Author Topic: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow  (Read 114 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Journey occurred on 11th February 2024. Driver had reached a dead end - i.e. still in the car, with engine on, and was trying to work out where to go next because the destination was a pedestrianised area. Parking charge dated 13th February was received a few days after (sorry can't remember date).

The car was waiting at a location believed to be a the public highway. Was well away from the marked "bay" next to the brick wall. The quality of the markings is very poor and you can't easily tell where the road side "ends".

As well as the company's official images, have also enclosed two others from Google Maps, which shows the road markings in a fresher condition than they really are. The area the driver was in appears to be some kind of 'passenger walkway' between one pavement to another, which reinforced the driver's belief that they were on the public road.

To boot, the car is hardly visible in the upper image of the PCN - the printing really is as bad as the scan you see.

[What's really upsetting is that the driver had specifically gone to wait in another (council) cark park for an hour before this, just to ensure they weren't infringing on any of the copious private land notices in this area.]

Is this a decent case to contend, and what can be quoted back in terms of legal precedent?

Thanks in advance!

PCN notice:

https://imgur.com/NkAmqxR

Online evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/43rQ7kN
https://imgur.com/a/kSiS6nC
https://imgur.com/a/nXCkjWQ
https://imgur.com/a/44bq9QZ

Google maps:
https://imgur.com/a/Jtr6hcG
https://imgur.com/a/sD0syuA
« Last Edit: February 27, 2024, 11:49:12 am by sbarclay19 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2024, 01:31:22 pm »
PoFA 9(2)(b) is not satisfied as the NtK does not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

9(2)(e) is not satisfied as there is no "invitation" for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

9(2)(f) is not satisfied because there is no "warning", only an "advisory".

Do not identify the driver. The NtK attempts to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. The above breaches alone invalidate the ability to rely on PoFA and so only the driver is liable and they do not know who that is.

This location is a well known entrapment area. Check the actual address of the alleged contravention. Often it is actually on Matisse Road. Signage is atrocious at this location.

PoFA 7(2)(a) is not satisfied as the location is not clearly defined, especially if the actual location is, in fact Matisse Road which means that the relevant land is not specified.

2(2) is not specified as the reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land). A known fact in other successful appeals and claims at this location.

2(3) also applies.

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2024, 04:46:44 pm »
Thank you so much for this, @b789!

Yes, you are correct - the road/zone they have quoted is not the right one. Is that a relevant fact to mention, or could they re-issue it with the correct one?

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2024, 02:19:58 am »
Once issued, the original NtK is the document that has to have all the relevant information required. If there are errors that affect their ability to hold the keeper liable, they cannot simply issue a new notice. (Edited to add) if it arrives later than 14 days after the contravention.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2024, 08:49:38 am by b789 »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2024, 08:46:34 am »
they cannot simply issue a new notice.
Any authority for that?

Sbarclay19 - the easiest thing to do is to make sure your appeal reaches them within the deadline, but on or after 14 days from the date of the 'parking' event, so that if they do attempt to correct their error, it'll still not be compliant by virtue of arriving too late.

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2024, 02:11:37 pm »
Thanks @DWMB2 - have pinged it in. If it's a tad over 14 days (due to chronic delay in post here - Royal Mail often only deliver once a week) is it hopeless?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2024, 02:14:51 pm »
Thanks @DWMB2 - have pinged it in. If it's a tad over 14 days (due to chronic delay in post here - Royal Mail often only deliver once a week) is it hopeless?
It would be useful to know what exactly you have pinged in.

Is what hopeless? It is their notice that needs to reach you within 14 days in order to hold you liable as the keeper, not your appeal.

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2024, 02:20:52 pm »
Thanks @DWMB2 - have pinged it in. If it's a tad over 14 days (due to chronic delay in post here - Royal Mail often only deliver once a week) is it hopeless?
It would be useful to know what exactly you have pinged in.

Is what hopeless? It is their notice that needs to reach you within 14 days in order to hold you liable as the keeper, not your appeal.

Ah, sorry - I misread the back of their notice. As you say, they have 14 days to reply to me, not t'other way around.

I've submitted the appeal. Will report back.

Thanks, both, for your help!

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PPS Ltd PCN – Parked on "private land"(?) – Holloway Street, Hounslow
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2024, 02:36:33 pm »
As you say, they have 14 days to reply to me, not t'other way around.
Not quite that either. They have 35 days to reply to your appeal.

The 14 day 'deadline' is the number of days after a parking event by which they must serve a Notice to Keeper, if they want to recover the charge from you as the keeper, otherwise only the driver (who they don't know) is liable.

I've submitted the appeal
Saying what?

