DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 47456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: November 28, 2024, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They just sent a new Popla code!
Presumably it's now worth appealing?
HTML https://imgur.com/a/9R42aWd
has the original rejection and the
new one
#Post#: 47465--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: b789
Date: November 28, 2024, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good news, sort of, so you can now make an appeal to POPLA. You
have a deadline of Tuesday 31st December to lodge your POPLA
appeal. There is no need to rush it and they are taking at least
6-8 weeks to me an assessment at the moment so you postpone
receiving a decision until around mid February 2025.
I suggest you start to cobble together what you think is an
appeal to POPLA and show us so that we can then advise on any
changes or improvements. Poor signage is a very powerful point
to make. Also, failure to fully comply with PoFA is another as
there is no mention of the period of parking as required by
paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA. Throw in lack of authority to issue
PCNs and but them to strict proof of a valid contract.
#Post#: 47470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: November 28, 2024, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We originally discussed not complying with their request for the
details of the driver. Should I continue that or do I now tell
them who is responsible for the charge?
The charge stated the time - when 9(2a) states "period" is there
an obligation to write a start and end time?
Thanks
E
#Post#: 47472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: b789
Date: November 28, 2024, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Continue to only appeal as the Registered Keeper (RK). They have
no idea who the driver is and you are under no legal obligation
to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking
company.
If we put it together, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) states:
--- Quote ---
> 9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper
for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance
with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
>
> (2) 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;
--- End Quote ---
So, is there anything in the NtK you received that "specifies"
the "period of parking"? You tell me.
Unless ALL the requirements of PoFA are fully complied with,
then they cannot hold the Keeper liable. So, don't identify the
driver.
#Post#: 48051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: December 3, 2024, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to
my vehicle on ------ by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and have
not disclosed the identity of the driver.
The basis of my appeal is the failure of the parking company to
comply with the requirements set out in the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and on the grounds that the parking
signage does not comply with the regulations required for
enforceable private parking contracts. Specifically, I contest
that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking
Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of parking"
as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.
While the NTK mentions the time of the alleged parking
contravention, it fails to state the actual "period of parking"
during which the vehicle was purportedly parked. The PoFA
clearly differentiates between the time of issue and the period
of parking, and the NTK must include the latter to meet the
statutory requirements. Similarly, the deficiencies in the
signage mean that no contract was formed between the driver and
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.
**Key points of my appeal are as follows:**
1. **Lack of Specified Period of Parking:**
According to Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, for
the NTK to be valid, it must specify "the period of parking to
which the notice relates." The NTK issued by [parking company's
name] only mentions a single point in time, rather than a
specific period during which the vehicle was parked. This
omission is a clear failure to comply with the PoFA
requirements, rendering the NTK invalid.
2. **Non-Compliance with PoFA:**
The failure to specify the "period of parking" invalidates
the NTK under the PoFA 2012. As such, the parking company does
not have the legal right to claim unpaid parking charges from
the registered keeper.
3. **Requirement for Strict Adherence:**
As the registered keeper, I am entitled to expect that the
parking company adheres strictly to all statutory requirements
when issuing a NTK. Non-compliance with these requirements
invalidates any claim against me.
4. Lack of Adequate Illumination
The sign is mounted on a pole with no provision for adequate
lighting. The photograph clearly shows that the sign is
difficult to read in low-light conditions, rendering it
impossible for motorists to see and understand the terms at
night. This does not comply with the British Parking Association
(BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.3, which requires that
parking terms must be clearly visible and legible under all
conditions, including at night or in poor weather.
5. Insufficient Notice of Key Terms
The sign fails to meet the standards of the Consumer Rights Act
2015 and BPA Code of Practice. The terms and conditions,
including the potential £100 Parking Charge Notice, are written
in small, dense text. Key information such as the penalty amount
and conditions for enforcement is not prominent or clearly
displayed.
The ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case stressed the
importance of clear and prominent signage for creating a binding
parking contract. Here, the terms are obscured due to poor
design and positioning, undermining their enforceability.
6. Ambiguous Time Restrictions
The sign lists a complex schedule of restricted parking hours
for each day. This schedule is excessively convoluted, making it
unreasonable to expect drivers to understand and comply within
the short time they have to park and assess the situation. As
per the BPA Code of Practice (Section 19.4), terms must be clear
and concise. This sign clearly fails this standard.
