3. PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay  (Read 2588 times)

0 Members and 283 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #15 on: »
Fab - thank you!
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #16 on: »
Just to confirm:
1. Do I keep the items in bold as they are in the original?
2. Just for my understanding, point 4 around annex H - it says they are outside of timescales - is this because the NtK they have sent thus far is not valid and now they’re out of time to send a valid one?
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #17 on: »
Highlight is for emphasis. Timescales are not mentioned. It is about their failure to state the period of parking in the NtK.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #18 on: »
Thank you for clarifying, I’ll add the bold back in as it took it out when I copied and pasted.

It was this bit in the email in point 4 that I was referring to which mentions timescales.

Annex H of the PPSCoP lists PoFA non-conformance as a sanctionable offence:

• Level 1 Non-Conformance (2+ Sanction Points) – Sending a notice implying that they are pursuing the keeper using Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act when they are outside of the timescales.
• Level 2 Non-Conformance (5+ Sanction Points) – Repeatedly sending parking charge notices implying that they are pursuing the keeper using Schedule 4 of PoFA when they are outside of the timescales.
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #19 on: »
The wording of the PPSCoP states for Level 1 and Level 2 Non-Conformance that these are "examples". So, while it gives the example of timescales, it is not restricted to just that. It is saying that any PoFA non-conformance, in this case the failure to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a), where they have failed to specify the "period of parking", is a Level 1 breach for one instance and a Level 2 breach for repeatedly doing so.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #20 on: »
Thanks so much!
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #21 on: »
Hi there

Can I just confirm that we have until 19th March to go to POPLA? We didn’t send the complaint over until 2nd March which would mean a response by 16th March if they respond within the 14 days outlined, so I thought this would be ok. However I have noticed that everything on the letter says about 15th March? And on top of that, it says we have 28 days from the date of the original appeal rejection letter to submit an appeal which would actually be 14th March?

Just wanted to confirm whether this is just another erring in law of what’s written on the letter, or whether it is fact earlier than 19th? And if so, what should we be including in the POPLA appeal? The same as the complaint but rephrased as an appeal? Just want to get it written in case they don’t respond to the complaint in time.

Many thanks
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #22 on: »
The POPLA code is valid for 28 days after service of the rejection. just like the courts, they allow 5 days for service, so, the code is valid for 28 + 5 = 33 days. Just make sure you get it submitted on their website by day 32 to be sure of meeting the deadline.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #23 on: »
Thank you so much for this.

We received the response from our complaint today as follows:

Thank you for your email.
 
We have carefully reviewed your concerns and would like to address the points raised.
 
Compliance with BPA and PoFA Guidelines
We operate in full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Our processes, including the issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and appeal handling, adhere to the relevant regulations.


Response to Appeal and Keeper Liability
Your appeal was thoroughly reviewed, and a response was sent on 14-02-2025 to the contact details provided. The rejection outlined the reasons why the PCN remains valid. In accordance with PoFA, as the registered keeper, liability may be transferred to you if the driver’s details are not provided within the prescribed period.

 

Use of DVLA Data and KADOE Contract Compliance
We lawfully obtained your registered keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE agreement. We remain in compliance with all DVLA regulations, and no breaches of our access permissions have occurred.


Appeal Deadline and POPLA Rights
The appeal deadline and your right to escalate to POPLA  were clearly stated in our rejection response. As per standard procedure, the discount period applies within the timeframe provided, and if no payment is made, the full charge is applicable.


Details on how to transfer liability are clearly outlined in the letter sent to you.
We are confident that we have responded appropriately and in full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Given the above, we do not find any grounds to uphold your complaint. The PCN remains outstanding, and we kindly request that payment be made at your earliest convenience.

 
Seem to have just brushed off all comments?
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #24 on: »
Write to the BPA with the following formal complaint and make sure you attach copies of your original formal complaint to UKPA and their brush-off response:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint Against UKPA – PPSCoP Non-Conformance and KADOE Breach

Dear British Parking Association Complaints Team,

I am submitting a formal complaint against UKPA for multiple breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). This complaint relates to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number], issued on [Date], and UKPA’s handling of my appeal. Their response includes misleading and unlawful statements that violate the PPSCoP.

UKPA’s appeal rejection falsely claimed:

"If the keeper names the driver and it subsequently emerges that the driver was not suitably insured at the material time, UKPA may consider referring the matter for criminal prosecution, a £5,000 fine, and 6–8 penalty points."

