DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 35555--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: Boxxer
Date: September 3, 2024, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have gathered different points and referencing bits together.
Is it too much to included the full details of the case in the
appeal and is point 3 making any sense?
Thank you so much for the help.
POPLA ref: xx
UKPC ref: xx
Vehicle registration: xx
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and I dispute the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. No evidence of period of parking on the Notice to Keeper
Based on the requirements set out under PoFA 9(2)(a), The notice
must—(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
The period of parking is not mentioned on the UKPC's parking
charge notice (PCN). The failure to meet the requirements of
PoFA 9(2)(a) means UKPC cannot recover the charge from me as the
registered keeper.
-----
2. Failure to comply with the BPA CoP section 21.5a.
The operator has altered or cropped the evidential photo in the
NtK in breach of BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a which
clearly states:
"Use of Photographic Evidence
All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible
and must not be retouched or digitally altered.
This point was upheld in a recent POPLA appeal by assessor Gayle
Stanton:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA code: 2413353469
>
> Decision: Successful
> Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked
on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the
date and time of parking.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
> • The signage is inadequate
> • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
> • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so
there is no keeper liability.
> • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing
is the driver.
> • No landowner authority
> • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking
Association (BPA).
> • No evidence of the period parked.
> • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA.
> • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.
>
> The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal
and they have commented on the operator’s case file.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined
below:
>
> The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments
that although the operator has provided full date stamped
photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not
compliant.
>
> I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have
reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:
>
> ” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs
as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you
claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included
on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be
clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally
altered.
>
> I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator
and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number
plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA
Code of Practice.
> These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full
images in the case file they appear to have been digitally
altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially
apparent on the colour image on the NTK.
>
> The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also
not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further
grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the
appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I
conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly,
I must allow this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
---
3. PoFA failures to hold the keeper liable
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—(i)to pay the unpaid parking
charges;
---
UKPC has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore
keeper liability does not apply. As UKPC have not complied fully
with the requirements of PoFA, they have also breached the BPA
Code of Practice at 2.4, 21.2, 21.12 and 21.13. The parking
company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of
the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of
the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither
named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the
driver(s) were, liability cannot flow from the driver to the
keeper. Therefore I am not liable to any charge.
#Post#: 35884--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: Boxxer
Date: September 6, 2024, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any comments, feedbacks or advices would be much appreciated.
And I would like to send it out as soon as possible. 🙏
#Post#: 35887--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 6, 2024, 7:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please don't bump threads.
You have 28 days to submit your POPLA appeal, there's no
advantage gained by submitting it asap.
I would add more detail to all of your points. For point #1, you
need to explain why you believe providing a single time is
insufficient to specify the period of parking. For point #2,
whilst referencing the other POPLA appeal is useful, a bit of
detail as to how/why you believe the images have been altered
would be useful. For point #3, you have explained what they are
required to do, but haven't set out how UKPC have failed to do
it. Lead the assessor by the hand to exactly why your appeal
points are valid, leaving as little room for interpretation as
possible.
There's also never any harm in adding a point around Landholder
Authority
HTML http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287628&postcount=2343,<br
/>to require them to produce a valid contract.
#Post#: 37045--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: Boxxer
Date: September 16, 2024, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Much appreciated for all the help as english isn't my first
language.
Below is my updated appeal letter:
POPLA ref:
UKPC ref:
Vehicle registration:
I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle and I dispute the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
(1) Consideration and Grace Periods
The images were shown the vehicle was present for 9 seconds at
the location. According to BPA CoP 13.1 there should be
considered within a reasonable grace period for
loading/unloading activities.
--- Quote ---
> BPA CoP 13.1
> The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms
andConditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with
you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not
> to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide
them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the
driver can be bound by your parking contract.
> The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on
site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.
--- End Quote ---
(2) No evidence of period of parking in the Notice to Keeper
Based on the requirements set out under PoFA 9(2)(a) & BPA CoP
29.10, The notice must—(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land
on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the
notice relates;
The images were shown the vehicle was present for 9 seconds at
the location. A single point in time does not describe a range
or duration, which is what a "period" implies. This does not
fully satisfy the requirement of specifying a "period of
parking." And it was insufficient to consider any alleged breach
of contract.
