DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 35023--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: August 30, 2024, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal rejected and I have a POPLA code.
Can I have some feedback please ......
POPLA Code xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxx PCN No xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal against Parking Charge
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx and I dispute the
above-referenced Parking Charge on the following grounds :
1.
not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (POFA)
2.
not compliant with POFA
3.
Notice to Driver not compliant
The piece of paper left on the vehicle purports to be a parking
charge notice except that due to misalignment of the printing
machine, all of the relevant information has been truncated at
the front. An image of the piece of paper is attached at
Appendix A.
Under Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of POFA, certain information
MUST be present for a Notice to Driver to be valid and this
information is missing from this piece of paper, namely but not
limited to:
-the vehicle
-the relevant land
-the parking period
-the parking charge
-dates by which a ‘discount’ may be obtained
Nobody can reasonably deduce the missing information and this
piece of paper therefore cannot be relied upon as a valid Notice
to Driver under paragraph 7(1)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA.
The operator therefore cannot reply on Paragraph 4(1) of
Schedule 4 of POFA to transfer liability to the keeper because
the second condition as referenced in paragraph 6(1) of POFA has
not been met, namely that NO valid Notice to Driver has been
issued in accordance with Paragraph 7.
In addition, the operator’s website does not provide an
opportunity to appeal without a ‘PCN Number’ which I was unable
to provide in this instance as it is not present and so the
operator has failed to comply with section 23 of the BPA Code of
Practice.
Notice to Keeper not compliant
Notwithstanding, that there is no keeper liability for the
reasons stated above, the Notice to Keeper of itself is not
complaint with POFA. Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)(e)(i) of PoFA
2012 MANDATES that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's
registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to
Keeper must include an "Invitation to Pay": The notice must
explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified
wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012. The wording must
clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect
suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict
compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this
invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the
requirements of PoFA.
Partial or Substantial Compliance is Insufficient: Even if the
notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of
a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw.
The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial
compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must
be present and correct.
No breach of contract
The operator agrees as a condition of association with the BPA
to abide by the BPA Code of Practice.
The photographs supplied by the operator show the vehicle parked
at the end of a row pf parking bays in what appears to be a
parking bay. There are no yellow lines, no hatch marks, no signs
indicating this is not a parking bay. There is not even a white
line to the right of the bay.
As such, the operator has not complied with the BPA Code of
Practice paragraph 19.11 in that surface markings have not been
applied in such a way as to indicate this was not a parking bay.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.
#Post#: 35043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: b789
Date: August 30, 2024, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That should do it. the keeper cannot be liable if the NtD was
not compliant with PoFA, regardless of whether the subsequent
NtK was compliant, which it isn’t. The parking operator cannot
rely on PoFA to enforce the parking charge against the keeper if
they did not fully comply with the requirements for both
notices.
Even though they think that the NtK was issued in compliance
with paragraph 8 of PoFA, the initial failure of the NtD to
comply means that the chain of liability under PoFA is broken.
You may want to throw in poor or inadequate signage and no
landowner authority to issue PCNs in their own name at the
location. Require them to evidence a valid contract flowing from
the landowner. I usually include the following for those bits:
--- Quote ---
> Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012
and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
>
> The operator has failed to show that the signs are legible
from all parking spaces and, specifically, there is insufficient
notice of the sum of the parking charge. Section 19.3 of the BPA
CoP states:
>
> “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms
throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to
read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… Signs
must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible
language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.
>
> Section 19.4 of the BPA CoP states "If you intend to use the
keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your
signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:
>
> • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
> • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers,
and
> following any applicable government signage regulations.”
>
> The signs at this location fail to prominently give adequate
notice of the specified sum payable. Considering that this
operator often relies on the Supreme Court appeal decision in
the Beavis case, the signage at this location fails miserably
when compared to the signage in that case which clearly showed
the charge prominently. It should be noted that within PoFA it
discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a
motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires
that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge.
>
> POFA defines “adequate notice” as follows:
>
> 2(2) 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).”
