DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66103--------------------------------------------------
HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail Park
Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: April 8, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
I received the attached Parking Charge for staying 11 minutes
over. I believe the free stay allowance is 1hr. I went to the
gym across the road but was later told it's not free parking for
them.
Location is New Street Retail Park in Ashford, Kent.
I just wanted to check, if there is anyway I can challenge this
as it seems a bit steep for exceeding the limit by 660 seconds?
If it's due, it's due but wanted to check the private firm have
everything in order and the ticket is lawful before I cough up!
Date and time in: 16/March/2025 09.33
Date and time out: 16/March/2025 10:44
Date of issue 24th March.
Received 8th April!!!!!
Many thanks,
Allan
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 66128--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unless anyone else can see it, I can't see who the creditor is.
Is it Highview Parking Ltd or is it GroupNexus which is a
trading name of CP Plus Ltd?
Either way, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant and
should be appealed. The appeal will be rejected but it will get
you a POPLA code.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. Highview has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Highview have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both
a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 66158--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: April 8, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect! Thank you. I will get straight to it and post back here
with their reply.
#Post#: 68350--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: April 23, 2025, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there, just this evening received a reply to my appeal (had
to appeal via the website as stated on the ticket). I've copy
and pasted it below but also please see the attached original
email.
Please may I ask, what do I do now/what should I send to POPLA?
Many thanks.
"Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking
Charge.
The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance
with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme
Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform
drivers of the maximum stay at this site, and it is the driver’s
responsibility to ensure that they allow enough time to remove
their vehicle from the premises within this time limit.
We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been
provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle
liable.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have
been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate
of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this
correspondence. If no payment is received within this period,
and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate
and further costs may be added.
Please find below the payment options:
Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn
By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line:
0844 371 8784
By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO BOX 14836, London, NW3
1WT
----------
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter
and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL
WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT
SHOULD BE MADE.
Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have
recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA),
an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made
within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. POPLA will
only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge
exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not
improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise
not liable for the Parking Charge. To appeal to POPLA, please
go to their website
HTML http://www.popla.co.uk
and follow the
instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post,
please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the
necessary paperwork.
Your POPLA reference number is: 2921135509
Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above
criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no
longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not
consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the
charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.
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.
Yours faithfully,
Highview Parking Ltd
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 68416--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: b789
Date: April 24, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> The appeal will be rejected but it will get you a POPLA code.
>
--- End Quote ---
Here is a suitable POPLA appeal you can use:
--- Quote ---
> Appeal Summary
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing
against the issue of this Parking Charge Notice on the following
grounds:
>
> [indent]1. The ANPR photographs fail to display a legible
timestamp – breach of Sections 7.3(b) and 7.4 of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
– no invitation to the keeper to pay.
> 3. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the creditor as
required by Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA.
> 4. The Notice to Keeper fails to clarify whether the operator
is acting as principal or agent.
> 5. The Notice to Keeper fails to specify the period of parking
as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA.
> 6. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the relevant land as
required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA.
> 7. The operator has not identified the driver and cannot rely
on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
> 8. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid
contract flowing from the landowner in accordance with PPSCoP
Section 14.[/indent]
>
> 1. No Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i)
>
> It is important to emphasise that PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) sets out a mandatory and unambiguous requirement. It
states that the Notice to Keeper must:
>
> [indent]“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 — (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges;
or (B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to
provide the creditor with a statement...”[/indent]
>
> The key phrase here is “invite the keeper...to pay the unpaid
parking charges.”
>
> This requirement is not optional, and there is no allowance in
law for this obligation to be met by implication or assumption.
The law does not say that a notice may merely “imply” that the
keeper is being invited to pay, nor does it say that the fact
the NtK is addressed to the keeper is somehow enough. The
statute uses the word MUST—meaning that an explicit, unambiguous
invitation must be present within the wording of the notice
itself.
>
> In this case, the Notice to Keeper fails to meet that
condition. It does not state anywhere that the keeper is invited
to pay the charge. The only references made are to the effect
that the keeper should either provide the driver’s details or
pass the notice to the driver. There is no direct, clear
statement inviting the keeper themselves to make payment. That
is a fundamental omission.
>
> To be absolutely clear for the avoidance of doubt:
>
> [indent]• The Notice is not compliant simply because it is
addressed to the keeper.
