Premier Park - Brixham Marina, Couldn't use Ringo to pay for Parking Options

[Unimexsol]

Hi folks,

A couple of weeks ago someone was in Brixham, Devon and tried to park in the Marina car park using my car. They were aware that there was a charge for parking there, but it said that it accepted telephone payment. They tried and tried and tried to use the Ringo method of paying for parking but it wouldn't accept their card details. After spending 20 minutes attempting to make a payment in the end they gave up and left as they didn't have any change to pay for parking by using a machine.

As the registered keeper of the vehicle I've just received a letter through the post from Premier Park which they call a Parking Charge Notice for parking in the car park and not paying. What should I do? I've never had a parking ticket from a private firm before so I'm unaware of the procedure.





This post has been edited by Unimexsol: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 - 13:56

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

Just keep on at POPLA that the link is bad, try different devices and from different locations just in cases.

[Umkomaas]

Any other advice about what I should do now?

Phone them too - they've given you a freephone number.

[Unimexsol]

Hi folks,

So Premier Park have submitted the following to Popla as evidence:




There is also a 36 page PDF. Should I post that on here or is there a way of attaching a pdf so that you don't have 36 pages of contracts on here?

Interestingly, on p 15 of the photos it states "Please note the location code for this site is 9173 and payment must be made with RingGo." Fortunately I have the passengers phone bill which shows that a number of calls were made to Ringgo at the time. Hopefully this will prove that the driver left once it became apparent that RingGo wasn't accepting the passenger's payment.



This post has been edited by Unimexsol: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 14:31

[Unimexsol]

Here's their response, attached.

Attached File(s)

 Premier_Park_Response_Small.pdf ( 822.59K ) Number of downloads: 55

 

[ostell]

Should have read all of the contract!

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 - 23:18

[Unimexsol]

I've found out that MDL only lease the land from the council. Does this mean that the land will be automatically subject to byelaws and thus not covered by PoPFA?

[The Rookie]

No.....

Council maintained roads and car parks aren't covered by Byelaws but national legislation.

Other council land may be governed by byelaws but is incredibly unlikely to be.

I don't think you understand what 'byelaws' means?
https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/law-uklaw/byelaws

[ostell]

Brixham marina is in an area subject to the byelaws of Brixham Harbour Board and therefore not relevant land

[Unimexsol]

They've asked for comments in response to their points. I need to submit these tonight/tomorrow...I'm not sure they emailed me last Monday (23rd) and said that I had 7 days in which to respond. Please have a quick look and let me know what you think.



In point 2 I have typed Torquay Marina when I meant Brixham Marina, with Brixham being part of the area generally known as Torquay/Torbay I have simply mistyped. Please take this to mean Brixham Marina.

The car park in question is, without doubt, subject to byelaws. It is owned by Torbay Borough Council, not Marina Developments Limited, although MDL may well lease the land from the council. It has been proven time, and time again that this land is subject to the byelaws of Brixham Harbour Board. Premier Park and Popla should be well aware of this. With the land being subject to byelaws this means that it is not “relevant land” with regards to POPFA.

If you look at Page 3 of Premier Park’s response you will see that it says,
“Payment by card is made by entering your full registration number, pressing the green tick to validate the entry is correct, insert credit or debit card, adjust the time you want to pay for, press the green tick to confirm you have selected the right amount of time for your stay, enter your pin number, press Enter to validate the pin, take receipt. To pay by contactless by card enter your full registration number, press validate to confirm, adjust the time you want to park for, press the green tick to confirm, press the green tick again for wave and pay, present card to the machine, take receipt.”

This is not the case. The passenger, who was attempting to pay for the parking did not have the option to enter his payment card in the machine. Please see page 15 of Premier Park’s photographic evidence. You will see that at the top of the page it states “payment must be made with RingGo”. Also see the sign affixed to a door, shown on Page 9 where it states, “No coins?....See machines/signs for Pay By Phone option.” There is no mention made of any machines accepting card payments. Had the passenger been aware of any machine that accepted cards they would have used that machine, instead they attempted to pay using RinGo.

Please see the attached file that is a screenshot of the passenger’s detailed phone call log on the date of the alleged contravention. You will notice that they call 02030460020 at 12.09 and the call lasts 3 minutes. They then call the same number at 12.13 and the call lasts 5 minutes. At 12.18 they make two calls to the same number with one of them lasting 6 minutes. The number that they were calling was RinGo, and they were attempting during that whole time to make payment. On being unable to make payment they instructed the driver to leave the car park.


Is there anything else I should put in? Thanks in advance.

[Unimexsol]

VICTORY!

Hi folks,

I won the POPLA appeal!

Here's the adjudicators summary:

We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the Parking Charge Notice number; XXXXXX

The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.

If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful and the operator should cancel the parking charge.

When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.

POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator.

The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Allowed 

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:

 The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to Whole period of parking not paid for. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 The appellant wishes to appeal on the following grounds:
- The driver attempted to make payment, but this was unsuccessful, so they rejected the contract and left the car park.
- The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.
- It is contended that Torquay Marina falls within Harbour byelaws, therefore a keeper cannot be held liable as it is not relevant land.
- The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
- The operator does not have landowner authority.
- The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear and legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
- The signs fail to warn drivers of what ANPR data will be used for, nor do they warn of the risk regarding VRN entry.
- The charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was ‘plainly engaged’ in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. 

Assessor summary of reasons:

 When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for failing to pay for the whole period of parking.

Within the appellants appeal, they have stated that the site in question falls within Harbour byelaws. In this instance I would expect the operator to provide evidence or commentary on whether this is the case. I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator and there is nothing to evidence or state if the land is subject to byelaws or not. As such, the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds and I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. 

Kind regards


POPLA Team

[Jlc]

Result!

[Bendo]

VICTORY!

Hi folks,

I won the POPLA appeal!

Here's the adjudicators summary:

We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the Parking Charge Notice number; XXXXXX

The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.

If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful and the operator should cancel the parking charge.

When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.

POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator.

The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Allowed 

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:

 The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to Whole period of parking not paid for. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 The appellant wishes to appeal on the following grounds:
- The driver attempted to make payment, but this was unsuccessful, so they rejected the contract and left the car park.
- The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.
- It is contended that Torquay Marina falls within Harbour byelaws, therefore a keeper cannot be held liable as it is not relevant land.
- The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
- The operator does not have landowner authority.
- The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear and legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
- The signs fail to warn drivers of what ANPR data will be used for, nor do they warn of the risk regarding VRN entry.
- The charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was ‘plainly engaged’ in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. 

Assessor summary of reasons:

 When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for failing to pay for the whole period of parking.

Within the appellants appeal, they have stated that the site in question falls within Harbour byelaws. In this instance I would expect the operator to provide evidence or commentary on whether this is the case. I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator and there is nothing to evidence or state if the land is subject to byelaws or not. As such, the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds and I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. 

Kind regards


POPLA Team

Well done. Shows how much of a joke popla are though as they dismissed my appeal on pretty much the same points you raised including bylaws.

Still worked out OK for me too, indeed more so as I pushed them into taking me to court only for them to drop it before it got that far.

[freddy1]

Within the appellants appeal, they have stated that the site in question falls within Harbour byelaws. In this instance I would expect the operator to provide evidence or commentary on whether this is the case. I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator and there is nothing to evidence or state if the land is subject to byelaws or not. As such, the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds and I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly.

they know full well that the land comes under bylaws but will not admit it , in the hope that the next sucker does not know this fact

because they have " not rebutted " , popla have no need to check facts , so the next person looses at popla