PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking charge notice from PEA
BBQ King
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 18:06
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,349



Hello everyone, looking for a bit of advice please...

Parking charge notice issued by PEA on 13th May, in Queensway, London, W2, based on parking for 15 mins without paying.

Sent as NTK to my employer 16th May.

Employer gives me opportunity to challenge, so I appeal, as driver (I now realise that may not have been particularly wise!)

The appeal basis was that I was unloading, and provided copies of the delivery notes (electronic and paper), both signed and timed.

The appeal is rejected because I was "parking", and I am given 14 days to pay, or 28 days to appeal to POPLA (from 10th June)

I subsequently went back and photographed one of the payment signs.

It includes the words "By entering, parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within these private premises you agree to the following terms and conditions. Please do not park here unless you agree to the following terms and conditions in full."

Nowhere on the signage does it say anything about loading.

Additionally, having read through the BPA Code of Practice (2018 version), it makes no mention to loading, however, I did notice one thing. It specifies that notices at the entrance to the area should be placed in such a way that you should not have to take your eyes off the road to read them. The sign at the entrance to this area (effectively a cul-de-sac off the main road) is placed in such a way that it faces the shops on the opposite side of the main road.

I would welcome thoughts on whether I should appeal to POPLA, and if so, what grounds.

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
Advertisement
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 18:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 18:26
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,351
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Let's have a Google Street View link please.
Queensway is a public highway so I guess there's a little private pull-in or something you stopped at


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 19:51
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,295
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



There is a court case around that decided loading/unloading was not parking

So do the customers have the ability to get this cancelled ? Have you asked ?

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 19:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 20:26
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,351
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 20:51) *
There is a court case around that decided loading/unloading was not parking

So do the customers have the ability to get this cancelled ? Have you asked ?

I got appeals like this allowed by PATAS.
Civil cases don't have independent adjudicators though. I guess if it did progress to a court you could use PATAS results to back up that loading/unloading isn't Parking.
Apart from that, there's an assumed invitation to load/unload for the benefit of the occupier of the premises. As this will more than likely be akin trespass I doubt whether this would play out well for them in court due to that specific point


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BBQ King
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 23:04
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,349



Ostell...The delivery was to a contractor working on the premises...so not the actual tenant...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 07:27
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,789
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Contractor working under the instruction of a tenant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 07:37
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,351
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 08:27) *
Contractor working under the instruction of a tenant

Exactly.
Parking restrictions are placed so as to prevent unauthorised use of the parking areas.
A necessary delivery of goods isn't use of any bay for the specific purpose of parking.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BBQ King
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 18:09
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,349



Thanks for the info.

If I get the gist right, I should appeal on the basis that I was unloading for a contractor working on behalf of a tenant, and had therefore been invited onto the premises.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BBQ King
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 12:33
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,349



I appealed this on a number of fronts, and had a response from POPLA this week...

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAdele Ditchfield
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided a copy of the PCN.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says the entrance sign is improperly placed. The appellant says drivers must be able to read signage without looking away from the road. The appellant says signage indicates that charges do not apply to the entire area as there are 5 clear signs on one side of the car park and none on the other side. The appellant says they were not parked, and they were unloading goods. The appellant has provided evidence of signage and a delivery note to show the reason they were there.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. The operator has provided photographic evidence of signage in the car park that states: “Pay & Display or Permit Holders Only…All vehicles must comply with the following terms and conditions: Vehicles must clearly display a valid Pay and Display ticket or a valid permit a all times…Parking Charge Notice is £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence from Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras that show the vehicle entering the site at 13:28 and exiting at 13:43, a total duration of 15 minutes. The appellant says signage indicates that charges do not apply to the entire area as there are 5 clear signs on one side of the car park and none on the other side. The appellant has provided evidence that shows there is only signage on one side of the site. The operator has not provided photographic evidence of signage that demonstrates it is throughout all of the land. However, the operator has provided a site map that confirms the appellants evidence is correct that there is signage on one side only. I am satisfied that it is reasonable to assume that the terms only apply to one side of the site where the parking bays are. If the appellant did not park in one of these bays, I am satisfied they would reasonably assume they are not bound by these terms. As the operator are unable to confirm the area in which the vehicle was parked, I cannot determine if the appellant would have seen signage. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. Upon consideration of the evidence provided to POPLA, I cannot determine the terms and conditions of the car park were breached. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

If anyone has any questions about the specifics of this case, I would be happy to give a bit more detail, but I just hope that this will help others generate successful appeals...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 14:33
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,989
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly

In which case they had no 'reasonable cause' to access your personal data from the DVLA.

In view of this quite clear statement from POPLA, why not give the PPC a dose of their own medicine by making life uncomfortable for them?

Write to the DVLA and complain that POPLA has determined that the PPC has issued their parking charge to you incorrectly. In which case they had 'no reasonable cause' (use that phrase - it has particular meaning) to access your personal data, a breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA and of the GDPR/DPA regulations. Ask that the DVLA investigates and reports back to you.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (or) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

You might also consider issuing the PPC a Letter of Claim prior to a possible county court claim for breach of the DPA. Read these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017...0-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...orist-wins.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

There has to be some process of backlash against PPCs to make them think twice before issuing tickets on a scattergun basis and their unchecked harvesting of personal data from the DVLA on an industrial scale.

This post has been edited by Umkomaas: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 14:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 22nd August 2019 - 20:58
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.