> • It is not compliant because it implies that someone should
take action.
> • It is only compliant if it specifically and expressly
invites the keeper to pay.[/indent]
>
> Adjudicators cannot rewrite or gloss over statutory language.
Parliament deliberately included this requirement in Schedule 4
to ensure that the transition of liability from the unknown
driver to the registered keeper only occurs when all strict
statutory safeguards are met. These safeguards are not
technicalities—they are legal thresholds.
>
> Whilst some assessors choose to simply gloss over PoFA
9(2)(e), they fail to take into account that sub paragraph (i)
is also required to be considered. It is a binary matter and
here it is clear that it has not been complied with.
>
> In failing to include the required wording, the operator has
not met the requirements of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). It is
irrelevant what the operator intended to imply. What matters is
whether the statutory wording is present on the face of the
notice. It is not.
>
> Therefore, POPLA must find that the NtK does not comply with
PoFA and that keeper liability has not been established. The
charge cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.
>
> 2. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the creditor, as
required by Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 states:
>
> [indent]“The notice must—identify the creditor and specify how
and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be
made.”[/indent]
>
> This is a mandatory statutory requirement, and one which this
NtK blatantly fails to meet. Nowhere in the Notice does it state
who the creditor actually is. There is no sentence—nor even a
vague attempt—to say: “The creditor is Highview Parking Ltd,” as
required by law.
>
> Instead, the Notice merely refers to “we” throughout, without
defining who “we” actually is in a legal context. If the
operator intends to rely on this ambiguous term to signify the
creditor, then at the very least the Notice must state “we, the
creditor” or “we, Highview Parking Ltd, as the creditor.” It
does not. The word “creditor” is not mentioned once in the
document.
>
> This failure is aggravated by the fact that the payment
section refers to “GroupNexus,” which is not the legal name of
Highview Parking Ltd but instead a trading name of CP Plus Ltd,
a completely separate limited company. This creates serious
ambiguity about who is actually pursuing the charge, undermining
the legal clarity PoFA was designed to ensure.
>
> The failure to explicitly identify the creditor means the NtK
is not compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(h), and therefore the
operator cannot hold the keeper liable. As keeper, I cannot be
expected to respond to a notice that fails to state, even once,
who is legally entitled to the charge.
>
> Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this
appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the charge.
>
> 3. The NtK fails to clarify whether Highview Parking Ltd is
acting as an agent or principal
>
> Further compounding the breach of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA,
the Notice to Keeper also fails to state whether Highview
Parking Ltd is acting:
>
> [indent]• as the principal, issuing the parking charge in its
own name and right (in which case it must be clearly named as
the creditor), or
> • as an agent of the landowner, in which case the actual
creditor is the landowner and must be identified.[/indent]
>
> There is no information in the NtK to clarify the capacity in
which Highview is acting. This creates a situation where the
keeper is being pursued for a payment allegedly owed to an
unknown party. This undermines the basic requirements of legal
certainty and transparency.
>
> POPLA and courts have consistently held that the operator must
identify the creditor and clarify their legal standing in
relation to the land. Without such clarification, the Notice is
materially non-compliant, and keeper liability cannot be
established.
>
> 4. The NtK fails to specify the actual “period of parking” as
required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to PoFA 2012
>
> Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 requires the Notice to Keeper to:
>
> [indent]“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it
was parked and the period of parking to which the notice
relates.”[/indent]
>
> The operators NtK does not comply. It merely states:
>
> [indent]“The vehicle was recorded on our client’s property at
New Street Retail Park from 16/03/2025 09:33 to 16/03/2025
10:44.”[/indent]
>
> This refers to presence on private land, not a stated period
of actual parking. The law requires a parking period—not merely
an ANPR-detected presence interval.
>
> In the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions (2023), His Honour Judge Mitchell clarified that PoFA
9(2)(a) does not require the full duration a car was present;
even a shorter recorded window may suffice as a “period of
parking.” But the judgment still requires:
>
> [indent]• a defined period (even a minimum) where the vehicle
was stationary and parked, and
> that this be clearly communicated on the notice.[/indent]
>
> In Brennan, the appeal succeeded precisely because a timestamp
alone could not establish such a period. Judge Mitchell stated
at para 29:
>
> [indent]“...the period of parking does not refer to the whole
period a vehicle is in situ. It could be less than that. ...that
is the period to which the Notice relates.”[/indent]
>
> He did not hold that an “entry and exit time” from ANPR was
enough in itself. Nor did he say that simply being “recorded on
property” was equivalent to being parked.
