DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: bdu7
Date: July 19, 2024, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Sorry to bump this topic back up again
I'm just after some advice on my next steps now that I have
received this reply from the parking company.
do I go to POPLA with the same argument, adding in the lack of
postcode information, or do I need to add something else to this
appeal too?
Many thanks
#Post#: 30394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: b789
Date: July 19, 2024, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You go to POPLA with as much as possible, including, but not
limited to:
1. The NtK failed to fully comply with all the requirements of
PoFA to hold the keeper liable.
2. The operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing
is the driver.
3. The signage is deficient and there are no ground markings to
delineate the different car parks which have different terms.
4. The operator does not have valid contract flowing from the
landowner to be able to issue PCNs in its own name.
5. The operator has breached the joint Code of Practice by
failing to denied the location ad the relevant land in their
NtK.
Start to put something together with those points and show us
before you send anything. You can do a bit of your own research
with PoFA
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted<br
/>and the BPA/IPC joint CoP
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf.
#Post#: 30397--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 19, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> You can do a bit of your own research with PoFA and the
BPA/IPC joint CoP.
--- End Quote ---
It may also be wise to refer to the old BPA Code of Practice
that was in force at the time of the parking incident. That way,
you can try to head of any arguments of "We can't be expected to
have complied with a Code of Practice that hadn't even been
published at the time".
#Post#: 30687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: bdu7
Date: July 22, 2024, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
My appeal to POPLA is as follows. Your advice and guidance is
much appreciated
[i]Dear Sir/Madam,
This is an appeal on behalf of COMPANY regarding Parking Charge
Notice XXXXXXXXX issued to vehicle VRM on DATE under POPLA Code
XXXXXXXXXX.
The appeal is based on the following grounds;
1.
requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the
keeper liable. It did not include a mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge, as required by section
9(2)(e)(i) of the Act, section 20.11 of the Code of Practice
2018.
2.
is the driver,
3.
delineate the different car parks which have different terms,
4.
landowner to be able to issue PCN’s in its own name,
5.
failing to identify the location and the relevant land in their
Notice to Keeper as per section 17.2.1.e
Based on the above points, we request that the appeal is upheld
and the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled.
We look forward to your prompt response.
[/I]
Many thanks :)
#Post#: 30692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2024, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You will need to expand on each point and lead the assessor
through the reasons why each point is valid.
#Post#: 30693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 22, 2024, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Those 5 points are a good start as headings, but you need much
more information under each - they won't just take your word for
it, you need to substantiate each point with an explanation and
evidence.
--- Quote from: bdu7 link ---
>
> section 20.11 of the Code of Practice 2018.
>
--- End Quote ---
Before the joint Code of Practice, the previous BPA Code of
Practice was version 9, published in February 2024, you should
be using this one, not one from 2018.
--- Quote from: bdu7 link ---
>
> 2. The operator has not shown that the person they are
pursuing is the driver,
--- End Quote ---
They're not pursuing a person, they're pursuing a company, and
therefore the entity they're pursuing cannot be the driver.
--- Quote from: bdu7 link ---
>
> 3. The signage is deficient and there are no ground markings
to delineate the different car parks which have different terms,
--- End Quote ---
Include photos to demonstrate this, and ideally refer to the
Code of Practice on what is required.
--- Quote from: bdu7 link ---
>
> 4. The operator does not have valid contract flowing from the
landowner to be able to issue PCN’s in its own name,
--- End Quote ---
I would rephrase this as requiring them to prove they have a
valid contract, rather than stating that they do not (which we
do not know at this stage).
#Post#: 31728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: bdu7
Date: July 31, 2024, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both [member=103]DWMB2[/member] and
[member=26]b789[/member] for your advice.
The appeal letter has been updated as follows;
The appeal is based on the following grounds;
1.
requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the
keeper liable. It did not include a mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge, as required by section
9(2)(e)(i) of the Act – “The notice must… state that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: to pay
the unpaid parking charges…” and section 21.11 of the Code of
Practice 2024 – “The Notice to Keeper serves three purposes: It
invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge…”
2.
is the driver – They are pursuing a company, and therefore the
entity they’re pursuing cannot be the driver
3.
delineate the different car parks which have different terms as
per the attached photos. The signage provides contradictory
information by initially advising motorists that there is a
one-hour maximum stay for that area of the car park.
4.
contract flowing from the landowner to be able to issue PCN’s in
its own name.
5.
by failing to identify the location and the relevant land in
their Notice to Keeper as per section 17.2.1.e – “All parking
charges which are issued including:… e)Location including
outward postcode…”
Included with that are images from the site as one of our
drivers has recently attended, and the original PCN letter with
the limited location information.
#Post#: 31763--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: slapdash
Date: July 31, 2024, 1:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For later, should it get as far as payment.
- If the company has bought some bizarre form of premium parking
that (unlike a penalty charge) is a taxable expense.
- If the company is VAT registered the above would be a taxable
supply. There are certain obligations then on the supply to
provide an appropriate VAT invoice.
#Post#: 31770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2024, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Could do with fleshing out. You are leading the assessor to your
points. Explain them as though the assessor is actually the
tea-boy.
Point 2 is a bit feeble. They have not shown that the person
they are pursuing is the driver because they cannot hold the
keeper liable due to PoFA failure in point #1 AND your are
responding as a company... Blah, blah.
#Post#: 31853--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye PCN - 0 Hours 0 Minutes - KFC Walkden, Salford
DIR By: bdu7
Date: August 1, 2024, 9:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you once again [member=26]b789[/member];
1.
requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the
keeper liable. It did not include a mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge, as required by section
9(2)(e)(i) of the Act – “The notice must… state that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: to pay
the unpaid parking charges…” and section 21.11 of the Code of
Practice 2024 – “The Notice to Keeper serves three purposes: It
invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge…”. Within
the initial letter sent to ourselves as the keeper, there was no
invitation, offer or request for us to make the payment of this
parking charge notice.
2.
is the driver – They are pursuing a company, and therefore the
entity they’re pursuing cannot be the driver. We, the company,
cannot be held liable due to the operators PoFA failure in point
1 above. We are responding as the company, and a company cannot
be the driver.
3.
delineate the different car parks which have different terms as
per the attached photos. The signage provides contradictory
information by initially advising motorists that there is a
one-hour maximum stay for that area of the car park. There are
no ground markings differentiating the different areas of a
significant car park containing some 60+ spaces.
4.
contract flowing from the landowner to be able to issue PCN’s in
its own name. No contract has been shown to our company, as
keeper, to show the operator is permitted by the landowner to
issue parking charge notices to keepers.
5.
by failing to identify the location and the relevant land in
their Notice to Keeper as per section 17.2.1.e – “All parking
charges which are issued including:… e)Location including
outward postcode…”. The letter received simply states “KFC
Ellesmere Centre, Walkden”. This does not comply with the Single
Code of Practice which states the full location including
postcode is required.
Would this be sufficient?
Many thanks
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page