PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PEA (Parking & Enforcement Agency) - PCN Parking Solutions
Pippaki
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 12:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Hi All,

We received a Parking Charge Notice, addressed to the keeper. The issue reason states "No Valid Payment". Location for this event is a hotel were we take our daughter for swimming lessons every week. I will be putting in a complaint to the Hotel Manager on behalf of the keeper of the car but also start the appeal process so they will provide POPLA code.

The signage at the hotel is inadequate. I've seen some signs stating that cars may be clamped, another says Private Parking, others say Customers of said hotel parking only and then in really small print it has some PEA signs scattered around.

The appeal from MSE site (coupon mad) will be sent to PEA or PCN Parking Solutions.

I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

Regards.



Pippaki

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 12:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 15:24
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



The hotel is the first port of call - they should be able to resolve this.

In terms of the 'appeal', it's more of a demand/complaint and doesn't provide them with any info to consider. A rejection will be inevitable - fine if that is the desired outcome. (I know Coupon Mad (School Run Mum here) says the template let's them know what's happening)


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 17:33
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



I went to the hotel today and spoke to their reception team. They didn't want to know so will write a letter to management.
However, I took a picture that shows the signage:



I would think they are giving conflicting messages. What do you think?

Thanks Pippaki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 19:38
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Yes, the one on the left is in large letters, makes a parking offer, no fine/penalty mentioned, and threatens clamping, a criminal offence.#

The PEA one is unreadable, in terms of any 'contractual parking charge'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



The hotel can't now complain about a One-star review on Tripadvisor - Hint
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 14:40
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Hello All,

as expected, the above appeal was rejected by the operator and a POPLA code was supplied. I have written the below appeal and would appreciate your feedback on it.



Many thanks
Pippaki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 07:25
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



and the one star review??

Why only signage? Any POFA issues you can highlight?

You need to make the point more succinctly: if any offer was made, it was by the hotel in their sign. That offer was accepted. Once parking was granted, there was no need for any driver to look for further signs, or form a secondary contract for the same consideration - in fact, thsi would be impossible. The Operator cannot offer something the Driver already has; a parking space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 13:22
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Hello Nosferatu,

thank you very much for your feedback on the popla appeal.

I have checked the NtK for failings with regards to POFA but didn't find any issues.
The only thing I could think of is that it has these 3 dates/times on the ticket:

Date/Time of Parking Event: **/06/2018 11:29
Entry Time: **/06/2018 10:22
Exit Time: **/06/2018 11:29

It then states that the PCN was issued because your vehicle with registration (xxxxxxx) was parked on private property and recorded on camera and it relates to the period of parking that immediately proceeded the date and time specified above.

One could perhaps argue that it is not clear which date/time they are referring to?

I have updated the POPLA appeal conclusion part as per your recommendation:

Conclusion
There was no contract nor agreement to the parking charge with the operator. An offer to park at this location was made by the prominent sign shown on the left in the above picture. This offer to park was accepted by the driver and there was no further need for the driver to look for any additional signs, or form a secondary contract for the same consideration with the operator.


Do you find this more acceptable?
Thanks Pippaki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:30
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Hi All,

I'm just bumping this thread a teeny bit. I would really appreciate feedback before sending this off to popla.

Thanks
Pippaki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 13:01
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Have you read other POPLA threads?
They always have at least three elemtents, signage being two and landowner being one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 05:41
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Good Morning.
I have added a bit more meat to my popla appeal and would appreciate feedback before sending it to popla. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks Pippaki

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration plates XXXX XXX and I am appealing the above parking charge notice based on the following point:

1. Unclear and non-compliant signage
2. No evidence of landowner authority
3. No Keeper Liability



1. Unclear and non-compliant signage

I contend that the signs in the car park (wording, position and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and conditions and any potential consequences.

The operator, PCN Parking Solutions for Parking and Enforcement Agency Limited, failed to comply with sections 9.5, 18.1, 18.3, and 18.4 of the AOS Code of Practice (January 2018).

[PICTURE AS SHOWN IN PREVIOUS POST]

The above picture shows the signs when leaving the car park to enter the hotel.


Of the three signs shown in the picture above, the middle one appears to be the most prominent, followed by the sign on the left which states in large lettering “HOTEL RESIDENTS & GUESTS PARKING ONLY” followed by some smaller lettering “CLAMPING IN OPERATION”.

This sign makes an offer to park for hotel residents and guests but, importantly, it does not mention any costs or charges. It threatens with clamping, which I understand is a criminal offence.
The appellant is of the opinion that the operator and their client used “predatory” and “misleading tactics” to lure the driver into incurring parking charges. Such tactics are sanctionable must be reviewed by the Professional Conduct Panel.

According to 18.1 of the AOS Code of Practice (January 2018) “…the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

The AOS Code of Practice (January 2018) continues to be more specific in point 18.3 by saying that “… You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. … Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Furthermore, 18.4 of the code states that “If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ‘adequate notice’. This includes:
- specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
- adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and
- following any applicable government signage regulations.”


The driver read the prominent sign on the left, he/she was compliant, at being a guest or resident of the hotel, and thus continued with his/her business. Even if the driver had seen or read the sign on the right, he/she would have been confused as to which sign applies (left or right).

Furthermore, the signage to the right does not clearly mention the parking charge sent to the appellant. This is hidden in the small print. The terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high.

The signage at this site is ambiguous and the terms and condition are not clear.

There was no contract or agreement between the driver and the operator. An offer to park at this location was made by the prominent sign shown on the left in the above picture. This offer to park was accepted by the driver and there was no further need for the driver to look for any additional signs, or form a secondary contract for the same consideration with the operator.


2. No evidence of landowner authority

As the operator does not have proprietary interest in the land I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any site agreement or user manual setting out the details, including exemptions are key evidence to define the operator’s authorities and limitations.

It cannot be assumed, just because the operator is contracted to put some signs up and to issue parking charge notices, that the operator is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might be in some cases accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

The AOS Code of Practice (January 2018) Section 7 defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

“7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorization of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries or the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the service provided by each party in the agreement”


I request a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed, dated and most importantly un-redacted contract with the landowner.

In POPLA case 1771073004, the assessor ruled that a witness statement was “not valid evidence”. The witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. If the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid as there is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner.

3. No Keeper Liability

The notice to keeper did not provide any evidence to actual parking times, failing the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9 (2) (a), which states:
"Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

It cannot be discounted that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits (double dip, a well-known phenomenon).

This double dip fault in ANPR evidence is a fact confirmed by the BPA in the following article:

http://britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

“As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.”


If the ANPR system has picked up two separate occasions then it would fail on the above ruling as two separate PCNs should be issued, assuming the vehicle in question had breached the contract terms, and not just the one that was sent to the keepers address.

There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities, from two photos of a car in motion.

I put the operator to strict proof that there was only one period of parking, because this is a mandatory requirement for keeper liability also stated clearly in Schedule 4.

I would therefore ask the adjudicator to allow this appeal and the operator to cancel the charge.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 05:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Good morning All,
I hope its ok to bump this a little. I have to put in the Popla appeal today and just wanted to make sure the appeal is ok to send.
Thanks Pippaki
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 10:58
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Fine by me
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pippaki
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 10:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,668



Here the update from popla:

Parking & Enforcement Agency have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Thanks again for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 11:27
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well done!
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, 28th March 2024 - 13:06
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here