DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 44906--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: November 10, 2024, 10:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thank you so much for this, i have sent this off. I will update
when i get a reply.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I suggest you respond to Mr Appiah at the Trust with the
following:
>
> [quote]Subject: Formal Response to PCN Complaint – Joint and
Several Liability for UKPC’s Actions
>
> Dear Mr. Appiah,
>
> I am writing in response to your letter dated [insert date],
regarding my complaint about the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC) at Burnley General Hospital.
I appreciate the time taken to review my concerns, but I must
address several key points where I believe your response has
overlooked both legal and procedural obligations under the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking
Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I also hold East Lancashire
Hospitals NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future
legal action that may arise should UKPC pursue this matter
further.
>
> 1. Misclassification of the "Parking Charge Notice" as Not an
NtD
>
> While the notice left on my vehicle does not meet all the
specific requirements under Schedule 4, PoFA 2012 for an
official Notice to Driver (NtD) – lacking details such as
vehicle information, location, and time of issue – it is
explicitly labelled a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN). This
classification and the use of such terminology imply an
enforceable charge under PoFA, thereby reasonably inducing me to
regard it as an NtD.
>
> The labelling of this notice as a PCN aligns with the function
and purpose of an NtD as intended by PoFA: to inform the driver
of an alleged breach and the imposition of a charge.
Consequently, the notice should be considered an NtD in
substance, if not in full form, thus requiring UKPC to observe
the 28-day delay before accessing registered keeper details.
>
> 2. Substance Over Form – Legal Doctrine and Reasonable
Interpretation
>
> In legal interpretation, courts frequently apply the doctrine
of “substance over form”, which prioritises the intent and
practical effect of a document over its technical format. By
labelling this document as a “Parking Charge Notice”, UKPC
created the reasonable impression that it serves as a formal
notice initiating the enforcement process, effectively
functioning as an NtD.
>
> The lack of certain minor details does not negate its role as
an NtD, and I would expect the Trust, in holding UKPC
accountable to PoFA and BPA Code of Practice, to consider this
document in substance as an NtD. Failure to do so could allow
UKPC to bypass statutory protections through technical evasions,
which is neither in line with PoFA’s intent nor with fair
consumer practice.
>
> 3. Expectation of the Reasonable Person and Transparency
>
> The notice’s prominent labelling as a “Parking Charge Notice”
would lead any reasonable person to interpret it as a formal
notice of a charge in line with PoFA procedures. UKPC’s denial
that this is an NtD contradicts the reasonable expectation
created by their choice of language. By failing to treat this
notice as an NtD and by accessing my details prematurely, UKPC
has violated both PoFA and BPA Code of Practice guidelines,
which your Trust is obligated to enforce through your contract
with them.
>
> 4. NHS Trust Liability – Obligations Under NHS Car Parking
Guidance 2022
>
> The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 clearly states that NHS
organisations are responsible for the actions of contractors
managing parking on their behalf. It further emphasises that
contracts with parking operators should be managed to prevent
rogue practices and to ensure compliance with relevant codes of
practice.
>
> UKPC’s actions in this instance are not only non-compliant
with PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice but could also be viewed
as contrary to NHS guidance, particularly in failing to respect
the rights of vehicle keepers. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS
Trust has an obligation to ensure that UKPC adheres to both
legal requirements and ethical standards, particularly when
dealing with vulnerable patients attending medical facilities.
>
> 5. Joint and Several Liability for Future Legal Action
>
> In light of the above points, I hold East Lancashire Hospitals
NHS Trust jointly and severally liable for any future legal
action that may arise should UKPC pursue this PCN. The Trust’s
contractual relationship with UKPC places it in a position of
accountability, particularly where contractors are found to be
operating outside of legal guidelines and established codes of
practice.
>
> Should UKPC pursue further action, I will not hesitate to
include the Trust as a co-defendant, based on its duty of care
to enforce compliance with PoFA and the BPA Code. By allowing
UKPC to operate in such a manner, the Trust is effectively
endorsing practices that could result in unfair legal claims
against innocent motorists, which is entirely unacceptable for
an organisation committed to patient welfare.
