PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Popla intial appeal rejected Krispy Kreme Great Cambridge Rd, Enfield - please help.
URBAN TECH
post Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 22:46
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



Hello all.

Thank you in advance for all your advice on here, this site is a treasure trove. I would like to thank cabbyman for his the following post, were I got my appeal notes from :

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1307192

I have uoloaded MET parking popla appeal

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B7ykzjswuP...iew?usp=sharing

Essentially in line with cabbyman post above I appealed on the following grounds:

No landowner authority
No Keeper Liability
Lack of valid contract.
BPA Code of Practice – Non-compliance with the guidelines.
No evidence of the period parked.
Lack of signage.
The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

Is there any further information I can supply POPLA as I have 6 more days to forward any supporting documents.

Thanks

M

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 22:46
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 07:54
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



So to be clear, youre just sending your actual appeal to POPLA, not commenting on evidence?

If so then those headings are fine, assuming you have a decent argument for each.
Expect MET to not contest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



The link is the reply from met via the popla platform
Met parking have sent me a 34 page dossier refuting my arguments

I have 5 more days to send in supporting evidence

Is there anything I can do??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:33
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,648
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You should be commenting on the truth or otherwise of MET's statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I dont follow drive links, and cannot do so at work. So you need to be clearer on what is wanted

You go through YOUR appeal and their response. You will find theyve failed to actually respond to some of your points, or theyve pretended to respond but its paper thin. So if you challenged keeper liability, and they didnt disagree or they disagreed but it has flaws - then you tell POPLA this.

Dont assume POPLA will pick up on "mistakes" (Lies) by the operator. You have to produce a bullet list of problems iwth the operators pack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 08:39) *
I dont follow drive links, and cannot do so at work. So you need to be clearer on what is wanted

You go through YOUR appeal and their response. You will find theyve failed to actually respond to some of your points, or theyve pretended to respond but its paper thin. So if you challenged keeper liability, and they didnt disagree or they disagreed but it has flaws - then you tell POPLA this.

Dont assume POPLA will pick up on "mistakes" (Lies) by the operator. You have to produce a bullet list of problems iwth the operators pack.



Thank you for your replies and in reply your post “nosferatu1001” here are some of the of their replies from their 34 page rebuttal to my initial POPLA appeal.

1. No landowner authority.

Please find evidence of landowner authority in Section E of evidence pack, in the form of our contract with the landowner.

(They have supplied a contract with some company based out in Ramsgate Kent, called PZR Limited which an acting agent for Workman LLP. They go onto say that Workman “is a property management company that amongst other things manages the site as an agent of the site owner”

The site is listed as 492 Cambridge Road Enfield, with no postcode.
It goes on to talk about the services, deliverables and contractor materials but when it comes to the section about “Commencement date” it clearly states “TO BE CONFIRMED”

This is their response to keeper liability

2. No Keeper Liability.
We are confident we have complied with all aspects of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) and so may pursue the registered keeper for this parking charge notice. Please find our compliant Notice to Keeper in Section B of our evidence pack. We have also included a detailed explanation of why we may pursue the registered keeper in Section C of our evidence pack.”
The contract goes on to mention who the site owner is (PZR Limited, and they are represented by its agent, Workman LLP). Moreover the contract mentions the following
The site : 492 Cambridge Road Enfield (but no postcode)
Services / Deliverables / Contractor material and then in the commenment date, it says clearly TO BE CONFIRMED.
Can I use this an argument?


3. Lack of valid contract.
We are confident that our signs form a valid contract with motorists who chose to use the car park, as they provide a clear offer of parking at this location as long as the terms and conditions are adhered to. Motorists who enter this car park are provided with a grace period to note the terms and conditions stated on the signs and decide whether they would like to agree to the contract. If they chose to remain in the car park once this grace period has elapsed, they chose to agree to the terms and conditions of parking. If they chose to leave within the grace period, then they declined the terms and conditions. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and site plan of the location. It remains the driver’s responsibility to check the signs where they park and comply with the stated terms and conditions.

All they are essentially saying is that they are “confident”?


4. BPA Code of Practice – Non-compliance with the guidelines.

Please find the photographic evidence of Mr Malik’s vehicle in Section E of our evidence pack. We are confident it accurately demonstrates the contravention and that the images have not been edited in any way.

5. No evidence of the period parked.

We would like to point out that the stay period begins from the moment the vehicle enters the car park and ends the moment the vehicle exits. Therefor the ANPR images we have provided adequately demonstrate that the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum stay period, regardless of how much of that time was spent stationary. We have allowed for a 10 minute grace period at the beginning of the stay period and have also allowed for a 10 minute grace period at the end of the parking session and Mr Malik’s vehicle has exceeded this.

