DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 40989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: Natedog
Date: October 16, 2024, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr………. ,
Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking
charge reference…..
We have carefully considered your appeal based on the
information provided and the evidence supporting the parking
charge. In this instance having
completed our assessment, we consider the parking charge to have
been correctly issued, as the vehicle was parked on site without
displaying a valid
permit.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the
recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators
to hold the registered
keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has
not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the
driver.
Entrance signage advises motorists that terms of parking apply,
and that notices within the car park should be checked to
identify the full terms and
conditions. These notices are numerous and placed appropriately
throughout the car park. It is ultimately the responsibility of
the motorist to ensure they
identify the terms of parking, and then decide whether to park
their vehicle, or leave the site if they are unable to meet
those terms.
We would also contend that when a motorist enters a car park
they should be at the same level of observance as when driving
on a public road; When
driving on the road, motorists are expected to be aware of signs
when travelling at up to 70mph. In a car park, the typical
driving speed is on average, much
lower. We therefore contend that it is not unreasonable to
expect a motorist to note the signs and to subsequently
familiarise themselves with these.
It is UKPC’s position that the signage installed on site is more
than sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the
attention of any motorist, both in the
clarity of information contained within it, as well as the
number of appropriately placed signs on site, that a legally
binding contract is formed between the
motorist and the party offering that contract.
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of
the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of
£60.00 to UK Parking Control Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR
PAYMENT OPTIONS
AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator POPLA (Parking
on Private Land Appeals) using the verification code provided
above. Please note that if
you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the
discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA reject your appeal
you will be required to pay
the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge
you will be unable to appeal with POPLA. Appeals to POPLA must
be made within
twenty-eight days from the date of this letter. To appeal with
POPLA, please visit www.popla.co.uk. If you are unable to access
the internet, you may
appeal by post – this must be done using a POPLA postal form
which may be obtained by contacting POPLA by phone (0330 159
6126) or post (PO Box
1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL).
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.
3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will
automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of
this letter to £100.00 and the matter
will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you
will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70, in accordance
with the terms and conditions
of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action
is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely
affect your credit rating.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
UK Parking Control Limit
#Post#: 40993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: Natedog
Date: October 16, 2024, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Luckily, I have a job today which takes me to the location of
the car park, and I am going to video the site along with taking
pictures of the signage. Hopefully this will help support my
appeal to POPLA.
I am guessing that my main reason for appeal is the fact they
didn’t give any time for the signage to be read? Am I correct?
#Post#: 40998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: October 16, 2024, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK does not specify the "period of parking" as required by
PoFA. Also, the signs are the usual UKPC rubbish with the terms
hidden in a wall of tiny text and the charge for breaching terms
also hidden in there, another breach of PoFA whereby the signs
should adequately bring to the attention of the driver, the
charge for breaching any terms.
The location in the NtK is ambiguous in that the industrial
estate is huge and there is no evidence of where on this estate
the alleged breach occurred. As can be seen in GSV, there are
entire areas with no signage whatsoever:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/2loP1Vz.jpeg
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/d8aETJaq1mKAYyKH6
So, on that basis alone, the PCN is not compliant with ALL the
requirement of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable.
Also, the signs are prohibitory and therefore no contract could
possibly be formed. Without any "period of parking" defined,
there is no evidence that the BPA CoP has been followed with
regard to consideration period.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/udsl0ED.jpeg
All this will go into a POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 41005--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: October 16, 2024, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suggested outline for a POPLA appeal. It can be
revised and any photos that can be provided will be added if
they help the appeal.
Can you please show on Google maps exactly where in the estate
the vehicle was when the driver went to find directions?
--- Quote ---
> I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle against
the parking charge notice issued by UK Parking Control Ltd
(UKPC). The grounds for my appeal are outlined below, supported
by multiple failings in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and the
supporting evidence provided by UKPC. The PCN has been
incorrectly issued based on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Failure to Comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA) - No Period of Parking Specified
>
> [indent]The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKPC does not
comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which
mandates that the NtK MUST specify the period of parking. The
NtK only provides a single timestamp (01:54:34) but fails to
indicate the duration or period during which the vehicle was
allegedly parked.
>
> Without this information, the NtK does not meet the statutory
conditions necessary to hold the keeper liable. UKPC cannot
transfer liability to the keeper when their NtK does not comply
with PoFA, and as such, the charge must be cancelled.[/indent]
>
> 2. Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed &
PoFA Failure
>
> [indent]UKPC claims that their signage is clear and prominent,
citing an absurd comparison in their rejection letter to road
signs that motorists are expected to read at 70 mph. This
argument is not only irrelevant but laughable in the context of
a car park, where signage must be legible and sufficiently
prominent at low speeds or even while stationary.
>
> a) Hidden Terms and Conditions: The only prominent wording on
the sign is "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING." All other crucial
information, including the terms of parking and the parking
charge, is hidden in a wall of small text, making it impossible
for any driver to reasonably read or understand the contract
they are purportedly agreeing to. The wording "NO UNAUTHORISED
PARKING" on the sign is prohibitory in nature. A prohibitory
sign cannot form the basis of a contract because it offers no
invitation to park under any terms. Instead, it acts as a
deterrent, merely stating that parking is not permitted. For a
contract to be valid and enforceable, there must be an offer,
consideration, and acceptance, none of which can occur with a
prohibitory notice.
