Free Traffic Legal Advice

I appreciate the response back,

Just to clarify the details in the image of the job sheet - should you think that that makes a difference as to whether or not it should be sent with Popla appeal....

Job request was accepted at 12:16 the duration of the trip once the passenger was collected was 43 mins 23 secs the pick up point is shown as postcode ending 2QP (I do get the pick up point is irrelevant) however, drop off point is shown as Western Gateway E16 1XL (where PCN was issued).

Counting on 43 mins from 12:16 pm gives a minimum time of arrival at Western Gateway at 12:59 pm. I say minimum arrival time as it is my understanding that the driver may have had to drive a minute or so to get to the pick up location hence then the drop off time could be slightly later than 12.59 pm, but still in the region of 1 pm when the evidence photos where taken proving the drivers reason for being at that location.

Obviously the vehicle is clearly TfL registered so has the ability to drop off in that location but I just thought it best to ask if it were any good to include the job sheet or not or am I now over complicating it?

Sorry to take more of your time for something you may think trivial!

Noted - thanks.

I will submit it to Popla as a PDF attachment shortly.

I've put all the details into the statement (adjusted the time) and just wanted to know do I end it with 'Regards, Registered Keeper' or 'Regards, (actual keepers name).

Many thanks

Thanks, I've not done a Popla appeal before.

I'm on Popla's web page now.

I know this may sound a stupid question but am I selecting the grounds of appeal as 'I was not improperly parked' or 'other'.

Thanks again.

In the 'other' section step 3 asks for 'your details' - this isn't an admission of who was the 'driver' at all is it?

Good afternoon,

Yet again - I'm grateful for the advice you all give and I'm kindly asking for more.

Following on from submitting the appeal to POPLA, this is the response I have had from them today....


Your parking charge appeal against Private Parking Solution (London) - EW.

Private Parking Solution (London) - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking xxxx

Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is not currently available on your account please check back later before contacting us.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Private Parking Solution (London) - EW.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage

Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Private Parking Solution (London) - EW such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option for appeal.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team



The statement in response to my appeal that PPS has sent to POPLA is this....

"Dear Assessor,

According to the documents provided by the landowner and uploaded for review, the land in question is private land.
The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions, and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available. A prominent entrance sign, facing the oncoming traffic, makes clear that parking on red routes is not allowed (NO PARKING ON RED ROUTE) and refers users to further signs within the site. The signage states “Red Route. No parking at any time. This private land is controlled by Wardens. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking/waiting/loading/unloading on red routes or pedestrian footpaths. By parking on this private land you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the parking contract) and accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking." Additionally, there are double red lines on the road, indicating that stopping, parking, loading/unloading or boarding and alighting from a vehicle is prohibited.  While red routes are commonly associated with public roads managed by Transport for London (TfL), the rules regarding parking restrictions on red routes also apply when such markings and signage are present on private land. In the present case, an exception is provided for taxis, which are known for their ability to be hailed on the street without pre-booking. These taxis are licensed by local councils or relevant authorities and must adhere to specific standards. London's traditional black cabs, although now available in other colours, are a prime example of this type of taxi.
Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), sometimes called "minicabs," must be booked in advance and cannot use taxi ranks. According to Transport for London (TfL) regulations, PHVs are not permitted to stop or park on taxi ranks at any time, even to pick up or drop off passengers. While taxis may be granted certain exemptions on private land or public roads, any exceptions for taxis do not extend to PHVs. PHV drivers need to be aware of these distinctions to ensure compliance with parking restrictions and avoid parking charges.
In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines, meaning that any other vehicle except a taxi is not permitted to park, wait or load/unload in the area; the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas. By choosing to ignore the terms and remain on red route, the driver contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.
It is important to note that the operator does not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as it can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The evidence shows that the keeper was invited to identify the driver, but does not indicate that they provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver. By failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant has assumed liability for this PCN."



The new photo evidence that PPS has sent to POPLA is attached in the 'imgur' link below - they also attached the same photo's as before of the vehicle parked in the 'taxi drop off point only' which I have not included as they were linked in a previous post.