6. Lack of signage.

As previously stated, we have provided images of the signs in this car park and a site plan of the location in Section e of our evidence pack, and we feel our signage at this location is adequate in terms and quantity and visibility. We have also previously stated that adequate grace periods were provided to the driver, and we are pursuing the registered keeper under schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

7. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

As previously stated the time limit in place refers to time spent within the car park. The stay period begins from the moment the vehicle enters the car park and ends the moment the vehicle exits. It does not relate to how long the vehicle remained ‘parked’ within the car park. Additionally, the ANPR cameras are peripherals attached to a central computer which time stamps the images as they are taken by the cameras. The computer system clock is kept accurate using the internet and therefore the time stamps on the ANPR images are accurate to the times the images where taken. Our systems are audited regularly and independently by the BPA to ensure we are conducting the required checks to ensure ANPR quality.
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the site. These include that this car park is for the use of Great Cambridge Road Retail Park customers when on the premises only and there is a maximum permitted stay of 90 minutes. As the photographic evidence provided in section E of our evidence pack demonstrates, Mr Malik’s vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the maximum permitted stay. In light of the above we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly, and the appeal should be refused.

Is there any holes in any of the other sections?

POPLA have asked me to send in evidence, but im assuming, they will also allow me to question their appeal right?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:10
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) So not a contract showing an unbroken chain of authority from the actual freeholder then? Meaning they HAVE NOT proven they have LANDOWNER authority to issue charges.

Commencement date is not confirmed? The contract is not valid then. Point out that, as the contract was never completed, they clearly ave no authoerity to act.

Is PZR a managing agent, is it Workman LLP, or someone else? In 1 and 2 you have mixed these up. Be ABSOLUTELY clear.

2) They state they are compliant, but surely you have shown already the specifics of where they are not> If all theyve said is "we are compliant", in the face of you pointing out SPECIFIC areas they are not, then you need to TEL POPLA that, as they are an *evidence* based assessor, and the operator failed to produce any evidence - just an assertion - their response is null, and your appeal point is accepted by them. Your appeal must succeed.

3) Well do the maps match the actual sign locations? anything obvious? They often put in the wrong pics, or take pics in strong daylight vs unlit signs at night, etc.

Your job is to contrast and compare your appeal with their response, and point out any errors or omissions that HELP YOU.

4) Is photo evidence all you raised as being non compliant? Do the photos show this? Is this sht efirst time theyve been shown?

5) STRONGLY rebut this; an unknown point of time is not "parking". POFA is VERY clear that the PERIOD OF PARKING must be given. Time spent driving around a car park has already been ruled, in court, as NOT parking. Their point is rebutted as courts have already ruled against them on this.

6) They say this is a site plan - i.e. where they initially decided to place signs. Are those signs actually there? In good repair? How old is the plan? etc.

7) most of that has nothing to do with ANPR, and provides NO evidence that these systems at THIS carpark have been audited, the results of that audit, the scope of the audit and competence of the assessors - who have been called "as useful as a multistory carpark in the Gobi desert" by MPs - and as such is a bare assertion, and not evidence. As the operator has not provided ANY EVIDENCE to the EVIDENCE BASED appeals process, they have failed to rebut your appeal, and this point must succeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:41
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:10) *
1) So not a contract showing an unbroken chain of authority from the actual freeholder then? Meaning they HAVE NOT proven they have LANDOWNER authority to issue charges.

Commencement date is not confirmed? The contract is not valid then. Point out that, as the contract was never completed, they clearly ave no authoerity to act.

Is PZR a managing agent, is it Workman LLP, or someone else? In 1 and 2 you have mixed these up. Be ABSOLUTELY clear.

2) They state they are compliant, but surely you have shown already the specifics of where they are not> If all theyve said is "we are compliant", in the face of you pointing out SPECIFIC areas they are not, then you need to TEL POPLA that, as they are an *evidence* based assessor, and the operator failed to produce any evidence - just an assertion - their response is null, and your appeal point is accepted by them. Your appeal must succeed.

3) Well do the maps match the actual sign locations? anything obvious? They often put in the wrong pics, or take pics in strong daylight vs unlit signs at night, etc.

Your job is to contrast and compare your appeal with their response, and point out any errors or omissions that HELP YOU.

4) Is photo evidence all you raised as being non compliant? Do the photos show this? Is this sht efirst time theyve been shown?

5) STRONGLY rebut this; an unknown point of time is not "parking". POFA is VERY clear that the PERIOD OF PARKING must be given. Time spent driving around a car park has already been ruled, in court, as NOT parking. Their point is rebutted as courts have already ruled against them on this.

6) They say this is a site plan - i.e. where they initially decided to place signs. Are those signs actually there? In good repair? How old is the plan? etc.

7) most of that has nothing to do with ANPR, and provides NO evidence that these systems at THIS carpark have been audited, the results of that audit, the scope of the audit and competence of the assessors - who have been called "as useful as a multistory carpark in the Gobi desert" by MPs - and as such is a bare assertion, and not evidence. As the operator has not provided ANY EVIDENCE to the EVIDENCE BASED appeals process, they have failed to rebut your appeal, and this point must succeed.