>
> As a result, this type of signage cannot be used to form a
contractual agreement, and no breach of terms could have
occurred. Therefore, no parking charge can be enforced based on
this inadequate and non-compliant signage.
>
> b) Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice: The BPA Code of
Practice mandates that parking terms and charges must be clearly
visible and easy to read. In this case, the signage does not
meet these standards, as the essential terms (including the £100
charge for breach) are obscured within tiny text, and the
clarity of the signage is insufficient to form any contract with
a motorist.
>
> c) PoFA Non-compliance: This failure to clearly (adequately)
bring to the attention of the driver the sum of the parking
charge for breaching terms also constitutes a failure to comply
with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(d). PoFA mandates
that the amount due must be clearly communicated. As UKPC has
failed to adequately highlight this, no valid contract was
formed, and UKPC cannot hold the keeper liable.
>
> Given these facts, no legally binding contract was formed
between the driver and UKPC, as the signage fails to communicate
the parking terms adequately.[/indent]
>
> 3. Ambiguity of Location – NtK Fails to Specify Exact Location
>
> The NtK is vague and fails to specify the exact location
within Uplands Business Park where the vehicle was allegedly
parked. This business park is a large industrial estate, with
numerous areas, many of which are entirely unsignposted. Without
specifying the exact location, it is impossible for UKPC to
claim a valid parking contravention occurred at a specific
point.
>
> [indent]a) PoFA Non-Compliance: Under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4,
the relevant land must be specified. The general mention of
Uplands Business Park does not meet the requirement for
specifying the relevant land, and therefore the NtK is not
compliant.
>
> b) Multiple Unsigned Areas: Given that some areas within the
estate have no signage whatsoever, it is entirely possible that
the vehicle was parked in a location without any displayed
terms. This further erodes the credibility of UKPC's claim and
their assertion that the driver was bound by any parking
terms.[/indent]
>
> 4. UKPC Must Provide Strict Proof of Driver Identity
>
> [indent]Since I am appealing as the registered keeper, and no
admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver,
UKPC is required to provide strict proof that the person they
are pursuing is indeed the driver.
>
> UKPC has not provided any evidence that identifies the driver,
nor can any assumptions or inferences be made under PoFA 2012.
In the absence of such proof, the charge must be cancelled, as
UKPC cannot demonstrate that the keeper and driver are the same
individual.[/indent]
>
> 5. Consideration Period – Ability to Locate and Understand
Signage
>
> In their rejection of my initial appeal, UKPC claimed that
their signage was sufficient and that motorists should have the
same level of "observance" in a car park as they do on public
roads at high speeds. This claim is not only baseless but also
demonstrates UKPC’s lack of understanding of the BPA Code of
Practice.
>
> [indent]a) Time to Find and Read Signs: The BPA Code of
Practice clearly requires that motorists be given an appropriate
amount of time to find the signage, read it, and understand the
terms before any contract can be assumed to have been formed.
This is referred to as a consideration period. In this instance,
there was no adequate signage visible upon entry, and even where
signs are placed, the terms are not legible due to their size
and poor placement.
>
> b) Inadequate Signage in Low Light Conditions: The alleged
contravention occurred in the early morning, in darkness, which
would make it even more difficult for any motorist to read and
understand the terms displayed on UKPC’s signs. No consideration
period was allowed for the driver to locate, read, and
comprehend the small-font, densely worded signage.[/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> In summary, the parking charge must be cancelled due to the
following reasons:
>
> [indent]• The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA 2012 due to the
absence of a period of parking and the failure to specify the
exact location of the alleged contravention.
> • No contract was formed because the signage was inadequate,
non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, and failed to
clearly communicate the parking terms.
> • The failure to bring the sum of the charge for breaching
terms to the attention of the driver constitutes another PoFA
2012 failure.
> • UKPC has provided no evidence identifying the driver, and no
assumptions can be made under PoFA about the keeper being the
driver.
> • The consideration period required to locate and understand
the signage was not provided.[/indent]
>
> I suggest that POPLA upholds this appeal and cancels the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 41008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 16, 2024, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd be minded to add to point #1 - in these sort of cases taken
by a warden, you often see 2 photos taken some time apart, to
prove that the vehicle was there for longer than the relevant
consideration period. In this case there only appears to be 1
photo, so they seemingly haven't demonstrated that the car was
there for more than 5 minutes.
#Post#: 41010--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: October 16, 2024, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes... but the NtK has to mention the "period of parking",
irrespective of whether there are other evidential photos.
#Post#: 41012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 16, 2024, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree - my point is that the lack of additional photos means
they've provided no evidence that the vehicle was even there for
long enough to attract a parking charge, which is yet another
ground of appeal that can be added. Worth throwing in every
issue.
#Post#: 41019--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: Natedog
Date: October 16, 2024, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, yes the driver parked the vehicle in this car park here…..
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/VTsJaxgzCS5pHW4w7?g_st=ic
Also, the warden took numerous pictures of the vehicle. (Around
4/5 I think)
When looking online at the pictures taken, the time stamp on the
pictures gives around 2 minutes from the first picture taken to
the last one.
#Post#: 41025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: b789
Date: October 16, 2024, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you show us the evidential photos they have. It will be
interesting to see the lighting conditions.
#Post#: 41027--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit
DIR By: Natedog
Date: October 16, 2024, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, when I look at the PCN online. The reason for issue
states….. Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit.
I’m not sure if that makes a difference.
Anyway, I will make the appeal to POPLA with the template you
suggested. Thanks again for your continued support.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page