<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/J8m0koY" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/J8m0koY"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed


I have also attached a pdf that they sent of their contract they have as a private parking firm in control of that land.


I hope you are able to view what I have attached and linked to?
Can you please kindly advise as to what I should do now as previously mentioned - this is completely out of my remit!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Good afternoon to all - again - I'm ever grateful to any response/advice/information/help that you have all given.

I have been writing and re writing my rebuttal to POPLA and whilst I have many things going on in my head that I write down, I struggle to make heads or tails of it all.

So far I have this....

To the Assessor,

I rebute several points made by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.

 

“In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines, meaning that any other vehicle except a taxi is not permitted to park, wait or load/unload in the area; the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas. By choosing to ignore the terms and remain on red route, the driver contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.”

This statement is factually incorrect. The driver set down in a ‘taxi drop off point only’ marked bay which is adjacent to the Taxi Rank (see google maps link for verification below)



As stated in my appeal, the driver was operational at the time in a TfL licensed Private Hire Vehicle which has red route dispensation by TfL to enable them to pick up and set down passenger.

 

“It is important to note that the operator does not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as it can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The evidence shows that the keeper was invited to identify the driver, but does not indicate that they provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver.”

Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have uploaded a contract document for review stating this is from the Landowner when it is in fact from the Leaseholder. This does not prove private land and therefore is not classed as relevant land. They have given no explanation as to why they have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which implies they have failed to comply with the requirements of the law. As the keeper of the vehicle, I have implicitly not accepted liability of this parking charge on behalf of the driver and due to non compliance with PoFA 2012, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd can not transfer liability to myself.

 

I note that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have failed to address my appeal points...

 

2. Contradictory Road Markings – Red Route vs. Drop-Off Bay

3. Signage is 100% Prohibitory – No Contract Can Be Formed

5. Jopson v Homeguard – Set-Down is Not Parking


....that is it at the moment. I do not know if I am over complicating my response or under responding to it. I note in my previous post that I linked to IMGUR embedded images that hasn't seemed to work? This is the link that I hope will now work. https://imgur.com/a/J8m0koY The contract that PPS has supplied is attached again as I've mentioned in my POPLA response it shows 'leaseholder' and not 'landowner'

Am I barking up the wrong tree with my POPLA response - can anyone advise me if there is something else I should or shouldn't be saying?

The email I received from POPLA was dated the 11th June and it's 7 days to respond. I presume this means I have until Tuesday to send my response?

  [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you b789,

I'll be working on a better POPLA response today.

In regards to the TfL red route exemption please see these links...

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2007/december/licensed-minicabs-given-red-route-exemption

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-information

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/phv-driver-handbook-v1.pdf (the information is on page 26 section 6 Parking and Driving in London)

I am confused though as to why it is necessary to respond to POPLA at all? PPS have clearly stated the driver was parked in a TAXI RANK which they weren't and the photos PPS have supplied prove they weren't. Surely on those grounds alone they would dismiss it? Are POPLA completely neutral or are they sided towards the parking firms? Is it a case of doing their work for them?

The whole Excel area is plastered with red routes, there is no where for PHVs to drop off passengers - certainly not one that is designated for PHVs. What baffles me is the driver has dropped off passengers before and subsequently since without any issue. 

I don't need to read those links. You have to extract the necessary sections and use them in your POPLA appeal. The operator will never, ever, under any circumstances, cancel a PCN. Why would they? No money in it for them if they do that.

POPLA are a supposedly independent appeals service but in reality, they are funded by the very firms they are adjudicating, so go figure how "independent" they really are. Also, you have no idea what, if any, legal training the assessor has. In many cases, it is evident to us that the assessor is a moron when it comes to interpreting contract law and even PoFA.

However, their appeal acceptance rate is probably around 40%, so worth appealing. If the appeal is unsuccessful, it doesn't matter as the decision is not binding on you. You would then move on to the next stage of the fight.