The company that I work for was sent 2 PCNs in November for periods of parking

[ms167]

Just making the following post in case anyone else is in receipt of a Parking Charge Notice from Chelmsford Station (NCP on behalf of Greater Anglia)

Received the attached Parking Charge Notice last week regarding picking up on the station forecourt in April (Was there a few seconds over 10minutes)

Made an appeal to NCP on the grounds of
-Failing to fully identify themselves fully on the letter
-Failing to fully identify the car park in question
-Why it had taken so long to contact me
-How long the maximum stay period is

I only referenced my self as the 'keeper' and made no admission of being the driver or parker

This was promptly rejected with the attached letter below


I then appealed to POPLA (The Private Parking Ombudsman)

In the appeal I list the grounds as

• No Maximum Stay Exceeded as despite requesting the Max Stay in my appeal to NCP they failed to give me any details of it.
• Inadequate signage, most signs are on the corner as you turn in, so impossible to safely read
• GDPR concerns Greater Anglia list the data retention on CCTV as 30 days and as NCP issued the charge after 90 days it was impossible for me to verify their claim
• 
  
• I also listed mitigation in that NCP had been unclear in the location of the car park so impossible for me to verify claim.

Got a very quick response from POPLA saying that NCP were no longer seeking the charge and all was dismissed.





If anyone else get the same letter defiantly worth appealing, Also NCP state that they are using contact law to enforce at the station rather than bylaw and they are unable to use The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, It would appear to me (and i would be happy to be corrected) that they are NOT able to 'bill' the registered keeper if the driver is not known or named




Hopefully this will be of use to people

Don't know if anyone can help me out there, hope so...

The company that I work for was sent 2 PCNs in November for periods of parking (Max Stay Exceeded), both of which occurred in August. I suspect that there may be more of these on their way (same driver but using 2 different cars - my company car and their private car).

I appealed the first PCN to National Car Parks. I asked where the alleged contravention took place (as the PCN just stated disabled bays Chelmsford) and also why it had taken 3+ months for the PCN to be issued. I got a reply to the first question stating Chelmsford station but no answer to the second question.

I appealed the second PCN to National Car Parks. I asked why it had taken 3+ months for the PCN to be issued. Their response is as follows:
We have reviewed your case and considered the comments you have made. Your appeal has also been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, which record your entry and exit times. Our records show your vehicle was parked exceeding the maximum stay time therefore we are unable to cancel this notice. On Railway Land managed by NCP, we currently enforce under contract law. We are not allowed to use the provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) & Keeper Liability as Railway Land is exempt from this. Therefore, timescales defined in POFA are not required to be met but there is an expectation that if an operator does not make use of Keeper Liability provisions, they are expected to adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and contractual requirements to issue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) no later than 7 months after the parking event. On this basis, we don’t feel that we have breached the BPA code of practice or POFA 2012. You now have 14 days from the date the letter is received to pay at the discounted rate of £60. If after 14 days payment hasn't been made, the charge will increase to the full rate of £100.

I appealed the first charge to POPLA and am awaiting their reply. I did not tell them who the driver was. I will now appeal the second one to POPLA, but before doing so, I wanted to get some advice from anyone who has been down the same path as me. Hope someone can help me. Many thanks in anticipation....!

 

[Haywain]

I did not tell them who the driver was.

If it wasn't you, tell them who it was and save yourself all the hassle.

 

[Watershed]

Don't know if anyone can help me out there, hope so...

The company that I work for was sent 2 PCNs in November for periods of parking (Max Stay Exceeded), both of which occurred in August. I suspect that there may be more of these on their way (same driver but using 2 different cars - my company car and their private car).

I appealed the first PCN to National Car Parks. I asked where the alleged contravention took place (as the PCN just stated disabled bays Chelmsford) and also why it had taken 3+ months for the PCN to be issued. I got a reply to the first question stating Chelmsford station but no answer to the second question.

I appealed the second PCN to National Car Parks. I asked why it had taken 3+ months for the PCN to be issued. Their response is as follows:
We have reviewed your case and considered the comments you have made. Your appeal has also been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, which record your entry and exit times. Our records show your vehicle was parked exceeding the maximum stay time therefore we are unable to cancel this notice. On Railway Land managed by NCP, we currently enforce under contract law. We are not allowed to use the provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) & Keeper Liability as Railway Land is exempt from this. Therefore, timescales defined in POFA are not required to be met but there is an expectation that if an operator does not make use of Keeper Liability provisions, they are expected to adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and contractual requirements to issue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) no later than 7 months after the parking event. On this basis, we don’t feel that we have breached the BPA code of practice or POFA 2012. You now have 14 days from the date the letter is received to pay at the discounted rate of £60. If after 14 days payment hasn't been made, the charge will increase to the full rate of £100.

