**CANCELLED!!!!** UK Parking Patrol Office PCN - 19 minute overstay

[Sh17]

Hi All,

mystery1 - You have helped me beofre and wondering if you can advise again on this one as well.

So i got this private PCN for a 19 minute overstay.

I did research and appealed it saying this:

I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from ParkingEye at Wye Valley Visitor Centre Car Park.
To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
1. Insufficient grace period
2. The Notice to Keeper does not conform with the statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore UKPPO can no longer hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge
3. Unfair treatment
4. The sum sought is not representative of any loss suffered by either Highview or the Landowner as a result of the driver's actions
5. Inadequate signage

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the car was parked.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted”

During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 17:25 and driving out at 19:14 on the same date. They were unable to park immediately upon entering the car park due to congestion from other vehicles, on top of that time to digest, read and understand the poorly laid out sign.

2. The Notice to Keeper does not conform with the statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore UKPPO can no longer hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge

3. Unfair Treatment

The PCN delivered by post is represented in an unfair manner. The 14 day dicount period is not the fair regulated amount of 50% (half the full amount of £100) required, resulting in this PCN to be lawfully disgarded.

4. The sum sought is not representative of any loss suffered by either Highview or the Landowner as a result of the driver's actions

5. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.




Yours faithfully
The Keeper




It got rejected below is there response:







Dear Sir/Madam,



Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 01.05.2018

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:



The vehicle was parked on private land that is well signed with blue & white contractual notices stating; “90 Minutes Maximum stay, No Return Within 1 Hour”, see attached.



Please be advised that the above vehicle registration mark was captured via the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system (ANPR) entering the parking area at 17:25 on the 26.04.2018 and again upon exiting at 19:14, as can be seen on the photographic evidence that has been provided to you. Therefore, the driver exceeded the maximum stay and the cameras automatically issued a PCN, at Wembley Stadium Retail Park, by us,The Company, not the location cited by you and not by ParkingEye.



The 10-minute grace period was adhered to and the notice was issued in accordance with the POFA. Therefore, we can hold the Registered Keeper liable unless they provide the name & address of the driver.



As reconfirmed in the recent Supreme Appeal Court decision parking charges on private land do not have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss if they are commercially justifiable. Please refer to the judgement in the ParkingEye V Beavis case.



The site has been audited and approved by out Accredited Trade Association. Therefore, the signage is sufficient and adheres to current legislation



In summation; it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract entered into when parking on private land. If they fail to do so they agree to pay the parking charge in accordance with the terms of the contract.



You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and have a number of options:

1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time you will lose the chance to pay the discounted rate and the full amount of £100 will become payable.



2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case and are unsuccessful, the full amount of £100 will become payable. In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter. Please visit www.theias.org for full details.



3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.



How to Pay:

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY £60 WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE. CHEQUES/POSTAL ORDERS SHOULD BE CROSSED AND MADE PAYABLE TO:

The UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd and posted to:

Parking Patrol Collections

Office 309, Great Northern House

275 Deansgate, Manchester

M3 4EL
Alternatively, you can pay online at www.parking-tickets.co.uk

I know im in the wrong here legally since the grace period is around 10 minutes.

What i ask is:

1) They ignored my point of the 14 day discount is not 50% - is this an actual law?
2) Is there anything wrong and do i have any angle to persue if i complain further?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Kati]

tagging ostell too x

[ostell]

You don't appeal to the IAS, tou will lose. Just sit tight and see what happens. File anything received.

They have indeed filed to follow the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable., all the required parts of 9 (2) are not there.

[Sh17]

Thank you for your reply ostell. And thank you for tagging him Kati its much appreciated.

I read POFA 9 (2) and couldnt see where they didnt comply.

Which required parts are not there?

Thanks in advance

[ostell]

Read the last paragraph in their letter and compare it with POFA 9 (2) (f) and spot the glaring error.

They are holder the driver liable, no mention of the keeper

[Sh17]

ostell

Oh wow thanks so much for spotting that!

Also when looking at the attachment they sent me of their sign ("copy of their contractual notice"), it had a certification stamp saying "They are a member of the BPA, and their appeals process is POPLA.

So I replied to their rejection email - since the POPLA appeals process is much better (see reply below)

Thank you for your response which I have acknowledged.

Looking at the attachment "Wembley Contractual Notice" I observe you are a member of the BPA (British Parking Association).

Please provide me with my rightful POPLA code to proceed matters further.

As a request of information:

1) Please provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

2) Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.