>
> Conclusion
>
> In conclusion, I expect East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust to
hold UKPC accountable for adhering to all statutory
requirements, including PoFA’s 28-day delay requirement
following a Notice to Driver. I further expect that this PCN
will be cancelled immediately, given the numerous procedural
errors outlined above, and that steps will be taken to ensure
UKPC’s compliance with PoFA and NHS guidelines on your premises.
>
> Please confirm in writing within 14 days how the Trust intends
to address these issues and whether UKPC will be instructed to
cancel this PCN. Should the Trust choose not to act on this
matter, I will take appropriate steps to protect my legal
rights, including holding the Trust accountable as a joint party
in any further action.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Your Address]
> [Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 44907--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: November 10, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nothavingthis link ---
>
> Hi, is the 33 days to appeal to POPLA correct or is it 28 days
as stated in the rejection letter.
>
--- End Quote ---
The 28 days starts fro the date of service which they allow 5
days for from the issue date.
#Post#: 44917--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 10, 2024, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you sent this letter?
Do you have a copy of the Trust's Car Parking Policy?
#Post#: 46128--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: November 18, 2024, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Have you sent this letter?
>
> Do you have a copy of the Trust's Car Parking Policy?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi, yes i sent the letter, well sent it in email format. They
have sent acknowledgment but no response as of yet.
I do not have a copy of the trust parking policy, but from a
quick google search i can see this :
HTML https://elht.nhs.uk/your-visit/car-parking
#Post#: 46131--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: November 18, 2024, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no
money it for them if they don't.
>
> So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an
appeal to them based on the points I have already given you
earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection
to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.
>
> Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we
will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is
suitable for submission.
>
> No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if
it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be
discontinued.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good evening,
I hope you can provide some feedback on my POPLA appeal below,
thanks in advance!
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control
(UKPC)
PCN Number: [#]
Vehicle Registration: [#]
Grounds for Appeal:
Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued
Is the Driver.
Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of
Practice.
No Evidence of Landholder Authority.
Misleading and Predatory Tactics.
1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
To hold a registered keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN), UKPC must fully comply with all procedural and
substantive requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This includes:
Premature Issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK):
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) of PoFA mandates that when a
Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued, the operator must wait a
minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
In this case, an NtD was affixed to the vehicle, yet the
NtK was sent before the 28-day period had elapsed, violating the
statutory timeline. This procedural failure invalidates the
ability of UKPC to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
Omission of Required Information in the NtK:
Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA outlines specific information
that must be included in the NtK. UKPC's NtK does not meet these
requirements in full. For example, it fails to:
Clearly state the period of parking to which the
charge relates.
Specify the steps taken to identify the driver
before pursuing the registered keeper.
The absence of this information renders the NtK
non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the registered keeper cannot be
held liable.
2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued
Is the Driver
UKPC has relied solely on the assumption that the registered
keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
Under Paragraph 4(1) of PoFA, only the driver can be held liable
unless strict compliance with PoFA enables the operator to
transfer liability to the registered keeper.
No evidence, such as photographic identification of the
driver, has been provided by UKPC.
As per the legal principle established in CPS Ltd v AJH
Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453, liability cannot simply be
inferred based on keeper information without substantiating
evidence.
Since UKPC has not identified the driver and has failed to meet
the conditions for keeper liability, the PCN cannot be enforced.
3. Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of
Practice
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires
that parking terms and conditions be clearly and prominently
displayed. In this case:
Signs at the location were either obscured, too small, or
positioned in a way that made them unreadable.
The signage failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice
Section 19, which requires that terms be clear, unambiguous, and
visible to all motorists.
At the time of the alleged contravention, the signage did
not adequately communicate the parking terms, leading to
confusion.
This failure undermines any alleged contractual agreement and
invalidates the claim.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC has failed to demonstrate its authority to issue parking
charges on this land. According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code
of Practice, parking operators must have written authorization
from the landholder confirming their authority to manage parking
at the site.