I appealed the first charge to POPLA and am awaiting their reply. I did not tell them who the driver was. I will now appeal the second one to POPLA, but before doing so, I wanted to get some advice from anyone who has been down the same path as me. Hope someone can help me. Many thanks in anticipation....!

With it being a company car, NCP's case is exceptionally weak. They admit that they cannot rely on keeper liability, so they are reliant on you deciding to tell them who the driver was. Clearly, you are under no obligation to do so - and you have no incentive to do so - so you can (in as many words) tell them to get lost and stop bothering you.

Of course going through POPLA does mean there's a small chance that they might drop the matter, as has been reported above. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.

If they do end up taking legal action (which would be highly inadvisable on their part), again they have a very weak case against you (or the company) as a keeper.

If it wasn't you, tell them who it was and save yourself all the hassle.

And dob that other person in it? I hardly think so!

 

[Haywain]

And dob that other person in it? I hardly think so!

You'd accept the hassle of dealing with it, on multiple occasions?

 

[Watershed]

You'd accept the hassle of dealing with it, on multiple occasions?

I hardly think it would be conducive to a good relationship to dob them in it, particularly in a case such as this where there is no duty whatsoever to assist the parking company, and they cannot hold you liable as the keeper.

 

[Haywain]

I hardly think it would be conducive to a good relationship to dob them in it

Parking in a way that gathers these notices isn't conducive to a good relationship either.

 

[Kite159]

I bet the "3 months" delay is all part of the parking parasite's business plan to get more people to pay up, as they wouldn't necessarily keep parking tickets/receipts that long.

 

[simonw]

If the time they are saying you were parked for is only slightly in excess of the maximum time I would write back asking what evidence they have that the car was actually parked during that time (rather than being recorded in the camera which I assume are at the entrance to the car park not pointing at individual places).

Worked for me as the parking company couldn't prove I was parked for the total time they claimed. (As opposed to time spent driving in the car park on the way in/out.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

For the best advice on parking matters, pepipoo.com is a very useful site.

 

[Watershed]

Parking in a way that gathers these notices isn't conducive to a good relationship either.

I hardly think it was intentional. In many cases the signage is also not very clear or visible.

 

[Haywain]

I hardly think it was intentional. In many cases the signage is also not very clear or visible.

That’s for the OP to decide.

 

[rs101]

Parking in a way that gathers these notices isn't conducive to a good relationship either.

Depends if they were issue correctly. I've received 2 private PCNs in 20 years of parking, both of which were cancelled as the operators admitted errors on their part:
1. Parked at a hotel, was accused of not entering my registration on the tablet in reception. Cancelled once I sent them a copy of the hotel's press release which announced the registration process didn't start until a week after a had parked.
2. Parked in Manningtree station car park (NCP operated) and paid via Ringgo. Ticket issued 2 hours later. NCP admitted the parking operative hadn't bothered to download any Ringgo sessions to his device, so anyone who had paid via Ringgo that day had been wrongly issued a ticket. They had no process to crosscheck against electronic parking records before issuing demands for payment. This ticket was also cancelled, eventually. First appeal to NCP was rejected as they obviously didn't bother reading the submission - only after I spoke to a manager did they admit their incompetence.

 

[Haywain]

Depends if they were issue correctly.

If you haven't incurred them yourself they're a hassle to deal with either way. If there were multiple cases caused by the same person, I'd happily let them waste their time dealing with them rather than me doing it for them.

 

[ms167]

Thanks everyone for replying to my post on Tuesday.

With it being a company car, NCP's case is exceptionally weak. They admit that they cannot rely on keeper liability, so they are reliant on you deciding to tell them who the driver was. Clearly, you are under no obligation to do so - and you have no incentive to do so - so you can (in as many words) tell them to get lost and stop bothering you.

Of course going through POPLA does mean there's a small chance that they might drop the matter, as has been reported above. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.

If they do end up taking legal action (which would be highly inadvisable on their part), again they have a very weak case against you (or the company) as a keeper.


And dob that other person in it? I hardly think so!

Thanks for that. Would it be worth appealing the second PCN to POPLA? And if so, would I appeal on the basis that it's taken 3 months and after that length of time we don't know who was driving the car. Or is it better just not to appeal it to POPLA at all? I went to the car park again yesterday. There is signage as you enter which of course you cannot read without blocking the entrance! A camera catches you on the way in and another on the way out. If you were to drive straight in and out you probably escape a ticket but if you park up for any time at all, they ticket you.