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I put in my appeal (as registered keeper only), listing the reasons listed by @DWMB2 and adding that the incorrect location had been stated also.

Appeal rejected - looks like we have a fight on our hands :-\

This is their reply:

Quote
The charge was issued because your vehicle was parked in enforcement zone in strictly no parking at any time area, which is a
direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions of parking.

This is further supported by the warden’s photographic evidence, showing that the vehicle has been observed not being parked
under the terms of the car park, where there were visible notices on display, indicating that there is no parking in the area. The
terms were adequately brought to your attention and if you decide to remain on site and do not review the full terms and
conditions of parking, we cannot be held responsible for a breach of the parking contract.

In response to your dispute about the location where you parked at the time of the contravention, I submit that the car park
belongs to a private landowner with a business address Holloway Street, Hounslow, TW3 1AA. Therefore, by parking on this
particular piece of land, you became subject to the parking restrictions stipulated on the signage displayed prominently within
the site. Provided is also evidence of a sitemap confirming our jurisdiction - the area we monitor is highlighted in red. The
warden’s photos show that your vehicle is parked off the side of the public road, which demonstrates that it is parked on the
land that we manage. This is also demonstrated by the signs in sight of your vehicle. The photographs show that you were
parked next to one of these signs, and therefore, you were adequately informed that this was private land. The you were made
aware of the applicable terms, and therefore, if you decide to remain on site and do not review the full terms and conditions of
parking, the operator cannot be held responsible for a breach of the parking contract.

Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of
Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00.

Please be informed that there is no requirement for a parking operator to issue a parking charge on the day in question, and
therefore, it is the operator's decision if they wish to issue a Notice to Driver or a Notice to Keeper. Notice to Keeper issued via
post without a Notice to Driver having previously being affixed to a vehicle should be issued in the period of 14 days beginning
with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9(2)(f) "warn the keeper that if, after the period of
28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified
under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to
recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid." I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper correctly conveys
this information. It states the keeper has 'If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details', which is the
equivalent of '28 days beginning the day after the that on which the notice is given'. As the evidence does not indicate that you,
the keeper, provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver, you therefore, assume liability for the charge, and under the POFA Act 2012, Schedule 4, we are pursuing you for the unpaid parking charge and remain compliant with
legislation and codes of practice whilst doing so.

Further evidence demonstrates that the Notice to Keeper contains two images showing the vehicle being parked on site. The
PCN does not need to specifically state the times of parking the PCN relate to as long as it is clear from the online photographic
evidence, which I am satisfied it is.

For the reasons noted above, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse your appeal.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions of the site.

To avoid incurring further administration cost, please arrange your remittance of £60 within 14 days from the date above (we
reset the clock). Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00 if you pay within 28 days from
the date above and to £160 once we pass the details of your case to debt Recovery Company.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeal
Service by completing appeal form online on http://www.popla.co.uk within 28 days.
By law, we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services 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.

You now have a number of options;
1. Pay the Parking Charge at the price of £60.00 within 14 days.
2. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies due via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with
Court action against you.
3. If you disagree with the appeal decision you can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeal Service by completing
appeal form online on http://www.popla.co.uk within 28 days.
4. You can pay or appeal – you cannot do both.
Please, note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £60.00, and
should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00.
Please see further information related to your parking ticket on our website: www.paypps.co.uk

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Oh, and with regard to the site map they quote above, this is a bit special! Some of the "stripy bits" are under their jurisdiction, and some aren't!


https://imgur.com/a/V9YClrp

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
This was a successful POPLA appeal for the same location back in September. Have a read and see what the assessor had to say and what swung it for him:

Quote
Private Parking Solution (London) Ltd.  Matisse Road / Holloway Street Hounslow.

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

• They say they were dropping their daughter off at a party on the day of the breach.
• They say their daughter has a disability which limits their mobility and as such, they parked as close to ‘Flip Out’ as possible.
• They say they stopped on Matisse Road to drop off their daughter and wife and waited for less than 5 minutes for their wife to return before leaving.
• They say they didn’t realise they were on private land and saw no signs.
• They say no contract can be formed as no parking or waiting is permitted.
• They say the parking operator has not complied with 13.1 of the BPA Code of Pracitce.
• They say they did not stop on Holloway Road, but Matisse Road, which is not private land.
• They say they stopped forwards of the sign and could not see it as it was too small.
• They add that Matisse Road is a public highway and they did not stop on the operators land.
• They say the signs are too small to be read whilst driving and do not make the boundaries clear as it’s assumed they refer to the parking bays which they did not use.

The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal:

• Images of the site, the route to the sign and signs on site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning.

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate they only stopped to drop off their daughter at a party. I acknowledge the images provided to demonstrate their route to the site, the area they stopped and the land in question. I note the appellant parked largely on the road, but partially on the white lines.