>
> “2(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’
means notice given by:
>
> the display of one or more notices in accordance with any
applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under
paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of
sub-paragraph (2); or

> where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more
notices which:

> specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
> are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who
park vehicles on the relevant land”.
>
> Even in circumstances where PoFA does not apply, I believe
this to be a reasonable standard to use when making an
independent assessment of the signage in place at the location.
The minuscule font used in the signs at this location fail,
miserably, to provide adequate notice of any charges.
>
> Considering the signage in place at this particular site
against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of
Practice and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is
not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring
the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.
>
> 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]the definition of the land on which you may operate,
so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
> any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of
operation
> any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that
may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
> who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
> the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement[/indent][/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
This will be seriously messing with their intellectually
malnourished heads. If they don’t withdraw, it will be fun to
see their operators response pack to this. Have some
satisfaction in the knowledge that this is costing them money
and time.
#Post#: 35044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 30, 2024, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think there's never any harm in throwing in the landowner
authority point. Worst case they supply a valid contract that
kills that point off, but sometimes it can throw up surprises.
#Post#: 35075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: August 30, 2024, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank as ever guys.
I'll make the necessary additions and send it off.
#Post#: 36747--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: September 13, 2024, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SO ECP have come back with their 'evidence' pack regarding my
POPLA appeal. Notwithstanding the mental gymnastics they are
having to go to (they even quoted that they must fully comply
with the POFA in order to hold the keeper liable, chortle
chortle).
However, In my my response I want to call them out for the
shysters they are (in the nicest way possible of course). The
key issue is that the original NtD was cut off and unreadable.
In their evidence pack they have produed a made-up facsimile of
the NtD which bears no resemblance to the original - it shows
the whole document, there are words in different places, the
word wrap is different on another paragraph. Basically it looks
like a machine produced copy of what they THINK they put on the
vehicle. I'm thinking of going through the differences line by
line and asking that they are admonished for manufacturing
'evidence'
It's blatant.
What is the best way of bringing this to the POPLA reviewer's
attention ?
#Post#: 36748--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 13, 2024, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> What is the best way of bringing this to the POPLA reviewer's
attention ?
--- End Quote ---
Refer to the page in your POPLA appeal where you included photos
of the actual notice. Point out that these are the actual notice
the driver received, and that what they have included in their
evidence pack is not the notice the driver received, but rather
what the notice should have looked like if they hadn't messed it
up.
#Post#: 36757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2024, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As far as I remember, you cannot upload documents when
responding to the operators evidence. Also there is a 10,000
character limit to any response.
When you submitted the POPLA appeal, did you include photos or
images of the NtD and anything else you are relying on? If so,
you must explain clearly for the assessor to be able to compare
what the operator has provided as evidence and what you
provided. Be descriptive.
Are there any of your appeal points that the operator has not
rebutted or ignored? You must point out any points you argued
that have not been answered satisfactorily by the operator.
The burden of proof is on the operator to evidence their
allegations. However, if they have not responded to any of your
points, it should be a win for you.
For example, if you argued that the NtD was invalid as it did
not contain all the relevant data and certainly was not capable
of being fully compliant with PoFA but they have countered that
it was and provided a photo of the NtD without the flaws, then
you could point the assessor to this as follows:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Reference: [Your POPLA Number]
> Euro Car Parks (ECP) PCN: [PCN Number]
>
> I am writing to respond to the evidence pack submitted by Euro
Car Parks (ECP) regarding my appeal. While I respect the
importance of presenting clear and accurate evidence in a POPLA
appeal, it is deeply concerning that ECP has submitted a
falsified and inaccurate version of the Notice to Driver (NtD).
The version presented in their evidence pack does not match the
NtD that was affixed to the vehicle, and it is clearly a stock
image or facsimile designed to misrepresent what actually
occurred. I would like to bring to the POPLA assessor's
attention the following points:
>
> Fabricated Notice to Driver (NtD):
>
> The NtD attached to the vehicle was severely truncated due to
a machine printing error, cutting off crucial information such
as the PCN number and parking details. This made it impossible
to initiate an appeal at the time. In contrast, the version
provided by ECP in their evidence pack is a complete, unaltered
document with all information present, including different word
placements and text wrapping compared to the original.