 

[Watershed]

Thanks for that. Would it be worth appealing the second PCN to POPLA?

There's nothing lost but your time, so long as you are careful about what you say (i.e. don't admit who was or wasn't driving, identify who the owner is etc.), by all means give it a go. Feel fre to post a draft appeal here for feedback.

And if so, would I appeal on the basis that it's taken 3 months and after that length of time we don't know who was driving the car.

That's certainly one argument you could make. However it implies that you might know who the driver is, or that you admit some kind of obligation to identify the driver.

One of the things I'd be asking them - given that they admit they cannot pursue you under keeper liability - why they are even writing to you and what lawful basis they are claiming for using your personal data.

I went to the car park again yesterday. There is signage as you enter which of course you cannot read without blocking the entrance! A camera catches you on the way in and another on the way out. If you were to drive straight in and out you probably escape a ticket but if you park up for any time at all, they ticket you.

Is there any other signage? If not, this is unlikely to give rise to an enforceable contract, even for the driver.

 

[ms167]

There is a lot of good stuff on PepPiPoo. I note in one thread...'there is no keeper liability on railways land as it's not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, but also that you were NOT the driver and won't be naming them'.
Sounds like good advice.

Thanks again. There is other signage too, yes. Posted at each of the 3-4 parking spaces.
Draft appeal to POPLA....

Appeal against PCN no. GA.... sent to Global...(Company name).
Replying on behalf of Global... it is my belief that as a railway car park the land is subject to railway bylaws and is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150). The registered keeper is not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore National Car Parks cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

How does that look? Many thanks again

 

[Watershed]

That'd certainly be a good start for an appeal. I might reword it slightly to something like this.

It is denied that the appellant is in any way liable for the charge in question, and NCP is put to strict proof of any alleged liability.

1) The car park in question is subject to the Railway Byelaws. Accordingly, it is "subject to statutory control" for the purposes of paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and is thus not relevant land for the purposes of paragraph 3(1). Therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable under Schedule 4's keeper liability provisions. NCP appears to have admitted this in previous correspondence, and POPLA has previously accepted that this the case (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).

2) If NCP instead seeks to recover parking charges under an alleged breach of contract, it has not claimed that the appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach, and has produced no evidence of this being the case. Due to NCP only having sent its initial correspondence 3 months after the alleged parking incident, the appellant is unable to retrospectively determine who the driver was. In event, even if able to do so, the appellant would be under no obligation to assist NCP by disclosing the driver's identity or details, and would have no intention of doing so.

And then feel free to add any other arguments that come up on the pepipoo forums.

 

[ms167]

That's very helpful, many thanks. I'll post any updates.

 

[Egg Centric]

I had an NCP issue for nonsense at a TFL car park (I made a thread here) I appealed to NCP and then Popla who found in their favour in a "cookie cutter" way (these appeal organisations are as impartial as you would think they are!).

As I was clearly in the right I ignored it. Not heard anything since which is a shame as I'd been looking forward to arguing it in court.

If that's indicative it may be how your case ends up.

I do second the recommendation for pepipoo in general though.

 

[Kite159]

I had an NCP issue for nonsense at a TFL car park (I made a thread here) I appealed to NCP and then Popla who found in their favour in a "cookie cutter" way (these appeal organisations are as impartial as you would think they are!).

As I was clearly in the right I ignored it. Not heard anything since which is a shame as I'd been looking forward to arguing it in court.

If that's indicative it may be how your case ends up.

I do second the recommendation for pepipoo in general though.

Assuming the paperwork says 'penalty charge notice' and they are trying to get money under railway bylaws it will time out after 6 months.

Besides the parasite knows even if they take you to court, they won't get much awarded as the penalty is payable to the crown.

Popla is slightly better than the kangaroo court used by the other bunch of parasites who sit under another organisation (not the BPA)

 

[ms167]

That'd certainly be a good start for an appeal. I might reword it slightly to something like this.


And then feel free to add any other arguments that come up on the pepipoo forums.

Just received a response from NCP to my appeal.

'The evidence within this pack will illustrate beyond doubt that a clear breach of contractual Terms and Conditions occurred and the PCN was in fact issued correctly.'
'We have clear signage displayed in the car park that there is a maximum 5 minute stay time.'
'The amount being sought in regard to the Parking Charge Notice was clearly communicated to the motorist by way at the entry to the car park and throughout the car park.'
'By remaining within the confines of the car park 00:07:09 in total, without a valid payment to cover their parking period, the appellant indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted a PCN would be issued for non - compliance.'
'To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the notice. POPLA state decisions will be based on the finding of fact: the facts are the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed Terms and Conditions and NCP trust POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this appeal.'