7. Non-Compliance with Regulatory Design Standards
The sign does not adhere to the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) standards, which apply to
private parking signage. While TSRGD is not legally binding on
private operators, compliance is often cited as a benchmark for
clarity and enforceability.
8. Lack of Clear Authority
The sign lacks clear evidence of Private Parking Solutions'
authority to manage parking on this land. The BPA Code of
Practice, Section 7, requires parking operators to display
evidence of their contractual right to issue parking charges on
the site. This is absent from the sign.
Given these points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my
appeal and instructs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to
cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 48072--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 3, 2024, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
The back of the PCN pl.
There's no BPA Code of Practice as such, there's the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice if the event took place
on or after 1 Oct.
So I suggest you re-read your draft and remove references to an
out of date CoP, I also suggest you remove reference to TSRGD
which has nothing whatsoever to do with contracts for parking on
private land(it applies to traffic authorities), I also suggest
you aggregate and don't repeat points under PoFA and CoP
breaches, and remove the double negative here:
I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private
Parking Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of
parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of
the PoFA.
#Post#: 48073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: December 3, 2024, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
> The back of the PCN pl.
>
> [/i]
>
--- End Quote ---
Noted - will redraft
I obscured the date and time deliberately (always have done
since pepipoo). Will obviously add it back in or was there
something specific about it? Happened October 8th so will read
the private parking sector single code of conduct. Thanks
#Post#: 48794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: December 7, 2024, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
> The back of the PCN pl.
>
> There's no BPA Code of Practice as such, there's the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice if the event took place
on or after 1 Oct.
>
> So I suggest you re-read your draft and remove references to
an out of date CoP, I also suggest you remove reference to TSRGD
which has nothing whatsoever to do with contracts for parking on
private land(it applies to traffic authorities), I also suggest
you aggregate and don't repeat points under PoFA and CoP
breaches, and remove the double negative here:
>
> I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private
Parking Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of
parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of
the PoFA.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I am writing to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to
my vehicle on ********* by Private Parking Solutions (London)
Ltd. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and
have not disclosed the identity of the driver.
The basis of my appeal is the failure of the parking company to
comply with the requirements set out in the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the inadequacy of the parking
signage. Specifically, I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK)
issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd fails to
specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph
9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.
Key points of my appeal are as follows:
1. Lack of Specified Period of Parking:
According to Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, for
the NTK to be valid, it must specify "the period of parking to
which the notice relates." The NTK issued by Private Parking
Solutions (London) Ltd only mentions a single point in time,
rather than a specific period during which the vehicle was
parked. This omission is a clear failure to comply with the PoFA
requirements, rendering the NTK invalid. As such, the parking
company does not have the legal right to claim unpaid parking
charges from the registered keeper.
2. Inadequate Signage:
The parking signage does not comply with the regulations
required for enforceable private parking contracts. The signage
fails to clearly display the terms and conditions, including the
potential £100 Parking Charge Notice, in a manner that meets the
standards of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
Lack of Adequate Illumination:
The sign is mounted on a pole with no provision for
adequate lighting. It is difficult to read in low-light
conditions, rendering it impossible for motorists to see and
understand the terms at night. This does not comply with the
requirement that parking terms must be clearly visible and
legible under all conditions, including at night or in poor
weather.
- **Insufficient Notice of Key Terms:**
The terms and conditions are written in small, dense text.
Key information such as the penalty amount and conditions for
enforcement is not prominent or clearly displayed.
Ambiguous Time Restrictions:
The sign lists a complex schedule of restricted parking
hours for each day. This schedule is excessively convoluted,
making it unreasonable to expect drivers to understand and
comply within the short time they have to park and assess the
situation.
3. Lack of Clear Authority:
The sign lacks clear evidence of Private Parking Solutions'
authority to manage parking on this land. The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice requires parking operators to
display evidence of their contractual right to issue parking
charges on the site. This is absent from the sign.