Regards
The Registered Keeper

To which they replied:

UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd

Department 309,

Great Northern House,

275 Deansgate,

Manchester

M3 4EL



Parking Charge Number: 408934



Vehicle Registration Mark: *******

Dear Sir/Madam,


Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 16.02.2018

You have been provided with date & time stamped photographic images of the vehicle entering and exiting the parking area. This is how an Automatic Number Plate Recognition Car Park works.

Please be advised that as we are not subscribers to the Ombudsman scheme we are unable to supply you with a POPLA code. If you would like to seek independent arbitration of your appeal then you would need to do so with the IAS, see initial response.

A copy of the contractual notice has been attached again.



Kind regards
Appeals Dept

UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd

There is a few things here:

1) The date which they stated 16.02.2018 is completely wrong the letter states the offence took play 26.04.2018 (letter issued 01.05.2018)
2) They ignored my request of images of the signs.

The reason I am perusing this is for my own learning general learning.

My next steps im thinking is:

1) Write up an appeal with all the evidence against this parking ticket through the IAS
2) If rejected I will take the case further (is this possible?)

What do you think?


Thanks in advance!

[ostell]

Don't bother with the IAS, you will most certainly lose.

You could write back to them saying that the there are failures under the Protection Of Freedoms Act, namely, but not limited to, section 9 (2) (f) failing to warn the keeper that they right to recover from the keeper. You note, and agree with, their statement that the driver is liable for the charge and therefore you are forwarding the documentation to the driver for action. As there is no keeper liability you do not expect to here from them again other than to confirm the lack of liability.

Post first class with proof of postage, Probably won't kill it but at least you have not ignored. Just file everything away and come back if you get a Letter Before Claim or and actual court form.

[Sh17]

ostell

Thank you for your response! 2 questions:

1) I have been communicating via email - shall I stick to that or send a postal letter like you suggested
2) Within their rejection response they state this: The 10-minute grace period was adhered to and the notice was issued in accordance with the POFA. Therefore, we can hold the Registered Keeper liable unless they provide the name & address of the driver.
So here they are stating the registered keeper is liable - does this matter since they have said it?

Thanks in advance

[ostell]

What matters is what they said on the Notice to Keeper. They have to comply to hold the keeper liable, they didn't. They can state what they like in other letters to you but it does not alter the fact that the NTK did not comply. It's too late to reissue the NTK.

They are also missing the period of parking, not a great deal on its own but adds to the failure to comply. The pictures of the car are taken while the car is moving and by that very fact the car can not be parked. So the real PARKING overstay is reduced even further. Coming in you have to search and find a parking space then you have read the sign and agree to the conditions or go. That takes quite a few minutes. Then there is the period at the end where you are allowed a MINIMUM of 10 minutes of parking. So even if you overstayed the PARKING slightly there is the time to leave your parking spot and go past the camera.

As you have been communication by email by all means continue with that but flag the email so that you know it has been delivered to the server. You could request an acknowledgement of the opening of the email.

[Sh17]

Hi ostell i have drafted an email response below and would like your opinion if you wish:

Thank you for your email response.
I am responding as the registered keeper to drop this PCN on the following grounds below:

1. The NTK (Notice to the keeper) does not comply with, Protection Of Freedoms Act, particularly:

• Section 8 (2) (c) states; ‘specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.’

• It does not state anywhere on the NTK the period of parking the driver stayed.

• Section 9 (2) (f) states; warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

‘(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.’

• In the NTK received to myself by you (UK Parking Patrol Office) states; ‘Please be warned: that if after the 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know the both the name of the driver and a current address for services for the driver, we.’ You (UK Parking Patrol Office) have not complied to have the keeper liable.

1. On the First rejection email issued by yourself (UK Parking Patrol Office) in the 11/05/2018 AND an email sent on the 14/05/2018 you (UK Parking Patrol Office) have referred me to the ‘Wembley Contractual Notice’ whereby there is a credited stamp stating you are a 'Member of the BPA'. Under these grounds I wrote to you to request my rightful POPLA code to appeal. Where you stated ‘’. Therefor you have shown negligence.
2. I refer to your Accredited Operator, IPC (International Parking Community), ‘Code of Practice’:

• Under, ‘Part B, 15. Grace Periods’; It states’

• ’15.1 - Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’
• ’15.2 - Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.’

Where 15.1 is referring to the point of entry and 15.2 referring to point of exit. According to the NTK issued by you (UK Parking Patrol Office) the driver overstayed ’19 minutes’. Going by YOUR Accredited Operator, IPC, Code of Conduct 15.2 (stated above), giving the allowed 10 minute grace period brings the apparent ‘Exceeded Maximum Stay Period’ down to 9 minutes, which is justified by 15.1. Therefore, you have not issued the NTK in accordance the IPC Code of Conduct.