I now have 7 days to comment on the operator (NCP) evidence. After that I assume POPLA rules.
What should my response be or should I just sit tight?

This relates to the second PCN. I appealed the first PCN but I missed the 7 day period to view the operator evidence and it has now disappeared from the website. So I dont know what happens with that now.

As always, any advice very gratefully received.

 

[Kite159]

Did they give you a Popla code or are they trying to weasel out paying out for Popla to simply reject it?

If they are trying to weasel out, a complaint to the BPA/GA wouldn't go amiss that NCP have refused the appeal but not offered a Popla code to allow the 'independent' 3rd party to assess the case

 

[Bletchleyite]

Parking in a way that gathers these notices isn't conducive to a good relationship either.

If it happened to me in someone else's vehicle including a work vehicle, I'd be embarrassed at having done so and wish to pay it and get the matter resolved without disadvantage to the company, myself.

Does that person even know about it and have they been given the option to accept they did do wrong and to pay it?

 

[Watershed]

Just received a response from NCP to my appeal.

'The evidence within this pack will illustrate beyond doubt that a clear breach of contractual Terms and Conditions occurred and the PCN was in fact issued correctly.'
'We have clear signage displayed in the car park that there is a maximum 5 minute stay time.'
'The amount being sought in regard to the Parking Charge Notice was clearly communicated to the motorist by way at the entry to the car park and throughout the car park.'
'By remaining within the confines of the car park 00:07:09 in total, without a valid payment to cover their parking period, the appellant indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted a PCN would be issued for non - compliance.'
'To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the notice. POPLA state decisions will be based on the finding of fact: the facts are the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed Terms and Conditions and NCP trust POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this appeal.'

I now have 7 days to comment on the operator (NCP) evidence. After that I assume POPLA rules.
What should my response be or should I just sit tight?

This relates to the second PCN. I appealed the first PCN but I missed the 7 day period to view the operator evidence and it has now disappeared from the website. So I dont know what happens with that now.

As always, any advice very gratefully received.

Is there anything more in their pack?

Even if a breach of terms and conditions can be made out (which is not at all given - there are several prerequisites to this), they still haven't said anything which proves why they have a case against you, rather than the driver. Of course, they don't - but they seem to have conveniently ignored this in their response.

Note how they subtly shift from talking about "communicated to the motorist" to saying "the appellant indicated their acceptance". They are implying you are the motorist but they have made no argument as to how this is the case.

Always worth cross-posting on the Pepipoo forums too, as they are the parking 'specialists'.

 

[ms167]

Just had Popla refuse my appeal. Anyone out there got any advice? They still don't know who the driver is but am concerned they may take action against the registered keeper.

Appeal - The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The car park is subject to Railway Byelaws and is not considered as relevant land in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • They say that POPLA has previously accepted that this was the case with another appeal. • They say that there is no evidence of the appellant driving on the date of the parking event and the PCN was sent 3 months late.

Decision - The appellant explains that the car park is subject to Railway Byelaws and is not considered as relevant land in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA can only be used on relevant land. This is land which is under statutory control. Section 3 (1) © of PoFA states that PoFA can only be used on relevant land, which includes any land which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. The land in this case is governed by byelaws, but the operator is not using this to issue a penalty. Furthermore, the signage on site does not mention that the operator is using Byelaws to issue a penalty, so it is enforcing parking with the issue of a PCN and this is acceptable for them to do so. I note that the appellant states that POPLA has previously accepted that this was the case with another appeal. It must be noted that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and the outcome of other appeals would not make a material difference in this case. In this instance, I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 4383402201 which was issued to PCN number GA00138614. The appellant says that there is no evidence of the appellant driving on the date of the parking event and the PCN was sent 3 months late. However, as the appellant has admitted to driving on the date of the parking event within their appeal to the operator and the PCN was issued within 7 months, this is acceptable. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the appellant exceeded the maximum stay on site. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.

 

[furlong]

Is that self-contradictory or am I confused?

The land is either under statutory control or it is not.

This should be decided a matter of fact for the particular type of vehicle independent of the specifics of any particular case.

The land in this case is governed by byelaws

Therefore those byelaws need to be examined to determine if they meet the criteria for statutory control. You can't get through a legal argument by hand-waving.