(3) Alteration of photographic evidence
On the Notice to Keeper, the evidential photo is showing that
the vehicle as well as any other text elements were
proportionally distorted, cropped / altered.
That is in breach of BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a
which clearly states:
--- Quote ---
> All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible
and must not be retouched or digitally altered.
--- End Quote ---
And also the private parking sector single Code of Practice:
--- Quote ---
> Use of photographic evidence
> 7.3(b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;
> 7.4. Alteration of photographic evidence
> Parking operators must not digitally or by other means alter
images used as photographic evidence other than:
> a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in
accordance with their GDPR obligations; or
> b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to
alter the letters and numbers displayed.
--- End Quote ---
This point was upheld in a recent POPLA appeal by assessor Gayle
Stanton:
--- Quote ---
> "POPLA code: 2413353469"
>
> Decision: Successful
> Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked
on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the
date and time of parking.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
> • The signage is inadequate
> • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
> • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so
there is no keeper liability.
> • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing
is the driver.
> • No landowner authority
> • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking
Association (BPA).
> • No evidence of the period parked.
> • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA.
> • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.
>
> The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal
and they have commented on the operator’s case file.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined
below:
>
> The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments
that although the operator has provided full date stamped
photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not
compliant.
>
> I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have
reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:
>
> ” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs
as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you
claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included
on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be
clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally
altered.
>
> I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator
and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number
plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA
Code of Practice.
> These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full
images in the case file they appear to have been digitally
altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially
apparent on the colour image on the NTK.
>
> The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also
not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further
grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the
appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I
conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly,
I must allow this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
(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:
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:
(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
UKPC has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore
keeper liability does not apply. As UKPC have not complied fully
with the requirements of PoFA, they have also breached the BPA
Code of Practice at 2.4, 21.2, 21.12 and 21.13. The parking
company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of
the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of
the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither
named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the
driver(s) were, liability cannot flow from the driver to the
keeper.
This POPLA appeal highlights serious omissions and failures by
the operator which show that the PCN has been issued
incorrectly. The evidential photo in the NtK has been altered or
cropped which is a clear breach of the BPA CoP section 21.5a.
There is no evidence of period of parking in the NtK and it was
insufficient to consider any alleged breach of contract and the
operator has not shown that it has any authority to issue PCNs
in its own name on behalf of the landowner.
These points prove that the PCN has been issued incorrectly and
the POPLA assessor should take them into account when making
their assessment of the validity of the charge.
#Post#: 37053--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: b789
Date: September 16, 2024, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a cleaned up version of your appeal:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal
>
> POPLA Reference:
> UKPC Reference:
> Vehicle Registration:
>
> I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question,
and I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the
following grounds:
>
> Grounds for Appeal:
>
> 1. Consideration and Grace Periods
> 2. No Evidence of the Period of Parking in the Notice to
Keeper
> 3. Alteration of Photographic Evidence
> 4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
> 5. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA
>
> Expanded Grounds:
>
> 1. Consideration and Grace Periods
>
> The photos taken only cover a period of 9 seconds, and no
evidence has been provided that the vehicle was there for longer
than this. According to the British Parking Association (BPA)
Code of Practice (CoP) section 13.1, drivers must be afforded a
reasonable consideration period to decide whether to accept the
parking terms and conditions before entering into a contract.
>
> Quote: BPA CoP 13.1
>
> [indent]"The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms
and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with
you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to
park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them
with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the
driver can be bound by your parking contract."[/indent]
>
> In this case, no reasonable consideration period was allowed,
and there is no evidence that the vehicle was on site for more
than 9 seconds, which is significantly less than the BPA's
minimum consideration period of 5 minutes.
>
> 2. No Evidence of the Period of Parking in the Notice to
Keeper
>
> Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4,
paragraph 9(2)(a), a Notice to Keeper (NtK) must "specify the
vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period
of parking to which the notice relates." In this case, the
Notice to Keeper issued by UKPC does not comply with this
requirement.
>
> The images provided in the NtK only show the vehicle present
at the location for a mere 9 seconds, which is insufficient to
describe a "period of parking." A single timestamp does not
constitute a "period," as it does not show the vehicle parked
for a continuous duration of time. It is merely an instance in
time. The use of only entry or exit timestamps, without showing
the vehicle actually parked for a specific period, fails to meet
the statutory requirement under PoFA.
