You are a star DX. Thanks I know that I have been stressing about the NtK being out of time under PoFA, and the fact that POPLA is making the calculation error too, but I feel that many people may be being wrongly treated like this. Therefore, I have just phoned the BPA and spoke to a very sympathetic person who confirmed that the operator was out of time in sending the PCN to the Keeper. I gave them the dates of the incident and the date of issue of the PCN but no other details of the case. She asked me to fill in the complaints form on the BPA website and upload my PCN. Before I do this, is there any danger in doing so? I know that Newbies like me can be too trusting and naive, so advice please before I do this. On the other hand, it might sort the problem for other people? Thanks

Here are scans docs+pix.pdf

dx100uk says: "forget anything to do with pofa and popla and court ..small immaterial fry to a court." Does that mean that the failure of the operator to meet the PoFA time window to pursue the Keeper is irrelevant? Surely that is necessary in order for the Court to even consider Keeper liability? I will try again to rescan the PCN, but the initial file size was too large, and when I reduced it, it was too blurry. I have some photos of the signs too. I'll try later today Many thanks to you all for taking an interest

OK, thanks. I will get scanning and redacting. However, isn't the fact that the NtK was 'given' out of time, sufficient to resist a claim in court? I presume that I am correct in my interpretation of PoFA?

I will happily scan the NtK if it will help my case. Please tell me what is the benefit now that I have got past the POPLA stage?

Thank you. My reason for appealing to POPLA was my naive belief that since the contravention of PoFA was so obvious that my appeal would have been allowed. I am sure that you are aware that Moneysavingexpert forum does advocate appealing. No doubt you have had a healthy debate in the past. Nevertheless, can you confirm my interpretation of PoFA? Alleged offence: 15 Aug Date of issue: 30 Aug Thanks

1 15 Aug 2019 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] [scan to follow] 3 PCN issue date 30 August Presumed date of delivery (under PoFA) 3 September 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? - YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES - ANPR photos of reg plate 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] YES Have you had a response? [Y/N?] as below 7 Who is the parking company? EURO 8. Where exactly: Solent Retail Park, Havant, Hants For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here Appeal refused: Assessor summary of operator's case:  The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.  Assessor summary of appellant's case:  The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal: I am being charge as registered keeper of the vehicle but the notice to keeper was not compliant with the Protect of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. I assert that Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated that it has the authority to impose such a charge on behalf of the landowner. The signage was inadequate and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The vehicle was parked in a ‘free’ car park but it is alleged that it was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed but no evidence to prove this has been provided. The appellant has provided additional evidence for the appeal.  Assessor summary of reasons:  In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The sign states: “Maximum stay 2 ½ hours” and “Failure to comply with the above will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice”. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 12:06, and leaving at 15:08. They have remained in the car park for 3 hours 1 minute. I am being charge as registered keeper of the vehicle but the notice to keeper was not compliant with the Protect of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The event occurred on 15 August 2019 and the PCN was issued on 30 August 2019. Paragraph 9 (5) of PoFA 2012 states: The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. Therefore, the day after the period of parking was 16 August and the 14 day period from this date allows up to 30 August, the date on which the PCN was issued. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued within the correct relevant period, and the appellant has clearly been identified as the keeper. I assert that Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated that it has the authority to impose such a charge on behalf of the landowner. The operator has provided a witness statement to show that they are authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs on that land and that it was in effect on the date of the event. Paragraph 22.16b of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice states: Witness statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within an independent appeal evidence pack and as such these statements must be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent, and not by a member of the operator’s staff. I am satisfied that that the witness statement provided shows they have authority to issue the PCN on the date of the event. The signage was inadequate and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms. I am satisfied from the images provided by the operator that the terms of the car park and the amount of the PCN are on the signs and that they have provided a reasonable opportunity for the motorist to read the signs. The signs on entrance to the car park indicate that the motorist is entering private land and that they should read the signs in the car park for the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signs were in the car park on the date of the event and it was the motorist’s responsibility to read these before remaining. If they did not agree with the terms or did not understand them, there was reasonable opportunity to leave the car park. The vehicle was parked in a ‘free’ car park but it is alleged that it was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed but no evidence to prove this has been provided. The operator has provided images of the vehicle from ANPR entering and exiting along with time stamps of the images. I am satisfied that this shows the length of time the vehicle was in the car park. The appellant has not provided any compelling evidence to show otherwise. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has remained for longer than the maximum time allowed. As the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.  Kind regards POPLA Team I complained that they had misinterpreted PoFA and received a rejection of my complaint I received a rejection of my complaint: Thank you for your detailed response. I note that you feel the NTK does not comply with PoFA 2012. You state that the notice was not received within the relevant period. However, having looked at the document, I can see that the date of the contravention was 15 August 2019. Therefore, the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The 14 days would start after the 16th meaning that the last day to send the notice was the 30th August 2019. The NTK was issued on the 30th August therefore, has complied with PoFA 2012. Please note that within PoFA it states:- (6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Although you state you did not receive this within the relevant period, you have not proved this. And therefore, it is presumed to have been delivered. I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter. For clarity, should you choose to reply it will be noted, however we will not respond. Yours sincerely, Ashlea Forshaw POPLA Complaints Team