>
> The issue here is that the NtK does not state any actual
period of parking at all. It doesn’t say “parked from X to Y.”
It says “recorded on our client’s property from X to Y”—which is
vague and not synonymous with being parked. The difference
matters because PoFA’s keeper liability provisions must be
strictly interpreted. Mere presence on land is not the same as
parking.
>
> If Highview wish to rely on a defined “period of parking,”
they must explicitly state it, not rely on inference. If they
mean to say the vehicle was “parked from X to Y,” then they
should write that. They didn’t.
>
> Therefore, the NtK is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(a),
and the operator has no right to pursue the keeper under PoFA.
>
> 5. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify “the relevant land”
as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to PoFA 2012
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 requires that the Notice to Keeper:
>
> [indent]“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it
was parked and the period of parking to which the notice
relates.”[/indent]
>
> In this case, the Notice to Keeper merely states that:
>
> [indent]“The vehicle was recorded on our client’s property at
New Street Retail Park.”[/indent]
>
> This vague reference to “New Street Retail Park” fails to
identify the relevant land. It does not include a postcode, a
city, a county, a street number, or even a map reference. This
omission makes it impossible for the registered keeper—or indeed
a POPLA assessor—to understand exactly where the alleged
contravention is said to have occurred.
>
> It is impossible to determine the exact number of retail parks
with the address “New Street” without more specific information.
There are many streets named “New Street” across the UK, and
knowing the location (e.g., town, city, or postcode) is crucial
to identify the specific site. As there are over 1,500 retail
parks in the UK, a general descriptor such as “New Street Retail
Park” is wholly inadequate as it fails to anchor the location to
any identifiable land. Even with a search engine, one would need
at a minimum:
>
> [indent]• the city or town name, and
> • the full postcode or boundary description.[/indent]
>
> In the absence of this, the notice could refer to any number
of potential sites nationwide. There may also be multiple car
parks within a retail park, each potentially under different
management, enforcement rules, or even different operators. The
term “our client’s property” only adds ambiguity, as it fails to
establish who owns or manages the land or whether it even falls
under the operator's legal remit.
>
> This vague reference to "New Street Retail Park" is nothing
more than a generic trading label and does not constitute a
legally identifiable parcel of land. It utterly fails to inform
the registered keeper of where the vehicle was actually parked—a
requirement that is fundamental to the enforcement of any
parking charge under Schedule 4. POPLA assessors are reminded
that PoFA is not a guideline; it is legislation. It demands
strict and literal compliance, not best efforts or loose
interpretations.
>
> A failure to identify the “relevant land” is a fatal defect in
the Notice to Keeper. This is not a minor omission—this goes to
the very heart of the operator's claim. Without a precise,
uniquely identifiable location stated on the NtK, no liability
can transfer to the keeper.
>
> 6. The operator has failed to identify the driver and cannot
rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper
>
> It is a fundamental principle of English contract law that
liability for a breach—such as overstaying in a car park—rests
with the party who entered into the alleged contract. In the
case of private parking enforcement, that person is the driver.
>
> Highview Parking Ltd has not identified the driver. Nor have
they provided any evidence or admission as to who was driving
the vehicle on the day in question. There is no presumption in
law that the registered keeper is the driver, and the courts
have consistently ruled that liability cannot be imposed by
inference alone.
>
> It is therefore incumbent on the operator to either:
>
> [indent]• Produce evidence of the driver’s identity, or •
Strictly comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper.[/indent]
>
> As demonstrated in the preceding grounds of appeal, the NtK
issued by Highview Parking Ltd fails multiple core requirements
of Schedule 4:
>
> [indent]• It does not identify the creditor (9(2)(h)),
> • It does not invite the keeper to pay the charge
(9(2)(e)(i)),
> • It does not specify the relevant land (9(2)(a)),
> • It does not specify a proper period of parking (9(2)(a)),
> • It does not state whether the operator is principal or
agent.[/indent]
>
> Just as someone cannot be partial or even mostly pregnant, an
NtK cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a
binary matter. It is either fully PoFA compliant or it is not.