UKPC has not provided a copy of their contract with the
landowner or evidence of their legal authority to issue PCNs.
Without such proof, UKPC cannot demonstrate that they have
the right to enforce parking terms or pursue charges.
5. Misleading and Predatory Tactics
UKPC’s conduct in this matter was misleading and predatory:
The NtK was issued prematurely, and their response to my
initial appeal was dismissive, failing to address key legal
points raised regarding PoFA compliance.
The aggressive issuance of this PCN during a
maternity-related hospital visit reflects poorly on UKPC’s
adherence to BPA’s principles of fairness and proportionality.
The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 emphasizes the importance of
parking policies that accommodate patients and their families,
particularly in urgent medical situations. UKPC’s actions in
this case contravene these principles and bring disrepute to
their parking management practices.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, this PCN is invalid and
unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:
Comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA.
Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time.
Provide evidence of clear and adequate signage.
Demonstrate landholder authority.
Conduct themselves in a manner consistent with BPA’s Code of
Practice and NHS Car Parking Guidance.
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.
Yours sincerely,
#Post#: 46344--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: November 20, 2024, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] Any suggestions on my draft? thanks
--- Quote from: nothavingthis link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=3360.msg41988#msg41988
date=1729683821]
> As expected. UKPC will always reject an appeal. There's no
money it for them if they don't.
>
> So, you now have a POPLA code and you need to prepare an
appeal to them based on the points I have already given you
earlier. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection
to submit the POPLA appeal so, no rush.
>
> Show us what you think is suitable for the POPLA appeal and we
will provide corrections and suggestions to make sure it is
suitable for submission.
>
> No one pays UKPC PCNs if they are getting advice here. Even if
it went all the way to a court claim, it would eventually be
discontinued.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good evening,
I hope you can provide some feedback on my POPLA appeal below,
thanks in advance!
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control
(UKPC)
PCN Number: [#]
Vehicle Registration: [#]
Grounds for Appeal:
Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued
Is the Driver.
Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of
Practice.
No Evidence of Landholder Authority.
Misleading and Predatory Tactics.
1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
To hold a registered keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN), UKPC must fully comply with all procedural and
substantive requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This includes:
Premature Issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK):
Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) of PoFA mandates that when a
Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued, the operator must wait a
minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
In this case, an NtD was affixed to the vehicle, yet the
NtK was sent before the 28-day period had elapsed, violating the
statutory timeline. This procedural failure invalidates the
ability of UKPC to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
Omission of Required Information in the NtK:
Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA outlines specific information
that must be included in the NtK. UKPC's NtK does not meet these
requirements in full. For example, it fails to:
Clearly state the period of parking to which the
charge relates.
Specify the steps taken to identify the driver
before pursuing the registered keeper.
The absence of this information renders the NtK
non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the registered keeper cannot be
held liable.
2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Being Pursued
Is the Driver
UKPC has relied solely on the assumption that the registered
keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
Under Paragraph 4(1) of PoFA, only the driver can be held liable
unless strict compliance with PoFA enables the operator to
transfer liability to the registered keeper.
No evidence, such as photographic identification of the
driver, has been provided by UKPC.
As per the legal principle established in CPS Ltd v AJH
Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453, liability cannot simply be
inferred based on keeper information without substantiating
evidence.
Since UKPC has not identified the driver and has failed to meet
the conditions for keeper liability, the PCN cannot be enforced.
3. Inadequate Signage Leading to a Breach of the BPA Code of
Practice
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires
that parking terms and conditions be clearly and prominently
displayed. In this case:
Signs at the location were either obscured, too small, or
positioned in a way that made them unreadable.
The signage failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice
Section 19, which requires that terms be clear, unambiguous, and
visible to all motorists.
At the time of the alleged contravention, the signage did
not adequately communicate the parking terms, leading to
confusion.
This failure undermines any alleged contractual agreement and
invalidates the claim.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
UKPC has failed to demonstrate its authority to issue parking
charges on this land. According to Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code
of Practice, parking operators must have written authorization
from the landholder confirming their authority to manage parking
at the site.
UKPC has not provided a copy of their contract with the
landowner or evidence of their legal authority to issue PCNs.
Without such proof, UKPC cannot demonstrate that they have
the right to enforce parking terms or pursue charges.
5. Misleading and Predatory Tactics
UKPC’s conduct in this matter was misleading and predatory:
The NtK was issued prematurely, and their response to my
initial appeal was dismissive, failing to address key legal
points raised regarding PoFA compliance.
The aggressive issuance of this PCN during a
maternity-related hospital visit reflects poorly on UKPC’s
adherence to BPA’s principles of fairness and proportionality.
The NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022 emphasizes the importance of
parking policies that accommodate patients and their families,
particularly in urgent medical situations. UKPC’s actions in
this case contravene these principles and bring disrepute to
their parking management practices.
Conclusion
In light of the above points, this PCN is invalid and
unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:
Comply with the procedural requirements of PoFA.
Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time.
Provide evidence of clear and adequate signage.
Demonstrate landholder authority.
Conduct themselves in a manner consistent with BPA’s Code of
Practice and NHS Car Parking Guidance.
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and
instruct UKPC to cancel the PCN.
Yours sincerely,
[/quote]
#Post#: 46356--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: November 20, 2024, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?
Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your
circumstances:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking
Control (UKPC)
>
> PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
>
> POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking
Control (UKPC)
>
> Grounds for Appeal
>
> [indent]1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver
(NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.
>
> 2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> 3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was
the Driver.
>
> 4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> 5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.[/indent]
>
> 1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD)
Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was
Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)
>
> The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a
yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving
the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and
presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an
official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical
purposes.
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/MDSYJ3x/IMG-0068.jpg
>
> By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the
procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA,
which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before
serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
>
> UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If
UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are
effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.
>
> This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements.
UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a
contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD
to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4,
Paragraph 8(4).
>
> Premature NtK
>
> UKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen
note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK
invalid.
>
> 2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFA
>
> To transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory
requirements, rendering it invalid.
>
> Omission of Mandatory Information
>
> Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information
that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail,
the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this
information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the
operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
>
> PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under
paragraph 8 or 9 that the notice MUST: "specify the vehicle, the
relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking
to which the notice relates." An NtK, whether issued under
paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully
comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even
substantial compliance is insufficient.
>
>
> 3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was
the Driver
>
> UKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged
contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the
registered keeper was the driver.
>
> Legal Requirements
>
> Schedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the
registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL
its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish
the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be
presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under
some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can
only hold the driver liable.
>
> Relevant Legal Precedent
>
> In VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the
issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it
was emphasised that:
>
> [indent]• A parking operator must present substantive evidence
to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged
contravention.
> • Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered
keeper’s details or their correspondence.[/indent]
>
> This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the
driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless
PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the
registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to
provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered
keeper’s details to pursue this charge.
>
> 4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice
>
> UKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by
the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section
19.
>
> Poor Visibility and Clarity
>
> The signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a
way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not
clearly communicated, leading to confusion.
>
> Failure to Form a Contract
>
> The lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no
contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This
invalidates the parking charge.
>
> 5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
>
> UKPC 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, consideration
periods, 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]
>
> Conclusion
>
> In light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is
invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:
>
> [indent]• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA
regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.
> • Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
> • Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the
alleged contravention.
> • Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA
guidelines.
> • Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in
question.[/indent]
>
> I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to
cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 46385--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: November 20, 2024, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Nope, no reply fro Mr Appiah yet.
I will use what you have provided for the POPLA appeal, i want
to take this opportunity to thank you for the time you have put
into this and in helping me, Thank you! :)
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?
>
> Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your
circumstances:
>
> [quote]POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK
Parking Control (UKPC)
>
> PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
>
> POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking
Control (UKPC)
>
> Grounds for Appeal
>
> [indent]1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver
(NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.
>
> 2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the
Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> 3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was
the Driver.
>
> 4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> 5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.[/indent]
>
> 1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD)
Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was
Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)
>
> The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a
yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving
the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and
presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an
official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical
purposes.
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/MDSYJ3x/IMG-0068.jpg
>
> By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the
procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA,
which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before
serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
>
> UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If
UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are
effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.
>
> This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements.
UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a
contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD
to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4,
Paragraph 8(4).
>
> Premature NtK
>
> UKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen
note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK
invalid.
>
> 2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFA
>
> To transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory
requirements, rendering it invalid.
>
> Omission of Mandatory Information
>
> Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information
that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail,
the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this
information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the
operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
>
> PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under
paragraph 8 or 9 that the notice MUST: "specify the vehicle, the
relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking
to which the notice relates." An NtK, whether issued under
paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully
comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even
substantial compliance is insufficient.
>
>
> 3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was
the Driver
>
> UKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged
contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the
registered keeper was the driver.
>
> Legal Requirements
>
> Schedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the
registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL
its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish
the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be
presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under
some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can
only hold the driver liable.
>
> Relevant Legal Precedent
>
> In VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the
issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it
was emphasised that:
>
> [indent]• A parking operator must present substantive evidence
to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged
contravention.
> • Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered
keeper’s details or their correspondence.[/indent]
>
> This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the
driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless
PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the
registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to
provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered
keeper’s details to pursue this charge.
>
> 4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice
>
> UKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by
the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section
19.
>
> Poor Visibility and Clarity
>
> The signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a
way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not
clearly communicated, leading to confusion.
>
> Failure to Form a Contract
>
> The lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no
contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This
invalidates the parking charge.
>
> 5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
>
> UKPC 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, consideration
periods, 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]
>
> Conclusion
>
> In light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is
invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:
>
> [indent]• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA
regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.
> • Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
> • Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the
alleged contravention.
> • Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA
guidelines.
> • Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in
question.[/indent]
>
> I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to
cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 46481--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 21, 2024, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, maybe a bit late but IMO we could be missing a trick.
The scope of POPLA includes whether the operator has complied
with the applicable Code of Practice, not just PoFA.
So, what does the CoP say about a Notice to Driver NOT what does
PoFA state but what does the operator's own code state.
HTML http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/3254.html
Page 13, para. 21.4
'..the document you give to drivers or attach to their
windscreens to tell them they have broken your terms and
conditions...'.
The Code IS NOT applicable only to claims pursued under PoFA
because the code anticipates that not all claims would be made
using the 'keeper liability' provisions of PoFA.
So IMO your approach to POPLA should be:
Could this document reasonably be considered a Notice to Driver
for the purposes of the code, and
Could this document reasonably be considered a Notice to Driver
for the purposes of PoFA, and
If neither applies, then prima facie this is a breach of the
operator's duty under the code to make a driver aware that the
operator intends to hold them or the keeper liable and this
appeal should be allowed, or
If either applies then the appeal should be allowed by virtue of
the prematurity of the Notice to Keeper and failure to provide
the specifics in the notice specified under the code.
#Post#: 46491--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: November 21, 2024, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No idea why the link to the Isle of Wight case is provided but
the point about the operators Code of Practice stating that a
PCN is "The parking charge notice is the document you give to
drivers, or attach to their vehicle windscreen, to tell them
they have broken your terms and conditions and are now liable
for parking charges." is very valid.
The windscreen PCN was indeed a PCN for all intents and
purposes. If it is not too late and the POPLA appeal has not yet
been submitted, it is worth adding a sentence within section 1
of the suggested appeal with the following:
--- Quote ---
> The windscreen PCN issued to the driver, while not fully
compliant with PoFA paragraph 7 for a Notice to Driver (NtD),
should still be considered a valid NtD. This is supported by the
BPA Code of Practice (v9), Section 24.1, which defines a parking
charge notice as the document given to drivers or affixed to
their vehicle to inform them of a breach of terms and
conditions, making them liable for parking charges. A valid PCN
affixed to a windscreen is therefore a Notice to Driver (NtD).
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page