Yes, I have obtained advice from another forum and strictly followed it through to POPLA appeal. My strongest case I thought was non-compliance with POPLA as the NtK was sent on day 15 by my calculation and therefore received (given) two working days after. However, the POPLA adjudicator and the complaints team seem to think that being sent within the 14 days is sufficient and will not accept my assertion that according PoFA, it needs to be delivered within that time, rather than just sent. However, the reason that I am asking this forum, is that no one can advise me what to do when one runs out of road with POPLA who continue to deny their error. I have emailed them, phoned them and attempted to contact the lead adjudicator without success. Therefore, I am seeking any help available.

Apologies for the long post, however my question is extremely simple. Is POPLA interpreting PoFA correctly - namely the difference between an NtK being sent and given. Both my appeal and complaint have been rejected and they say that they will not respond any further. What should I do? I appealed to POPLA on the various grounds discussed above. My appeal was rejected. The one solid ground that I thought I had was that the Notice to Keeper was not received by me, the Keeper, within the 14day window under PoFA. I only received an NtK by post and there was no windscreen notice. My appeal said: The alleged parking contravention occurred on 15th August 2019, the date of the issue of the notice is stated to be 30th August. The date of the notice being 'given' (i.e., delivered) is assumed by PoFA to be the second working day after the date of posting. This puts it on 3rd September. The 14 day notice period begins on 16th August (day 1) and day 14 of the notice period is therefore 29th August. Indeed, the Parking Charge Notice was not issue until after the 14 day period had expired. They cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so. The appeal rejection said: I am being charge as registered keeper of the vehicle but the notice to keeper was not compliant with the Protect of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The event occurred on 15 August 2019 and the PCN was issued on 30 August 2019. Paragraph 9 (5) of PoFA 2012 states: The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. Therefore, the day after the period of parking was 16 August and the 14 day period from this date allows up to 30 August, the date on which the PCN was issued. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued within the correct relevant period, and the appellant has clearly been identified as the keeper. I complained to pOLA under their complaints procedure, saying: One of the main grounds for my appeal to POPLA was that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was sent by the parking operator was outside the time period laid down in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in which the operator needs to inform the Keeper, in my case by mail. The Act states: (4) The notice must be given by: (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. (6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. In other words, the time limit is nothing to do with the NtK being issued, but about it being given i.e. received. Your assessor did not apply the legislation correctly. I received the NtK outside of the statutory period and so my appeal should be allowed. I received a rejection of my complaint, stating: I note that you feel the NTK does not comply with PoFA 2012. You state that the notice was not received within the relevant period. However, having looked at the document, I can see that the date of the contravention was 15 August 2019. Therefore, the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The 14 days would start after the 16th meaning that the last day to send the notice was the 30th August 2019. The NTK was issued on the 30th August therefore, has complied with PoFA 2012. Please note that within PoFA it states:- (6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Although you state you did not receive this within the relevant period, you have not proved this. And therefore, it is presumed to have been delivered. I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter. For clarity, should you choose to reply it will be noted, however we will not respond. Am I interpreting PoFA incorrectly? What should I do next? Is it possible to contact How can I get in touch with John Gallagher directly? Would that help? Any advice most gratefully received!