Given these points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my
appeal and instructs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to
cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully
#Post#: 48862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 8, 2024, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Assessor,
PCN *********
The issue in dispute here is whether the creditor has the right
to enforce against the driver the requirement to pay the parking
charge and, if so, whether they could claim this from the keeper
of the vehicle.
I have set out my appeal accordingly.
Does the creditor have the right to enforce against the driver
the requirement to pay the parking charge
Before going into the detail of the events on the site and my
appeal, the assessor is obliged to satisfy themselves that the
creditor has the necessary authority to enter into contracts and
impose parking charges on behalf of the landowner. This would
necessitate the creditor providing evidence to this effect and I
reserve the right to present argument based upon this once a
copy has been provided to me.
Subject to the creditor having this authority, I dispute that
this could give rise to a relevant obligation on the driver's
part in this case because the signs in situ fail to comply with
the Code of Practice as follows:
...the signage issues.
Does the creditor have the right to recover unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of the vehicle
This would require the creditor to comply with the provisions of
paragraphs 5,6,9,11 and 12 (as the case may be) of Schedule 4 to
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the creditor has
failed to comply with paragraph 9, and therefore paragraph 6,
for the following reasons:
****** your NTK issues.
Would be my approach to structure...apart from any other reason
because this is how the assessor would approach the issue.
#Post#: 49154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked on private land on mistaken advice of resident
DIR By: eyalmms
Date: December 10, 2024, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Really appreciate the ongoing feedback
Is this better?
**Dear Mr. Assessor,**
**PCN: [Your Reference Number]**
The issue in dispute here is whether the creditor has the right
to enforce against the driver the requirement to pay the parking
charge and, if so, whether they can claim this from the keeper
of the vehicle.
I have set out my appeal accordingly:
**Does the creditor have the right to enforce against the driver
the requirement to pay the parking charge?**
Before going into the detail of the events on the site and my
appeal, the assessor is obliged to satisfy themselves that the
creditor has the necessary authority to enter into contracts and
impose parking charges on behalf of the landowner. This would
necessitate the creditor providing evidence to this effect, and
I reserve the right to present an argument based upon this once
a copy has been provided to me.
Subject to the creditor having this authority, I dispute that
this could give rise to a relevant obligation on the driver's
part in this case because the signs in situ fail to comply with
the Code of Practice as follows:
1. **Inadequate Signage:**
The parking signage does not comply with the regulations
required for enforceable private parking contracts. The signage
fails to clearly display the terms and conditions, including the
potential £100 Parking Charge Notice, in a manner that meets the
standards of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
- **Lack of Adequate Illumination:**
The sign is mounted on a pole with no provision for
adequate lighting. It is difficult to read in low-light
conditions, rendering it impossible for motorists to see and
understand the terms at night. This does not comply with the
requirement that parking terms must be clearly visible and
legible under all conditions, including at night or in poor
weather.
- **Insufficient Notice of Key Terms:**
The terms and conditions are written in small, dense text.
Key information such as the penalty amount and conditions for
enforcement is not prominent or clearly displayed.
- **Ambiguous Time Restrictions:**
The sign lists a complex schedule of restricted parking
hours for each day. This schedule is excessively convoluted,
making it unreasonable to expect drivers to understand and
comply within the short time they have to park and assess the
situation.
**Does the creditor have the right to recover unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of the vehicle?**
This would require the creditor to comply with the provisions of
paragraphs 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 (as the case may be) of Schedule
4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, the creditor
has failed to comply with paragraph 9, and therefore paragraph
6, for the following reasons:
2. **Lack of Specified Period of Parking:**
According to Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, for
the NTK to be valid, it must specify "the period of parking to
which the notice relates." The NTK issued by Private Parking
Solutions (London) Ltd only mentions a single point in time,
rather than a specific period during which the vehicle was
parked. This omission is a clear failure to comply with the PoFA
requirements, rendering the NTK invalid. As such, the parking
company does not have the legal right to claim unpaid parking
charges from the registered keeper.
3. **Lack of Clear Authority:**
The sign lacks clear evidence of Private Parking Solutions'
authority to manage parking on this land. The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice requires parking operators to
display evidence of their contractual right to issue parking
charges on the site. This is absent from the sign.
Given these points, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my
appeal and instructs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to
cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page