In this case, as shown, it definitely is not.
>
> As a result, Highview Parking Ltd has no lawful basis to hold
the registered keeper liable. In such circumstances, the burden
remains entirely on the operator to pursue the actual driver.
They have not done so.
>
> Therefore, the charge cannot be enforced against the
registered keeper, and POPLA is respectfully urged to uphold
this appeal.
>
> 7. ANPR images fail to display a legible timestamp – Breach of
PPSCoP Sections 7.3(b) and 7.4
>
> The photographic evidence included in the Notice to Keeper
fails to display any clear or legible timestamp. If a timestamp
exists, it is either obscured or presented in such poor
resolution that it cannot reasonably be read or verified. This
is a direct breach of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP), which sets mandatory evidential requirements.
>
> Section 7.3(b) of the PPSCoP states:
>
> [indent]“Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking
operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless: b)
the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;”[/indent]
>
> Highview Parking Ltd relies on ANPR images as the basis for
issuing this charge, yet those images do not bear visible,
verifiable timestamps on the face of the evidence provided. That
alone is sufficient to disqualify this charge as non-compliant
under the Code.
>
> In addition, Section 7.4 of the PPSCoP explicitly prohibits
unauthorised alterations to photographic evidence:
>
> [indent]“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.”[/indent]
>
> In this case, the absence of a visible timestamp raises a
serious question as to whether the images have been altered or
manipulated in breach of Section 7.4. If timestamps once existed
but have since been cropped, obscured, or digitally removed, the
evidential chain is broken. Such tampering—whether by omission
or design—renders the images inadmissible as credible evidence.
>
> If no timestamp was ever present, then the evidence should
never have been used to issue a PCN in the first place.
>
> The only reasonable conclusion is that the operator has
either:
>
> Used unverified images without timestamps (contravening
7.3(b)), or
> Altered the images to remove, obscure, or otherwise compromise
the timestamp (contravening 7.4).
> Either outcome renders the PCN null and void for lack of
compliant, timestamped photographic evidence.
>
> 8. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority
to issue PCNs in their own name
>
> It is a well-established requirement under the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and longstanding POPLA
precedent that a private parking operator must have clear,
current, and contractual authority flowing from the landowner to
manage parking and issue PCNs in their own name.
>
> Highview Parking Ltd is therefore put to strict proof. The
operator must produce, but not limited to:
>
> [indent]• A contemporaneous, unredacted contract or agreement
with the landowner (or the landowner’s agent, with written proof
of such agency),
> • Confirmation that the contract permits the operator to issue
PCNs in their own name and to pursue unpaid charges,
> • Proof that the contract is still valid and in force as of
the date of the alleged contravention,
> • Identification of the exact land covered (including “New
Street Retail Park”),
> • Disclosure of all material terms, including the scope,
duration, enforcement conditions, and authority limits,
> • Confirmation of any variations agreed since the contract was
first executed.[/indent]
>
> Importantly, any redactions of critical parts of the
contract—such as the validity term, the agreed parking
conditions, the times of enforcement, or the names, signatures,
and dates of the signatories—renders the evidence incomplete and
unreliable. These elements are essential to proving that a
valid, enforceable contract existed at the material time.
>
> Excessive or unnecessary redactions serve only to raise
suspicion that the operator has something to hide. It is not
sufficient for an operator to say “there is a contract” or to
supply a heavily redacted version that fails to meet the
standards set out in Section 14 of the PPSCoP. That section sets
clear expectations about what a compliant contract must contain.
>
> A simple assumption that “there must be a contract because
signs are in place” is not acceptable. That position shows a
total disregard for the PPSCoP and POPLA’s evidential standards.
Signage presence is not proof of legal authority. If the
operator cannot prove that all required contractual points under
Section 14 have been satisfied, then any suggestion that they
have a valid contract must be treated as null and void.
>
> Unless Highview Parking Ltd produces full, unredacted
contractual proof meeting all the criteria of the PPSCoP, they
cannot demonstrate any legal standing to issue or pursue this
charge. The appeal must therefore be upheld.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The Parking Charge Notice fails on multiple substantive
grounds, both statutory and procedural. Highview Parking Ltd has
not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As the operator has
failed to establish keeper liability and has not evidenced a
valid authority to issue the charge, I respectfully request that
POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the
PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 68723--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: April 26, 2025, 12:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. The appeals page on POPLA has a word limitation of
1,000. The above is just over 3,000. Should I write "Please see
attached" in the text field, and then copy and paste the above
into a word document and attach that?