This is legally incorrect and coercive. There is no legal obligation for a keeper to name the driver. UKPA has no authority to instigate criminal proceedings or impose fines. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of authority, which is classified as a Level 4 non-conformance under Annex H of the PPSCoP.

UKPA’s letter falsely claimed that a court will assume the keeper was the driver unless they name someone else and that failing to provide the driver’s details could result in legal consequences that do not exist. These are misleading statements, in breach of Annex H (Level 3 non-conformance).

UKPA’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It fails to specify the actual period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)) and does not properly invite the keeper to pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)). This is a Level 2 non-conformance under Annex H.

I have already referred this matter to the DVLA for investigation into UKPA’s breach of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract. UKPA’s failure to comply with the PPSCoP means their access to DVLA keeper data is unlawful.

I raised these issues with UKPA in a formal complaint, which they dismissed without addressing any of the breaches. Copies of my complaint and UKPA’s response are attached.

I require the BPA to:

• Investigate UKPA’s breaches of Annex H (Level 4, Level 3, and Level 2 non-conformances).
• Issue immediate sanction points.
• Confirm whether UKPA has been instructed to amend its appeal rejection templates to remove false legal threats.

Failure to address this complaint will result in further escalation to Trading Standards. I expect a full response within 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

Send the following complaint to the DVLA and also include a copy of your formal complaint to UKPA and their brush-off response:

Quote
Subject: Complaint Against UK Parking Administration Ltd (UKPA) – Misuse of DVLA Data and KADOE Breach

Dear DVLA Data Complaints Team,

I am submitting a formal complaint against UKPA for breaching the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract by failing to comply with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). UKPA obtained my details from the DVLA and issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number] on [Date]. Their appeal rejection contained misleading and coercive statements, in breach of both the PPSCoP and consumer protection laws.

UKPA falsely claimed:

"If the keeper names the driver and it subsequently emerges that the driver was not suitably insured at the material time, UKPA may consider referring the matter for criminal prosecution, a £5,000 fine, and 6–8 penalty points."

This is completely false and designed to intimidate recipients into paying. UKPA has no authority to bring criminal proceedings, impose fines, or enforce penalty points. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of authority and a Level 4 non-conformance under Annex H of the PPSCoP.

UKPA’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant, meaning keeper liability does not apply.

• PoFA 9(2)(a) – Fails to specify the actual period of parking.
• PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) – Fails to properly invite the keeper to pay.

Since PoFA and PPSCoP compliance is a requirement of the KADOE contract, UKPA’s use of DVLA data is unlawful.

I raised these issues in a formal complaint to UKPA, which they dismissed without addressing any of the breaches. Copies of my complaint and UKPA’s response are attached.

I request that the DVLA:

• Investigate UKPA’s misuse of keeper data.
• Suspend or review UKPA’s access to DVLA data.
• Confirm whether UKPA has been instructed to remove false legal threats from their appeal rejection templates.

UKPA’s failure to comply with PoFA and the PPSCoP renders their access to DVLA data unlawful. I expect a full response within 14 days.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #25 on: »
Thanks so much for this. Will action both of these complaints tomorrow.

In terms of the POPLA appeal - should I tweak the original wording from the complaint?
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #26 on: »
Any POPLA appeal should be much more detailed as the POPLA assessor will only now what you put in front of them and the operators response after that. You will get an opportunity to respond to the operators evidence.

You need to cover as many points as possible such as any PoFA breaches which render the Pan non compliant and unable to hold the Keeper liable, breaches of the PPSCoP which ender the PCN invalid, signage which does not comply with the PPSCoP or is capable of forming a contract, whether the operator has a valid contract flowing from the landowner to them which authorises them to issue CNs at the location and so on.

You have until the 19th March to submit your POPLA appeal. I suggest you have a search on the forum for tooter POPLA appeals to get an idea of how to put one together and then show us your attempt s that we can then advise further.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #27 on: »
Hi there,

Using the material provided from the original appeal, and a couple of other's appeals, I have drafted the attached. Do I need to expand more on the main points under PoFA and why these are important? The version I cribbed from had a lot about the 28 days in 9(2)(f) and 9(6), but I don't think that applies here? I tried to find other cases which examine the ANPR as being problematic for period of parking, and for the right to appeal being incorrect, but couldn't. Do you have any of these and is it worth including?

I have kept in about the signage and posted google earth images below. Please let me know whether you think it's worth keeping in?



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #28 on: »
Not bad... except why does it say "Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN at the top?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
« Reply #29 on: »
Ha probably just a cribbing error - I will remove.

If you had any other tips these would be gratefully received! Thank you!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
  3. PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay