Hi - I also have just been sent a PCN for this site, requesting £100 or £60 if I pay early, and am considering how to proceed. So I wondered if any progress has been made following the guidance provided by ericsbrother? Many thanks.

then start a new thread telling us the date of the event and the date you received the NTK. These are important. The content of the NTK would be good as well as many of these letters are lazily put together and dont comply with the PoFA. So tell us what you have got and what the claim is for (overstay, parking on the moon etc) and we will take it from there.

In any appeal you address yourself as the keeper in the third person so as to not give any indication of who was driving at the time so, "The keeper states that the signage is not an offer of a contract but an invitation to treat" rather than "I read the signs at the time and they are not a contract"

Hi ericsbrother, many many thanks for your quick reply and your advice on how to refer to myself in any appeal correspondence.

Before I follow your advice and start a new thread (which presents problems in itself as I don't have access to a scanner to add documents at present - I will have access on Monday) maybe I can tell what information I have and then start a new thread if that remains your advice.

1) The location and signage is exactly the same as the pictured by 60's child.

2) The letter I have received is exactly the same, word for word, as that received by 60's child, with the exception of the dates and times.

3) My 'offence' was committed on the 06/11/2015 - I received the letter this morning, the 14th.

The letter states that my entry time 19.45 and my departure at 21.23.

This amounts to total of 1 hour 38 minutes (I thought I had two hours)

However as you will have read from the pic of the signiage in post 12 above, at 8pm to 8am only 10 minutes parking is allowed - which I did indeed exceed.

I would also add that I have parked and shopped at the car park many times, but under the illusion that I had 'two hours free parking' as stated on the sign at the car park entrance. It does say on that sign to see notices in the car park for further details, but to be frank the small print is very hard to read when you are driving into the car park up the very steep short (one car length) ramp with possibly traffic turning in behind you.

I have read your advice to 60's child above in regard to the approach to take when writing to POPLA - I am right in presuming that your advice would be the same in my case?

Many thanks again.

Hello there.

I've moved your posts and EB's to a new thread so you can have advice specific to your own situation rather than someone else's.

HB

Hello there.

 

I've moved your posts and EB's to a new thread so you can have advice specific to your own situation rather than someone else's.

 

HB

Many thanks honeybee13. I clicked on the link but no new thread appeared - will it be up shortly?

Well, you've posted on it.

HB

Here's a link in case you need it.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?455536-Problem-with-Care-Parking&p=4820520#post4820520

HB

Thanks honeybee13

Hopefully ericsbrother or someone similarly erudite will be along to give me some advice....

Well, if the sign at the entrance says 2 hours free parking then that is an offer of a contract and you accepted it. The wording of any signage elsewhere in the car park is not a contractual condition and the overall effect is to render the contract void so free parking for ever!. Well, lets not be too greedy, we will stick to the offer and acceptance of a contract and leave it at that for the moment.

You can post up the NTK you received so we can see if it is PoFA compliant (have a good read of the exact wording of paras 6-9 of the Pofa and you will find that most ANPR capture demands fall short as they fail to identify the exact nature of the cause of the breach or the contractual claim and who the creditor is. However, if you cannot post up the NTK a simple response to the parking co saying that you are appealing as the keeper of the vehicle and that the driver informs you that the signage at the entrance of the car park offered 2 hours frre parking and that is the contract accepted by them. As there has been no breach of this contract then you expect the claim to be cancelled as it is clearly incorrect by the admission of the timings onthe ANPR system.

Hi ericsbrother - many thanks for expertise and your encouraging reply which was good to read .

So I take it that the fact that sign at the entrance states to see notices in the car park for further details makes no difference to their claim. If so, is this because the entrance sign is legally required to contain all the relevant details of the contract being offered, including all of its conditions?

I should be able to post up the NTK tomorrow sometime, but like I said it was exactly the same as the one posted up by 60's child in the thread you also advised on.

Also, in your experience how often do these parking companies back down when confronted with what amounts to their own lack of professionalism, or do you expect I will have to take it to POPLA in the long run? I ask because I am not well at the moment and I am hoping this will not entail a long fight/

Many thanks again.

If a sign at the entrance says see other signs for conditions then that is an "invitation to treat" and not a contract. Bit like you are invited to go into shops, pick items up and take them to the cashier, who then syas that they cost this much and you buy them or you dont. in a shop you can ask questions about the goods, make a cheeky offer, ask about returning the item if your spouse doesnt like it etc and only when you pay has the contract been formed.Until that point it is offer and consideration, counteroffer if you ask for a discount etc. The Invitation to treat aspect is the adverts in the shop window, the blurb on the shelf, description of goods etc. If an advert says "buy a computer for half price" they dont sue you if you dont then buy a computer once you have entered the shop as that ad is just an invitation to enter into negotiations. In my business I have refused to sell people items at the price they were offered becasue that refusal is again the sellers prerogative, contract not formed until the money is accepted.

So, you can enter car park for the offer of free parking and if you decide to ignore the other signs that is up to you. The best they can hope for is a claim for trespass and that is money that goes to the landowner, not the parking co and is set by the damage caused by your trespass, as in the old days as it has nowt to do with parking co. Now the real landowner wont go to the trouble of suing you because you were invited to go there and the planning permission will undoubtedly say parking for customers of x spaces as shown on the plans and that is what was agreed by the council. They cant now claim differently without a fresh planning application and they might end up in a worse position so they arent going there.

The parking co probably wont know the difference and claim it is a contract by virtue of the multiple signs scattered around the place. I dont know about Ombudsman Services Ltd and how they would deal with the matter but POPLA were wise to this and would usually say that the appeal was allowed due to inadequate signage. The vagueness being enough to keep the parking co happy as they can continue with their practices without the fear of jail and then just have to lose the odd appeal with good grace (75% of people cough up at first asking so they arent going to be poor as a result of one appeal)

Post up you notice as it will be different in regard to time and date etc so we like to keep an eye on that.

Hi ericsbrother - thanks for your reply and the clear explanation of where they have gone wrong. Your help and the time you have spent is really appreciated.

So it sounds like I only have to write to tell them that the claimed offence did not occur due to the fact that sign at the entrance constitutes an 'invitation to treat' and not a contract (if they understand the difference...). I suppose I could also let them know that POPLA is cognisant of the difference and would therefore would be expected to uphold my appeal, should they force me to make one. Is there anything else you would add?

I have also managed to upload (hopefully) the NTK as you requested. I have checked and it is word for word the same as one sent to 60's child a couple of months ago.

I'll update the post when I have a reply, unless you have any further advice.

Your NTK needs some more redacting I feel....

It is also not compliant with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. So no keeper liability. Check for yourself here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Hi armadillo71, - thank you for looking at my thread .

I have followed your suggestion and added a redacted copy of the NTK.

In regard to the non-compliance issue, is it necessary to point out to the parking company where they are not compliant - and if so, could you be so kind as indicate where they are in error. I have looked at the document in your link and to be frank I am having trouble ploughing my way through it and linking it to the NTK that I received. Many thanks,

Hi armadillo71, - thank you for looking at my thread .

 

I have followed your suggestion and added a redacted copy of the NTK.

 

In regard to the non-compliance issue, is it necessary to point out to the parking company where they are not compliant - and if so, could you be so kind as indicate where they are in error. I have looked at the document in your link and to be frank I am having trouble ploughing my way through it and linking it to the NTK that I received. Many thanks,

There is no real need to go into detail really with the PPC appeal, just state that it is non compliant with schedule 4. They will almost certainly reject it aanyway.

I'll have more time later, but does the NTK name the creditor?

Hi armadillo71 - thanks for your reply.

The NTK only mentions 'Care Parking' as far as I can see.

I will add your advice to that given by ericsbrother when submitting my appeal to the company, which I intend to do tomorrow.

I just hope the whole thing doesn't become a long dragged out process as my health is poor at the moment unfortunately,and it annoys me that companies like this can waste so much of the public's time and energy.

agree their NTK is non-compliant and for another reason to armadillo's. No we arent going to be telling the parking co where they have got it wrong but you can add that to the no contract so no breach argument.

They should employ someone who can understand their job a bit better to send these things out.

There are procedures you have to go through to win these and they cant be hurried. If you arent up for it then the only viable alternative is to pay up and not complain afterwards as you ahve a choice.

Hi ericsbrother - thanks for your further input.

I will do as you advise and follow the process - if people like you can be so helpful the least I can do is help myself.

I'll post back when they respond.

Hi All,

It's been some time since I was here, but I now have a reply from the Parking Company so I need some advice again. Ericsbrother and armadillo71 were very helpful before, so thanks again to them now.

I have attached my letter to the Parking Company of the 19/11/2015, and theirs back to me of the 27th/12/15 (I don't know why it took so long to reach me).

In my letter I followed the advice given and pointed out that the NTK was not compliant with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, and that the signage at the entrance constituted at 'invitation to treat' and not a contract.

As you can read in their response, they have challenged both of these reasons and sent me an POPLA code so I can make an appeal if I so choose. I do want to do that, but it would seem that I need to add my detail and substance to my appeal in order to have a chance of success.

SO any advice on making my POPLA appeal would be very much appreciated, if anyone has the time.

Sincerely,

Liondeer

ThemToMe.pdf

MeToThem.pdf

Their rejection is a cut and paste response so doesnt address your points at all.

When you do appeal to POLA it will cost them money and the first thing you should ask for is sight of the contract between the landowner and themselves that assigns the right to enter into contracts and make claims in their own name. It is all very well claiming they have this right, you want to see it before you consider paying them a bean.

then raise the point about the sign at the entrance being an invitation to treat so no contract formed

Then use the argument about not overstaying

then finally make the point about their NTK being not compliant with the PoFA as it fails to show who the creditor is.

POPLA will adjudicate on one point is they decide it is a valid reason for accepting your appeal so you wont get to know if the other points were accepted. If POPLA did that all of the parking co's would be out of business as their business models are made of straw.

Hi ericsbrother,

Many thanks for your swift response . I am going to do the POPLA appeal this weekend, and just wanted to make sure I understand fully what I need to do in order to make the best of your advice so far.

In regard to asking for sight of the contract between the landowner and the parking company, as they state in their response that they will enter into no further correspondence, do I just need to make this point to POPLA, or do I need to write to ask the company anyway?

In regard to the making point about the overstaying, I take that this is that I cannot have overstayed because no contract was entered into. Is this correct?

Finally, if I may, is there any other advice or guidance that you could give or point me toward in regard to making a successful appeal to POPLA?

sincerely,

Liondeer

you are appealing to POPLA so you dont need to say anything to the parking co. The idea of this demand is to make the company produce the contract, if they dont then POPLA will automatically decide they dont have the right to be there and you win. The IAS work the other way round, despite the law being clear it is the POPLA way that is correct.

If there is no contractual term expressed you cannot breach it. No contract entered into= no possible breaches.

Hi ericsbrother,

Thanks for clarifying that. I will now proceed with my appeal and will update this thread when POPLA has reached their verdict. Many thanks until then:-)