Thanks again.
#Post#: 68739--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: April 26, 2025, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, I'm thinking now it might be better to put the
conclusion part in the 1,000 character appeal box and upload the
full wording above as an attachment. Are you able to confirm
this would be sufficient when submitting my appeal to POPLA?
Many thanks.
#Post#: 68767--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: b789
Date: April 26, 2025, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just attach the appeal as a pdf and upload it. Of course you
just put in the webform "See attached PDF appeal document".
#Post#: 69027--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: April 28, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
I sent my appeal off at the early hours of this morning and
received an acknowledgement reply. I'll post back here once I've
heard back. Thanks.
#Post#: 71907--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: May 16, 2025, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening all. So, today I had a reply to my appeal from
HighView.
I have attached the full document of their reply but as their
file is bigger than allowed i'll post it in 4 parts (it's not
really a big file just with their pictures). I have 10,000
characters to file my comments.
What comments to I put back to POPLA?
Your help is greatly appreciated. Best regards.
(Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is
not currently available on your account please check back later
before contacting us.
You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to
provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Highview Parking -
EW.)
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of
appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA,
we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this
stage.
Section B: Case Summary and rules/conditions
Case Summary
The Parking Charge was issued under POFA. Mr Cadenhead - who we
are pursuing as the Registered Keeper, appealed stating
that he is the keeper of the vehicle and will not be naming the
driver.
As the keeper did not provide us with details of the driver on
the day in question we are pursuing them as the registered
keeper. We can confirm that the Notice to Keeper advises that if
the amount requested in the Notice has not been paid in full
(or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current
address), the registered keeper, will, subject to the
conditions of, and under the terms of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid
Parking
Charge.
We can confirm that the Charge was issued on 24/03/2025 and
therefore deemed to be delivered on 26/03/2025, the
contrary has not been proven. As such, the Charge was issued
within PoFa time limits. We have included in Section C a copy
of the Parking Charge which states the “This Charge is given to
you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.”.
Rejecting his appeal, we advised that clear signs at the
entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the
maximum
stay at this site, and it is the driver’s responsibility to
ensure that they allow enough time to remove their vehicle from
the
premises within this time limit. We confirm the Charge was
issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the
registered keeper of the vehicle liable.
By parking the vehicle on the site, the driver entered into a
valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions.
The ample signage displayed throughout the site advises the
terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that there
is a 1 hour maximum stay. The signage advises that a Parking
Charge of £100 will be issued when allowing your vehicle to
remain on site in excess of the maximum stay.
It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the
terms and conditions of the site. In this case, by allowing his
vehicle to remain on site for 11 minutes in excess of the
maximum stay, the driver breached those terms and conditions.
We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of
the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide
evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the
appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority,
they
are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The photographs
included in Section F show that signage and equipment is in
place at the site to manage the function of enforcement and this
cannot happen without the landowner’s authority.
We can confirm that the signage is displayed in compliance with
all relevant laws and regulations - please see images and
photographs provided in Section F which support this. We operate
a grace period at this site, in line with the Single Code of
Practice to allow for movement throughout the site and on
exiting. The driver exceeded this grace period.
Mr Cadenhead claims that the ANPR images fail to display the
time stamp. Please note that Parking Charge on Section C
displays the date and time of the contravention at the top left
corner.
We are also willing to consider evidence of custom as part of
the appeals process, we note that none was provided and that
the appellant’s use of the site does not render the Parking
Charge invalid in any way as users of the site are required to
adhere to the advertised time limit, and agree to either leave
the site within this time, or pay the £100 Parking Charge if
they
remain on site after this time. The use of the facilities on
site does not exempt drivers from this.
We have included in Section G a selection of screenshots from
our appeals portal which show that the appellant was asked
for evidence when selecting their reason for appeal, and
prompted again before choosing to submit their appeal without
evidence.
Our position remains that we have received no mitigating
circumstances or evidence for which we should cancel the Parking
Charge. We maintain that Mr Cadenhead entered into a valid
contract and should pay the valid parking charges as per the
signage on the site.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page