First it is not a penalty notice, it is a private parking notice to the keeper not the owner.
I`ve copied an appeal I saw a while ago from someone at Durham University. First Parking do a lot of University's.
Not the same parking issue, but you may be able to use parts of it.
"Durham University Car Parking PCN
Success! First Parking withdrew within an hour of making my appeal to POPLA
Thanks for all the advice on here - its has saved me from lining some scumbags pockets!
Here's my POPLA appeal for anyone who is interested (images removed):
A Parking Charge Notice was issued on 7th October 2019 and received by me, the registered keeper
of XXXX XXX for an alleged contravention of “Parked on double yellow lines or in a cross hatched
area’’ at Durham University. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if
you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:
1 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served
2 – Ambiguous wording on signage
3 – Terms and conditions not set out in full on signage
4 – Contravention was on private land so road markings are unenforceable
5 – The parking during this alleged contravention was causing neither a hazard to others
nor damage to the University’s property
6 – No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
1 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served
This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.
The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:
''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;
*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in
accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’
The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen toflout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given
2 - Ambiguous wording on signage (please see Image 1 below)
The signage states "A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £70 will be issued to vehicles parking without prior approval through the University permit to park scheme" - The vehicle in question has approval to park as supplied through the University Permit To Park Scheme. The signage also states “Vehicles to be parked within marked bays/designated parking areas” – this is ambiguous. It is unclear whether this means “must be parked within marked bays OR designated parking areas” or “must be parked within marked bays IN designated parking areas”. The vehicle was not parked in a bay but it was parked in a designated parking area i.e. a car park, and so was seen to
comply with the signage.
3 – Terms and conditions not set out in full on signage (please see Image 1 below)
The signage states “to be parked in accordance with the University's parking policy" – there is no indication of the content of the University’s parking policy or where to find it. Upon entering the car park, the driver is not given indication of the full terms and conditions in clear and concise language and therefore cannot be expected to be able to comply with the policies set out by the land owner.
4 – Contravention was on private land so road markings are unenforceable
The contravention occurred on privately owned land (owned by Durham University) and as such any road markings cannot legally be enforced in the manner that they can on a road owned by the Highways Authority or the council.
5 – The parking during this alleged contravention was causing neither a hazard to others nor damage to the University’s property (please see Image 2 and Image 3 below)
The vehicle was parked on a very wide section of pavement and as such was not causing an obstruction to pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic. The purpose of employing a private parking company is to ensure that vehicles are not parked in a manner which causes a hazard to others or damage to property. The vehicle was parked in a manner as not to be an obstruction to either pedestrian or vehicular traffic and it was not causing damage to University property.
6 - No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for reach in their own name. In the absence of such title, First Parking LLP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put First Parking LLP to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between
First Parking LLP and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to First Parking LLP.
Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have
the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. Section 7.3 states: “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.''
I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay First Parking LLP. First Parking LLP have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court.
I put First Parking LLP to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.