1. Referring to your email sent to me on 14/05/2018 you state: ‘Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 16.02.2018 ‘. The NTK issued by you was by you (UK Parking Patrol Office) on 01/05/2018. Again you have shown negligence.

If you do not drop this PCN then I agree with your statement that the driver is liable for the charge and therefore will forward the documentation to the driver for action. However I do request an acknowledgement of receiving this email.


FYI - I will flag this email so i will know when its delivered and opened.

Many thanks in advance!

[ostell]

.......does not comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012........

Paragraph 8 relates to ticket on the windscreen parking, Instead of 8 (2) (c) you need 9 (2) (a)

Are they stating that the "offence" took place in February or their letter was in February? If the "Offence was i February then you could add in the failure to received the NTK within 14 days.

[Sh17]

ostell

Thank you very much for your reply much appreciated.

Sure i will make those 2 changes.

On the NTK issued it says the offence took place on the 26th April 2018 (which is correct) as do the camera time and date stamps BUT the issue date on the letter is 1st May 2018.
- on an email repsonse to me they quoted it was issued by them on 16.02.2018.

So i assume that does not not really matter in a legal stand point because what ever they say on the NTK is what really matters.

[ostell]

But just remember it for later if it goes that far to show how disorganised they are.

Point out that the times they have are for the times when the car was moving underneath the cameras and as such could not possibly be considered parked and therfore there is still not period of parking stated, as required to hold the keeper liable.

I missed it but you are stating, and missing, relevant portions.

• In the NTK received to myself by you (UK Parking Patrol Office) states;
  • ‘Please be warned: that if after the 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know the both the name of the driver and a current address for services for the driver, we have the right to recover from the driver etc
• You (UK Parking Patrol Office) have not complied with the requirements to hold the keeper liable

[Sh17]

ostell

Yep ill but something along the line of that in there.

Great spot - sorry for my carlessness !

I will do a quick once over - add those points in and post the final reply on here. Once i get your final advice i will go ahead and send the email

Thanks again!!

[Sh17]

Hi ostell

Below is the email ready to send please give me your thoughts: FYI i have re-worded the last paragraph and added in the extra point of camera only catching the vehicle moving under point 1,a. (The bullets points are alphabetical in the email format, when pasted on here it makes them bulletpoints)

Thank you for your email response.
I am responding as the registered keeper to drop this PCN on the following grounds outlined below:

1. The NTK (Notice to the keeper) does not comply with, schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, particularly:

• Section 9 (2) (a) states; ‘specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.’

• It does not state anywhere on the NTK the period of parking the driver stayed.
• The times given are for when the car was moving underneath the cameras and as such could not possibly be considered parked, therfore there is still not a period of parking stated, as required to hold the keeper liable.

• Section 9 (2) (f) states; warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

‘(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.’

• In the NTK received to myself by you (UK Parking Patrol Office) states; ‘Please be warned: that if after the 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know the both the name of the driver and a current address for services for the driver, we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle.’ You (UK Parking Patrol Office) have not complied to have the keeper liable.

1. On the First rejection email issued by yourself (UK Parking Patrol Office) on the 11/05/2018 AND an email sent on the 14/05/2018 you (UK Parking Patrol Office) have referred me to the ‘Wembley Contractual Notice’ whereby there is a credited stamp stating you are a 'Member of the BPA'. Under these grounds I wrote to you to request my rightful POPLA code to appeal. Where you stated ‘Please be advised that as we are not subscribers to the Ombudsman scheme we are unable to supply you with a POPLA code’. Which is a deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse the public (Negligence).
2. I refer to your Accredited Operator, IPC (International Parking Community), ‘Code of Practice’:

• Under, ‘Part B, 15. Grace Periods’; It states’

• ’15.1 - Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’
• ’15.2 - Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.’

Where 15.1 is referring to the point of entry and 15.2 referring to point of exit. According to the NTK issued by you (UK Parking Patrol Office) the driver overstayed ’19 minutes’. Going by YOUR Accredited Operator, IPC, Code of Conduct 15.2 (stated above), giving the allowed 10 minute grace period brings the apparent ‘Exceeded Maximum Stay Period’ down to 9 minutes, which is justified by 15.1. Therefore, you have not issued the NTK in accordance the IPC Code of Conduct.

1. Referring to your email sent to me on 14/05/2018 you state: ‘Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 16.02.2018 ‘. Which is INCORRECT, in fact the actual date the NTK was issued is, 01/05/2018.

If you still stand by your decision of rejecting my PCN appeal, then I suggest that you persue the driver of the vehicle who you claim liable (outlined by the NTK issue by you; Parking Patrol Office), to whom I will be passing on the the documentation.
Please send an acknowledgement email confirming reciept of the above.