Scottish Power are a dysfunctional company with complete disregard for good customer service and a cavalier regard for dismissing complaints without investigation. I am disappointed to update our last post and report that we remain without a working boiler after nearly two months of the coldest part of the year. After about nine engineer visits plus four days taken off work when the engineer failed to arrive, I have nearly given up expecting Scottish Power to resolve my breakdown. Indeed, I think that they have given up too now as the most recent promises of 'specialist' engineer visits have come to nothing. However, it is not so much their failure to fix the boiler as their appalling customer service. It would take too long to go into detail, but it can be summarised thus: 1) Whilst the call takers are sympathetic, they seem completely powerless to influence those that can take action or deal with customer concerns 2) Those that schedule visits, the engineering department and the complaints department will not take incoming calls and hide behind a firewall 3) Scottish Power uses another company called City Technical who employ the engineers. The coordination between the two is extremely poor and has been at the root of the four no-shows that I have suffered 4) It is impossible to escalate issues to a supervisor. Wose still, promises of call backs are consistently broken. About eight times in my case. 5) Worst of all, when I complained, my complaint was dismissed with 'we have kept to our terms and conditions' - the classic get-out of a company that cares less about customer service. Dr A MacMillan

I would like to add a brief update to my last posting on the subject of the inefficiency and ineptitude of Scottish Power 'Home Comfort'. Again, I sincerely urge any of you considering signing up to this service because it is cheaper than British Gas, not to do so as it is a false economy. Following my last post on this site, Ms Debbie O’Brien of the Scottish Power Social Media Team contacted me promising that she would escalate my complaint and someone would phone me back. I really felt hopeful that they had 'got the message'. No-one ever did call. We are now three weeks without a working boiler which is only six years old and regularly inspected and maintained. We have had seven engineer's visits and various parts replaced. However, this is not what I am complaining about! It is the appalling and infuriating level of customer service. I cannot fault the faux concern and politeness of their call centre staff, but these poor people are powerless to help. All those with the ability to take action - the visit-schedulers, any manager, and even the complaints team do not take incoming calls and have repeatedly failed to call me back despite numerous promises that they would do so. There have been several days when I have stayed home from work when an engineer has not turned up when promised. I have spent several hours, literally, on the phone trying to resolve the 'no-shows' in particular, but no-one takes any responsibility whatsoever. Dr A MacMillan

Do not take out boiler cover with Scottish Power We are now eight days without heating or hot water and I am regretting the day that I decided to move from British Gas to Scottish Power for my Central Heating Cover. I would urge all of you that might be thinking of doing this to reconsider. I would take too long to detail everything that has gone wrong, but it falls into categories of: 1) Broken promises of engineer appointments and engineer no-shows 2) The inability to speak to the 'Schedulers', to anyone with the power to take remedial action and repeated broken promises for call-backs 3) Engineer's failures to repair the boiler (almost the most forgiveable!) To give you a flavour: I phoned to arrange an engineer's visit. I was told that it would classify as 'urgent' and that I would be first-call the next day. I took the day off and waited. By lunchtime I phoned in and was told that they had tried to phone me once to check that we would be in (of course we were, we were waiting in for an engineer), but we were engaged and so they cancelled the call. They did not try again and did not try our mobile. I have still found it impossible to speak to anyone useful, so I will be complaining formally and see if their complaints system is any better than their general service