which would make the next day the 28th? which would mean it was not late?


Well,they left it a day late to send that NtK as it was not deemed given until Monday 10th June. That's over 14 days from the date of the alleged "event". They should have posted it no later than Wednesday 5th June for it to have been deemed as given to you by Friday 7th June.

GroupNexus do not know the identity of the unknown driver unless you the known keeper tells them, inadvertently or otherwise. DO NOT reveal who was driving by saying things like "I parked...". Only ever use the third person as in "The driver parked..."

Because they missed the NtK a day too late, they cannot relay on PoFA to transfer liability from the unkown driver to the known keeper even though they say that they can in the NtK. Unfortunately, they are intellectually malnourished at GroupNexus and will probably reject the appeal anyway. However, this will be won at POPLA. Simply appeal using the following text (verbatim):

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA as it was deemed given (delivered) on the 10th June 2024, 15 days after the alleged event. PoFA 9(4)(b) applies. 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.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
If you read the relevant legislation (Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act), the requirement is to deliver the notice within 14 days.

"14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

The legislation does not stipulate working days, therefore the period begins the day after the parking event, regardless of bank holidays.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Also, the actual date the NtK was “delivered” (given) would be two working days after it is posted (or issued):

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

So, the “issue” date of the NtK was Thursday 6th June which means it was deemed delivered Monday 10th June. Do the maths… 26th May to 10th June is 16 days after the “specific period of parking ended.”

It doesn’t fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA and so, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2024, 01:37:50 am by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.