PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private Parking ticket, Parking charge @ Zone A +B Holloway street TW3
Pavy
post Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 11:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



the driver and the partner visited Belheim centre on 23rd Morning 1030-1230 pm. We used the underground car parking during our visit. However, as we were returning/coming out of Belheim car park, my parter missed our bag in ASDA (Belheim centre) for which we had to stop. Since,I had left the car parking, I used a parking bay where a few other cars were parked to wait for my partner to return. The street was quite and there was no blocking or traffic at this time. However, soon as I stopped with my car ignition on, I noticed a man in a blue car, started capturing photos of our car. At first I dint expect him to be taking photos. but he moved a bit more in his car and started taking more pictures. I felt very suspicious of his activities, hence I moved my car immediately and luckily my partner returned back with our bag at the same time. So we left that place straight away. This whole stopping ordeal was no more than 3 minutes in total.

A week later (yesterday), we received a parking violation from a private parking company, claiming I had used the parking space which was prohibited and we were in parking violation. We looked at the photographic evidence and clearly the parking signage was behind the container (at least 8foot above the ground) which clearly blocked the visibility of signage. I used the bay just behind the restaurant which we visited that day. Out of all the roadside parking that was available for me, I found this to be safe place at that time given I was the restaurant's customer after all.

we also checked with the restaurant about the parking facilities and they said they owned only the three bays (used for offloading only) not for customers. But the restaurant board just above the parking bays are clearly misleading to anyone visiting the place.

Also, I was at the wheel the whole 2 or 3 minutes, my car ignition was fully on. Do I stand a ground in this case? How to proceed from here.

PCN pictures attached

https://ibb.co/6RKzcWt
https://ibb.co/H2gT7NX

Thanks in advance.

Also attaching the signage
https://ibb.co/PgVc62k
https://ibb.co/9Ngh540

This post has been edited by Pavy: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 - 16:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 68)
Advertisement
post Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 11:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 31 Dec 2021 - 01:08
Post #61


Member


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



You might get taken to court. Their choice.

Please
Please
Please



Answer. What. Happened. To. The. Contract? It's incredibly frustrating when you don't answer questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 31 Dec 2021 - 14:15
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 31 Dec 2021 - 01:08) *
You might get taken to court. Their choice.

Please
Please
Please



Answer. What. Happened. To. The. Contract? It's incredibly frustrating when you don't answer questions.


No they haven't provided any contract with the landholder, below was my appeal to POPLA and no response from the parking company

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then 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 details including exemptions -such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights -is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent 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 in some cases be 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.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
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:
1. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
2. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
3. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
4. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
5. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 31 Dec 2021 - 14:26
Post #63


Member


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



šŸ˜±

So

After saying how important the "valid contract " point was, you took it out despite them NOT supplying the contract!

Yes it's in yiur appeal, but now you're hoping popla spots this , whereas point 1, in yiur response, was as I told you, lack of valid contract

So
So
So frustrating.

There's a reason we ask questions. If this goes further (assuming a loss, which shouldn't happen) and it gets to court claim, you MUST answer every bloody question. Otherwise I will not try to assist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Sat, 1 Jan 2022 - 12:02
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 31 Dec 2021 - 14:26) *
šŸ˜±

So

After saying how important the "valid contract " point was, you took it out despite them NOT supplying the contract!

Yes it's in yiur appeal, but now you're hoping popla spots this , whereas point 1, in yiur response, was as I told you, lack of valid contract

So
So
So frustrating.

There's a reason we ask questions. If this goes further (assuming a loss, which shouldn't happen) and it gets to court claim, you MUST answer every bloody question. Otherwise I will not try to assist.



As said, this point has been already mentioned in my appeal but I missed it in my rebuttal, hoping POPLA does check my appeal points before arriving at a decision.
@nosferatu1001 I do understand what you mean, will respond instantly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 10:03
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



POPLA assessment and decision 20/01/2022

Decision : Unsuccessful
Assessor Name :Gemma West
Assessor summary of operator case : The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case : The appellantā€™s case is that there was insufficient, unclear and convoluted signage. The appellant states the operator not complied with consideration and grace periods as per the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states the signage is forbidding.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

1. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellantā€™s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the registered keeper has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper.

2. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: ā€œNO PARKING AT ANY TIMEā€¦Private Land, strictly no parking at any time, unauthorised parking will result in a parking charge of Ā£100.ā€ The operator has issued the parking charge for parking in a no parking area. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached.

I now turn to the appellantā€™s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant explains that there was insufficient, unclear and convoluted signage. While I appreciate these comments, section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: ā€œSpecific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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 vehicleā€¦ā€ Having considered the signage in place, I can see that there are three signs in close proximity to the appellantā€™s vehicle. As such, I am satisfied the driver had the opportunity to review the terms and conditions. I note the appellantā€™s comments regarding no entrance sign gas been provided. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states ā€œA standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impracticalā€¦at parking areas where general parking is not permitted. The signage stipulates parking is not permitted; however I am satisfied the signage is sufficient.

3. The appellant states the operator not complied with consideration and grace periods as per the BPA Code of Practice. The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ā€˜parking contractā€™ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.ā€ Furthermore, section 13.4 states ā€œUnauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc.ā€ The operator has provided a number of photographs of the vehicle parked. From the evidence provided, I cannot see a motorist reviewing the terms and conditions of the signage displayed in close proximity to the vehicle. As such, I am not satisfied the vehicle is permitted to the five minute consideration period in an unauthorised parking area.

4. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, ā€œIf you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation 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 chargesā€. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has produced a contract agreement in line with the BPA Code of Practice, to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7.

5. The appellant states the signage is forbidding. While I acknowledge that the appellant states the terms and conditions of this site are forbidding, the motorist has accepted the terms and conditions by remaining on site and has failed to comply with these by parking in a no parking area. The signage does not make reference to parking with a valid permit. The parking charge was issued for parking in a no parking area and therefore the driver did not comply with the contract. Ultimately, it is the motoristā€™s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked in a no parking area, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 10:28
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



My appeal was weak as excepted lost at POPLA, now should I wait until the parking company sends me a threatening court letter??

The unreasonable and unfair charge for a less than 3 minutes stay sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 15:13
Post #67


Member


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



4) states they DID produce a contract. You stated they did not. Don't you think this disparity in what you saw vs what popla saw is an issue?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 28 Jan 2022 - 17:56
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 15:13) *
4) states they DID produce a contract. You stated they did not. Don't you think this disparity in what you saw vs what popla saw is an issue?



Sorry was away for a week and only seeing this message now.

There was no document stating the contract in the evidence, I presume the adequate signage is what the accessor is referring to as a contract. I tried tracking POPLA appeal but the page doesn't exist now.

I need help in preparing a strong case for the court, don't want to lose this case for less than a 3-minute stay
Any advice and support from members on the forums would be greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 28 Jan 2022 - 22:35
Post #69


Member


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



????

Read number 4 again
Landowner authority
That's the contract WITH THE LANDOWNER
Not the signs

Com0lain. To. Popla. Point out YOUR evidence pack did not include a contract, and that this means no contract was given. It doesn't matter if they gave it to popla, they DIDNT give it to you.

As the entire case is your personal data, you also require a copy of this contract now .



In order for you to put together a good case yiure going to actually have to read, UNDERSTAND, and act on what you've been told to do. You failed to point out the pack didn't have a contract in it, despite me explicitly asking about it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:48
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