DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83544--------------------------------------------------
p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: July 31, 2025, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Estate was switching from a paper permit system to an e-permit
system enforced by a new parking company.
Driver's a relatively new resident, hadn't been able to acquire
a paper permit due to inefficiencies in the system, so jumped at
the chance to apply for an electronic permit.
Application for electronic permit was approved on 25/06/2025,
but driver didn't notice that the permit was only valid from the
27/07/2025 (the date the new Sippi run system was due to come
into effect), assuming that having a parking permit application
approved meant "good to go" and neglecting to read the details
which did mention a "valid from" date in the future, something
the driver had never come across before.
Only noticed parking charge once 2 were on the windscreen.
Informal appeal was submitted in order to extend the discount
period, but unsure if this was the right thing to do.
Attempts have been made to contact Southern Housing to have the
charges withdrawn but they "don't get involved in parking
matters"
Would it have been better to have waited for a notice to keeper
to be sent?
The other thing I'm worried about is that because the parking
company never sent a notice to keeper then I wouldn't be able to
challenge on POFA grounds, as all they've done is a notice to
driver (?) via physical ticket on car?
In the reply to my first appeal, this seems like a rather odd
statement considering there hasn't been a NtK?:
"With respect to your comments regarding liability, we
acknowledge your position as the registered keeper and your
decision not to identify the driver. However, we can confirm
that the PCN has been issued in accordance with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and liability has been
correctly transferred to the keeper under the
provisions of the Act."
Also the fact that the signs have now been taken down and
replaced with signs from the new parking management company
would mean I would no longer be able to collect evidence for my
appeal.. is that something POPLA would care about?
Any input much appreciated!
Details:
Tickets issued:
01/07/2025 and 03/07/2025
Informal appeal sent:
14/07/2025 and 16/07/2025
Appeals rejected and POPLA codes issued:
17/07/2025 and 18/07/2025
photo album:
HTML https://ibb.co/album/zsvjSb
HTML https://i.ibb.co/938kVjqk/PCNs-2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ns5Bfxj1/PCNs-1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Wp2vz1CP/site-photo-1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/dwBkcMfm/site-photo-2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/RphfPgtb/site-photo-3.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/60t1b7Bg/site-photo-4.jpg
vv See the informal appeal replies attached below vv
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 83546--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: Dave65
Date: July 31, 2025, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you on a lease?
What does your lease documents say about parking a vehicle?
#Post#: 83556--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 31, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1.
And your letters to them please.
#Post#: 83582--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2025, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us everything in your lease that mentions anything about
parking. What it doesn't say about parking is equally important.
They cannot claim Keeper liability if they haven't issued an
NtK!
The Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) you have shown are not PoFA
compliant with paragraph 7(2)(a). You should really have waited
to appeal on day 27 after the issue date of the Notice to Driver
(NtD) but it is what it is now. If they have already rejected
your appeals as the Keeper, then even if they try and issue an
Notice to Keeper (NtK) within the relevant period (28 to 56 days
after the alleged contravention), it is too late.
The NtD was not PoFA compliant, failing to specify a period of
parking. The contravention type requires direct observation, not
inferred presence. Any NtK issued now would be procedurally
invalid and statutorily non-compliant. Therefore, no keeper
liability exists, and any attempt to pursue the keeper is
legally baseless.
Stand your ground for now. The odds of this ever reaching a
hearing incur are slim and you have a powerful defence should
they be so stupid as to try and take it that far.
For now, show us what your lease says about parking. In the
majority of these residential cases, the operator has no
standing to override the supremacy of contract you have with
your lease.
Also, do not identify the driver as their NtD's are not PoFA
compliant with paragraph 7(2)(a). If you do get another one, do
not appeal as the Keeper until day 27 after the date of the
contravention.
#Post#: 83586--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 31, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, the key is what you wrote.
If you admitted to being the driver then b789's points about
PoFA, while being correct, don't apply because this applies only
if:
1)....the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle
the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against
the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of
the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
If you've admitted to being the driver then the 'simple' rules
of contract apply
#Post#: 83588--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2025, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Keeper has not identified the driver...
--- Quote from: beansprout link ---
>
> In the reply to my first appeal, this seems like a rather odd
statement considering there hasn't been a NtK?:
>
> "With respect to your comments regarding liability, we
acknowledge your position as the registered keeper and your
> decision not to identify the driver. However, we can confirm
that the PCN has been issued in accordance with the
> Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and liability has been
correctly transferred to the keeper under the
> provisions of the Act."
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83599--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: July 31, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the input everyone!
Yes, leaseholder. I'll dig out the lease and post here.