I also note the appellant parked next to signs but was unaware of any terms as they claim they didn’t see any, but has commented to advise that the signs are too small upon review of the evidence, the boundaries aren’t clear and what area the signs relate too.

As such, I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signs throughout the site, a site map showing the controlled areas and also the location of the signs. According to the site map the appellant stopped on Holloway Road, not Matisse Road. The appellants evidence shows the entrance to Matisse Road, but I must conclude that they stopped on Holloway Road.

Whilst the road is public land, the land to the side of it is not. The operators site map shows the area they control which includes the white lines, but only part of the white lines. I must agree with the appellant that the signs do not make the boundaries clear. One would assume that the signs refer to the parking bays and not the road or white lines. I accept that there are signs in place which should have been reviewed by the appellant, but the operators site map does not show the area they parked is monitored by them.

As stated above, the operator monitors the side of the road including the white lines, but not all the white lines. It’s down to the operator to demonstrate that the appellant breached the terms and conditions and whilst I accept they stopped partially on the white lines, I cannot conclude that the signs are clear enough to make motorists aware that the white lines are part of the relevant land or that the white lined area the appellant stopped is monitored by the parking operator.

As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Interesting how they sent you a map that has been "altered". Anyone would think they have some nefarious intention to scam you. You were definitely stopped on Matisse Rd but on their altered map, it would appear that they have changed the name of the road to Holloway Street. Any guess as to why?

Google map:



Scammers map:



Certainly evidence to show POPLA and if necessary, a judge.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 12:58:09 pm by b789 »

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
I also found this from a successful 2022 POPLA appeal on which the main argument was the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding. Summary here:

Quote
Assessor verdict:

By parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the land. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant codes of practice or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly.

In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for parking in No Parking area. In this case the appellant has stated that there is no contract as the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding. Having viewed the available evidence I have concluded that there is no contract as there is nothing on offer to the motorist.

PCNs can arise if a motorist breaks the parking conditions or for trespass. In a case of parking somewhere the motorist is not entitled to park comes under trespass. However, the operator is not pursuing the motorist for trespass and is pursuing for breach of terms and conditions as set out on the PCN.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Based on the above, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I must allow the appeal.

So, there's a forbidding sign that says "No Parking At Any Time". As it says "No Parking At Any Time" then it is impossible for any contractual charge to be levied - one cannot contract to do that which is forbidden - and unregulated private parking companies cannot impose penalties.

Also the text size on the sign is small, so difficult to read thus any T&Cs cannot be clear and obvious.

sbarclay19

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks everyone for their help on this so far.

This has now gone to POPLA stage. I had put in my appeal based on the main grounds that:
a) They've used the wrong road name on the PCN, giving 4 sources to prove this - including the council's own map records.
b) The road markings of what is public/private land is not clear, something that was mentioned in a previous POPLA case at this site (see upthread).
c) The signage wasn't clear or readable from the driver's position.

I also explained the reasoning for the driver being there re: picking up a daughter from a party who didn't turn up at the meeting time agreed, a very similar case to the one @b789 mentions above.

Regarding the company's statement below, is there anything else I should do to rebuff any of it? In particular, I note the "no invitation to form a contract" defence is sometimes quoted, but in other threads some people claim POPLA won't accept that line. Is it worth mentioning, and - if so - how do I quote chapter and verse?

Cheers!

Quote
"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. At this site, we erected signage to identify the private land and the parking restrictions that applied within it. The evidence shows that the signs are written in an intelligible language and are legible. The terms and conditions, and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice".
The charge was issued because the appellant's vehicle was parked in a no parking area,  which is a direct contravention of the terms and conditions of parking. The photographic evidence shows vehicle registration DV73KVJ in a stationary position, within proximity to a visible notice on display, which stated NO PARKING AT ANY TIME in large bold letters.
The appellant’s comments about why the vehicle was parked in the area are acknowledged, however,  the appellant parked on private land governed by therms and conditions. If upon arriving on site, the appellant reviewed the signage and was unsure whether the terms and conditions applied to them, they had an option to call our office using the number displayed via signage to seek advice or to leave the site and find alternative parking.
We would also like to advise that a motorist would not be able to exempt themselves from the terms and condition of use by remaining inside the vehicle, as this does not stop the terms and conditions being valid. Signage on site makes clear that no parking, waiting or loading at any time is permitted on the site in question. It was then the appellant's responsibility to ensure they read and understand the site's terms before deciding to park. By instead choosing to ignore the terms and remain in a no parking at any time area, the appellant contravened the parking contract, and this has resulted in them being liable for a parking charge."