>
> ECP’s version of the NtD bears no resemblance to the original,
as shown by the altered formatting and content placement. This
should be seen for what it is — a stock image that has been
submitted in an attempt to mislead the POPLA process.
>
> The copy of the NtD I provided in my initial appeal clearly
shows the printing error and I urge the POPLA assessor to
compare the two versions. The discrepancies between them are not
minor; they are fundamental. The operator has knowingly
submitted a doctored NtD that misrepresents the actual document
left on the vehicle.
>
> Impact on My Ability to Appeal as the Keeper:
>
> Due to the printing error on the original NtD, I was unable to
provide the PCN number required to appeal through the operator’s
website. As a result, I had no recourse until the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) was issued. ECP’s own system relies on the PCN
number, yet they failed to ensure this number was visible on the
NtD left on the vehicle. This further demonstrates their
negligence in complying with the process they expect an
appellant to follow.
>
> Inaccurate Reliance on PoFA:
>
> It is laughable that ECP attempts to rely on PoFA for holding
the keeper liable while simultaneously submitting an invalid and
non-compliant NtD. PoFA requires that the NtD includes specific,
unambiguous information, none of which was properly conveyed on
the version affixed to the vehicle due to the already mentioned
printing issues.
>
> ECP's own admission in their evidence pack that they must
fully comply with PoFA only reinforces the fact that they have
failed to do so. They cannot hold me, as the registered keeper,
liable under PoFA because the NtD they issued was defective and
did not meet the requirements outlined in Schedule 4.
>
> Misleading Representation of Contractual Breach:
>
> ECP's photos, which purport to show a breach of contract by
parking "outside a marked bay," are equally flawed. As I
outlined in my initial appeal, the vehicle was parked in what
appeared to be a bay, with no markings or signage to indicate
otherwise. The operator’s failure to properly mark the bays or
provide adequate signage to indicate that the space was not a
valid bay further undermines their claim.
>
> Operator’s Conduct:
>
> The submission of an inaccurate and misleading NtD is not only
a breach of transparency but also reflects poorly on the
operator’s integrity in this case. I submit that POPLA should
take this into account when considering the overall fairness and
conduct of the operator. The fact that ECP cannot even provide
an accurate copy of the original NtD suggests they are
attempting to deceive both myself and POPLA in this matter.
>
> Request for Fairness in Adjudication:
>
> I request that POPLA dismiss the operator's reliance on their
fabricated NtD and acknowledge that ECP has not acted in good
faith by submitting false evidence. Furthermore, ECP has failed
to meet the necessary legal requirements under PoFA, both in the
NtD and NtK, and should not be allowed to pursue this parking
charge any further.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 36786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: September 13, 2024, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've submitted my response along the lines of B789/DWMB2's
suggestions.
Now sitting back and waiting for their adjudication.
Thanks for all your help so far.
In the meantime, I am not letting this lie. This is a blatant
attempt to mislead the adjudicator either deliberately or
through laziness. I need to complain to the DVLA, the BPA and
Sainsburys. Is there a contact email address for DVLA ? - clear
breach of KADOE.
#Post#: 36788--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 13, 2024, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For the BPA to consider your complaint, you will first need to
complain to the operator.
I'm not sure if there's a separate complaints address for KADOE
or if you'd just use the general DVLA one.
#Post#: 44785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Winscreen ticket - Sainsburys Merton, with a twist
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: November 9, 2024, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Verification Code xxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear POPLA.
On the 13/9 I received an email from you informing me that I was
in a queue and to expect a decision in 2-4 weeks.
It has now been 8 weeks. Can I please have an estimate of when I
might receive your decision ? I am anxious to get on with my
pursuit of the parking company for criminal fraud but I really
would like to have ALL the evidence with me when I speak to my
solicitor...
Many thanks...
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page