My appeals were some AI generated slop that I sent in a panic
because of the impending discount deadline, something very close
to this:
For the first appeal I sent this:
--- Quote ---
> I am challenging this PCN on the basis that no liability rests
with the keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the
driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention
and I decline to do so. Any claim against the keeper is reliant
on strict compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(POFA), which you are required to prove.
>
> In addition, the charges should be cancelled on the following
grounds:
>
> Overriding Mitigating Circumstances (BPA Code of Practice
Annex F): A new digital permit for this vehicle had been
approved by the landowner, Southern Housing, prior to the dates
of the alleged contraventions. A genuine and understandable
error was made by the driver in not noticing the precise
activation date of this new permit. Punitive enforcement in such
a case is contrary to the principles of fairness outlined in the
BPA's Appeals Charter and constitutes an overriding mitigating
circumstance.
>
> No Landowner Authority to Penalise a Permitted Resident (BPA
Code Clause 14): Your authority to operate is granted by the
landowner, Southern Housing. This authority cannot extend to
penalising a resident to whom the landowner has already granted
permission to park. The discrepancy between the landowner's
approval and your enforcement system is an internal matter for
you and Southern Housing to resolve, not a burden to be placed
on a resident.
>
> Given these points, I require you to cancel both PCNs
immediately. Should you reject this appeal, you must provide a
valid 10-digit POPLA verification code for each PCN to allow the
matter to be escalated to the independent adjudicator.
--- End Quote ---
For the second appeal I felt a bit sheepish about the hardball
of not identifying the driver and just sent this: (in retrospect
I shouldn't have, the first appeal got them to respond with
something saying they were pursuing me as keeper..)
--- Quote ---
> I'm appealing the charges on the following grounds:
>
> Overriding Mitigating Circumstances (BPA Code of Practice
Annex F): A new digital permit for this vehicle had been
approved by the landowner, Southern Housing, prior to the dates
of the alleged contraventions. A genuine and understandable
error was made by the driver in not noticing the precise
activation date of this new permit. Punitive enforcement in such
a case is contrary to the principles of fairness outlined in the
BPA's Appeals Charter and constitutes an overriding mitigating
circumstance.
>
> No Landowner Authority to Penalise a Permitted Resident (BPA
Code Clause 14): Your authority to operate is granted by the
landowner, Southern Housing. This authority cannot extend to
penalising a resident to whom the landowner has already granted
permission to park. The discrepancy between the landowner's
approval and your enforcement system is an internal matter for
you and Southern Housing to resolve, not a burden to be placed
on a resident.
>
> Given these points, I require you to cancel both PCNs
immediately. Should you reject this appeal, you must provide a
valid 10-digit POPLA verification code for each PCN to allow the
matter to be escalated to the independent adjudicator.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83600--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: July 31, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> ...If they have already rejected your appeals as the Keeper,
then even if they try and issue an Notice to Keeper (NtK) within
the relevant period (28 to 56 days after the alleged
contravention), it is too late.
>
--- End Quote ---
In response to my first appeal they explicitly said "we
acknowledge your position as the registered keeper and your
decision not to identify the driver. However, we can confirm
that the PCN has been issued in accordance with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and liability has been
correctly transferred to the keeper under the
provisions of the Act."
In their reply to the second appeal they didn't mention if they
were pursuing me as keeper/driver/owner..?
#Post#: 83603--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: beansprout link ---
>
> However, we can confirm that the PCN has been issued in
accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and
liability has been correctly transferred to the keeper under the
provisions of the Act."
>
> In their reply to the second appeal they didn't mention if
they were pursuing me as keeper/driver/owner..?
>
--- End Quote ---
They can say whatever they like. It doesn't alter the fact that
they have not complied with the Act and therefore the Keeper
cannot be liable and they have no idea who the driver is. They
are not allowed to infer that the Keeper must also be the driver
and that is backed up by persuasive appellate case law as in VCS
v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C].
We don't need to see the whole lease, just the bits about
parking. For example, if there is no mention of any requirement
to display or purchase a permit, then it would mean that the
management company or the landlord has breached the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1987 by allowing the operator to insist on a permit
requirement.
#Post#: 83615--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: July 31, 2025, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> They can say whatever they like. It doesn't alter the fact
that they have not complied with the Act and therefore the
Keeper cannot be liable and they have no idea who the driver is.
They are not allowed to infer that the Keeper must also be the
driver and that is backed up by persuasive appellate case law as
in VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C].
--- End Quote ---
Oh yes I agree that what they're saying is nonsense, I was just
pointing out the _lack_ of that particularly nonsense in the
second rejection. I'm imagining both PCNs get looked at in
complete isolation, so that second one I might not be able to
appeal on PoFA grounds as they haven't said they were pursuing
as keeper.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page