What is the (presumably very technical?) argument that they don't meet the criteria?

At first glance you can be fined in the courts for not paying the appropriate charge. I don't see any requirement for signage to mention the byelaws for them to apply. (Clamping/removal would be different.)

 

[Watershed]

Just had Popla refuse my appeal. Anyone out there got any advice? They still don't know who the driver is but am concerned they may take action against the registered keeper.

Appeal - The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The car park is subject to Railway Byelaws and is not considered as relevant land in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • They say that POPLA has previously accepted that this was the case with another appeal. • They say that there is no evidence of the appellant driving on the date of the parking event and the PCN was sent 3 months late.

Decision - The appellant explains that the car park is subject to Railway Byelaws and is not considered as relevant land in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA can only be used on relevant land. This is land which is under statutory control. Section 3 (1) © of PoFA states that PoFA can only be used on relevant land, which includes any land which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. The land in this case is governed by byelaws, but the operator is not using this to issue a penalty. Furthermore, the signage on site does not mention that the operator is using Byelaws to issue a penalty, so it is enforcing parking with the issue of a PCN and this is acceptable for them to do so. I note that the appellant states that POPLA has previously accepted that this was the case with another appeal. It must be noted that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and the outcome of other appeals would not make a material difference in this case. In this instance, I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 4383402201 which was issued to PCN number GA00138614. The appellant says that there is no evidence of the appellant driving on the date of the parking event and the PCN was sent 3 months late. However, as the appellant has admitted to driving on the date of the parking event within their appeal to the operator and the PCN was issued within 7 months, this is acceptable. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the appellant exceeded the maximum stay on site. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.

The central reason why POPLA has declined your appeal is essentially that they say you have admitted to being the driver. Did you actually make such an admission? If so, for obvious reasons it blows out of the water any possible defence on the basis of not being the driver and therefore, as you did not raise any other substantive grounds of appeal, their rejection may be correct. If not, then POPLA were wrong to refuse your appeal as NCP haven't (as far as you have indicated) provided any evidence of you being the driver.

Is that self-contradictory or am I confused?

The land is either under statutory control or it is not.

This should be decided a matter of fact for the particular type of vehicle independent of the specifics of any particular case.


Therefore those byelaws need to be examined to determine if they meet the criteria for statutory control. You can't get through a legal argument by hand-waving.

What is the (presumably very technical?) argument that they don't meet the criteria?

At first glance you can be fined in the courts for not paying the appropriate charge.

I agree that the decision is poorly drafted. Perhaps the assessor meant:

Section 3 (1) ( c) of PoFA states that PoFA can only be used on relevant land, which excludes any land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

Either way, I don't think it's actually necessary to go into any of this, provided that the OP has not at any stage indicated they were driving.

If NCP wants to argue that the Byelaws don't constitute statutory control, they can only recover the charges from the OP in the capacity of the registered keeper if they comply with the requirements of PoFA. One of these is that for postal charges, a Notice to Keeper must be served within 14 days of the date of the parking event. Clearly there is no question that NCP are well outside these timeframes and so recovery is impossible under PoFA provisions.

If NCP wants to argue that the Byelaws do constitute statutory control and hence the charges aren't being recovered under PoFA, they will need to prove that the OP was the driver, or was the vehicle's owner and that the amount in question is "a penalty ... displayed in that area" for which the OP can be held liable under Byelaw 14(4)(i). So far we have been told nothing which would suggest they have any evidence of either.

 

[jfollows]

As I understand it, the "penalty" which NCP and POPLA are both referring to is really a bribe, in which you pay NCP £100/£60 for them to forget about the fact that the driver might have broken the law. On land covered by byelaws the only sanction is for a criminal prosecution to be made against the driver - whom they apparently know - but as Kite159 previously observed, the problem for NCP is that if such a prosecution is made they won't get a penny, if the case succeeds then any fine levied will go to the Crown.

The good news is that these prosecutions can only be initiated within 6 months of the alleged crime.

Given that the original parking events took place in August, isn't this then now just a case of spinning this out until February, by which time it will be too late to bring a prosecution?

In other words, don't pay NCP and after February they can't seek to recover anything under contract law (which times out after 6 years). The only charge they're currently levying is their proposed bribe to them which will stop them from initiating a prosecution which they don't want to do anyway.

But take definitive advice from pepipoo of course.

 

[ms167]

Thanks to all for these comments, much appreciated. In response to Watershed, no admission by me that I was the driver (because I wasn't), so don't know where they got that from. I will get advice from pepidoo, thanks to jfollows for that tip.