>
> Since UKPC has not complied with PoFA by failing to specify
the "period of parking," the operator cannot rely on keeper
liability to enforce this parking charge. According to PoFA, the
operator can only transfer liability from the driver to the
registered keeper if all the conditions in Schedule 4 are met,
including the requirement to specify the period of parking. As
this condition has not been fulfilled, UKPC cannot hold me, as
the Registered Keeper, liable for the charge.
>
> In the absence of this crucial information, the NtK is
non-compliant with PoFA, and as such, I, as the Keeper, cannot
be held liable for the Parking Charge Notice. Partial or even
substantial compliance with PoFA is not sufficient. The
operator's failure to meet these legal requirements means that
the responsibility for the charge cannot be transferred to the
Keeper under PoFA, and UKPC can only pursue the driver, who has
not been identified.
>
> This PoFA failure alone is grounds for the cancellation of the
charge, as liability cannot flow from the driver to the Keeper
when the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the legal
requirements set out under PoFA.
>
> 3. Alteration of Photographic Evidence
>
> The images provided on the Notice to Keeper appear to have
been distorted, cropped, or altered in some way, which is in
breach of BPA CoP section 21.5a, which states:
>
> [indent]Quote: BPA CoP 21.5a
>
> "All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible
and must not be retouched or digitally altered."[/indent]
>
> Additionally, the private parking sector's single Code of
Practice states:
>
> [indent]Quote: Code of Practice
>
> "Parking operators must not digitally or by other means alter
images used as photographic evidence other than:
>
> [indent]a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the
image in accordance with their GDPR obligations; or
> b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to
alter the letters and numbers displayed."[/indent][/indent]
>
> A recent POPLA appeal (POPLA code: 2413353469, Assessor: Gayle
Stanton) upheld the appellant's appeal on the grounds that
images in the NtK had been altered. This precedent should be
considered in my case, as the images here are similarly unclear
and digitally altered.
>
> 4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
>
> The operator has not provided evidence that they have the
authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on the land in
question. The BPA Code of Practice (section 7.2 and 7.3)
requires that operators have written authorisation from the
landholder to enforce parking charges and take legal action.
This written authorisation must clearly define:
>
> [indent](a) The boundaries of the land on which the operator
can operate.
> (b) The conditions or restrictions on parking control,
including any grace periods.
> (c) The operator’s authority to issue charges in their own
name rather than acting as an agent on behalf of the
landowner.[/indent]
>
> I require UKPC to provide unredacted, contemporaneous proof of
their landholder authority, as a mere witness statement or a
redacted contract will not suffice.
>
> 5. Non-compliance with Keeper Liability under PoFA
>
> UKPC has not met the requirements for keeper liability under
PoFA. As they have not fully complied with PoFA, they cannot
hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged parking
charge. Since the operator has failed to establish the driver’s
identity and has not provided sufficient evidence to meet PoFA
requirements, the liability cannot be transferred from the
driver to the keeper.
>
> Conclusion
>
> This appeal highlights several serious procedural errors and
failures by the operator, UKPC, which demonstrate that the
Parking Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly. There is no
valid evidence of a "period of parking," the photographic
evidence has been altered, and the operator has not shown that
they have authority from the landholder to issue parking
charges. Furthermore, UKPC has not complied with the legal
requirements to transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA.
>
> For these reasons, I respectfully request that the POPLA
assessor upholds my appeal and cancels the Parking Charge
Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 37061--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 16, 2024, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> In this case, no reasonable grace period was allowed, as the
vehicle was on site for less than 10 seconds, which is
significantly less than the BPA's minimum grace period of 5
minutes.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd be mindful of this wording. I would suggest saying "the
evidence provided only covers a period of 9 seconds, and does
not demonstrate that the vehicle was there for longer than the
minimum consideration period... etc. etc." or "the photos taken
only cover a period of 9 seconds, and no evidence has been
provided that the vehicle was there for longer than this" or
similar.
#Post#: 37068--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC - Not parked correctly within the markings - Colindale
Retail Park, London
DIR By: b789
Date: September 16, 2024, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good point and I have edited the suggested response with your
suggestion and also changed it from "grace" period to
"consideration" period.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page