DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25506--------------------------------------------------
Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: June 10, 2024, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
HTML https://ibb.co/ByNfjr5
HTML https://ibb.co/ByNfjr5
HTML https://ibb.co/17QW6rw
HTML https://ibb.co/17QW6rw
#Post#: 25508--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: Dave65
Date: June 10, 2024, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ideally photos of the signage in the area would be helpful.
#Post#: 25511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: b789
Date: June 10, 2024, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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)
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parking-charge-notice-private-car-park-crown-wharf-retail-park-ws2-walsall/msg25511/#msg25511<br
/>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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 25624--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: June 11, 2024, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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 :)
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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)
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parking-charge-notice-private-car-park-crown-wharf-retail-park-ws2-walsall/msg25511/#msg25511<br
/>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.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 28435--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: July 3, 2024, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
HTML 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.
'
--- Quote from: nothavingthis link ---
>
> 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 :)
>
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=2166.msg25511#msg25511
date=1718024088]
> 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)
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parking-charge-notice-private-car-park-crown-wharf-retail-park-ws2-walsall/msg25511/#msg25511<br
/>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.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
[/quote]
#Post#: 28469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: b789
Date: July 3, 2024, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 28754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: July 5, 2024, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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,
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 29232--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: July 9, 2024, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any feedback from anyone on my draft before i send it off? thank
you
--- Quote from: nothavingthis link ---
>
> 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,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=2166.msg28469#msg28469
date=1720018474]
> 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
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 29252--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: b789
Date: July 9, 2024, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 29253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice Private Car Park - Crown Wharf Retail
Park, WS2 Walsall
DIR By: b789
Date: July 9, 2024, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
[indent]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:
[indent](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[/indent][/indent]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page