Thank you. I will be drafting my appeal tonight, but here are some questions you have raised in the post above.

Under the “site Services agreement” The site owner is identified as PZR limited who are in turn represented by their agent Workman LLP.
In the background section:
Workman is a property management company that amongst other things manages the site as an agent on behalf of the site owner.
The site owner (acting by its agent, workman) wishes to engage the contractor to provide the services set forth herein in respect of the site, and the contractor wishes to provide such services.
So I am guessing it is PZR.
Yes, the commencement date is defiantly missing. It clearly states TO BE CONFIRMED
They have also taken EXTRACTS FROM THE CONTRACT where they mention the following
Scope :
They talk about the contractor / workman but again no mention of the landowner.
Services:
Clearly states the contractor will commence providing services on the commencement date?
Talks about the site owner but again no mention who the owner actually is?

Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baconrasher
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:09
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Member No.: 66,090



Google is your friend - PZR Ltd is actually Pfizer pension fund and likely the landowner. Interestingly there is also a PZR Properties Ltd which sounds more likely as the landowner...

Bacon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 21:49
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



This is the summery posted in their POPLA rebuttal, that i did not manage to include earlier.


Conditions
Location
Great Cambridge Road Retail Park
Enfield
EN1 1EL
Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the photograph of the sign attached in Section E
• 90 minutes maximum stay
• No return within 60 minutes
• This car park is for the use of Great Cambridge Road Retail Park customers when on the premises only
• Vehicles parked in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times
• Vehicles must park within the marked bays and not park in such a way as to cause obstruction to others
Case Summary
The charge notice was issued because the vehicle exceeded the maximum permitted stay without authorisation.
This car park is managed using ANPR CCTV cameras.
The car park services McDonald’s and Krispy Kreme outlets within this retail park and in order to maximise the number of spaces available for customers our client has set a maximum stay in the car park of 90 minutes.
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the site. There are 14 signs located at this site representing 1 sign for approximately every 4 car park spaces. The entrance sign measures 800mm x 1200mm and the terms and conditions signs measure 450mm x 600mm.The signs are made using Oralite, a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA2. This is the European Harmonised Standard that has been set for Road Traffic Signs.
In addition to their reflective nature the signs are illuminated by lampposts they are attached to or adjacent to, ambient light and light from the vehicles themselves entering and parking on the site.
On 6 January 2018 vehicle was recorded as entering the car park registering a stay of 103 minutes, 13 minutes longer than the 90 minute maximum permitted stay.
Registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA and a notice was sent to the registered keeper.
On 19 January 2018 we received an appeal from the registered keeper, Mr on the grounds that we had not attempted to pass liability for the charge to the registered keeper using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and we have not identified the driver.
The appeals team investigated the appeal and on completing their investigation they wrote to the appellant explaining that the appeal had been refused and why.

This post has been edited by URBAN TECH: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 08:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Youve left your reg in! Take it down NO. Oh damn, AND your name. Seriously dont just blindly copy and ppaste!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 17:34
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 08:58) *
Youve left your reg in! Take it down NO. Oh damn, AND your name. Seriously dont just blindly copy and ppaste!


Bloody hell thanks
Amended.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 22:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



Im finalizing my POPLA appeal, but am stuck on the following point you raised. I have pasted (omitting my details this team, their version of specifics, can i argue any of this? Thanks


2) They state they are compliant, but surely you have shown already the specifics of where they are not> If all theyve said is "we are compliant", in the face of you pointing out SPECIFIC areas they are not, then you need to TEL POPLA that, as they are an *evidence* based assessor, and the operator failed to produce any evidence - just an assertion - their response is null, and your appeal point is accepted by them. Your appeal must succeed.

This is what they sent me in that 34 page POPLA Appeal

Liability Trail
We believe we can pursue the registered keeper for payment of the charge notice as:
1. The land on which the vehicle was parked was private land and falls within the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act.
2. The driver of the vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land and the charges have not been paid in full.
3. We have the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid charges but are unable to take steps to enforce that requirement because we do not know the name and current address for service of the driver.
4. We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, this notice:
a. Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
b. Informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay the charges and they have not been paid in full;
c. Describes the charges due, the circumstances and other facts that made them payable;
d. Specifies the amount unpaid;
e. States that we do not know the name and address of the driver and invites the keeper to either pay the charges or advise us of the name and address of the driver;
f. Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the charges are not paid in full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver we may (subject to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the outstanding sums from the registered keeper;
g. Informs the registered keeper of the prompt payment discount and arrangements for dispute resolution;
h. Identifies ourselves as the creditor and specifies how to make to payment to us or correspond with us;
i. Specifies the date of sending the notice;
j. Specifies the Creditor.
5. The notice contains appropriate evidence by way of date stamped photographs
6. The notice was given in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(4), 11 and 12 in all relevant respects.
7. The timetable of events is listed below:
a. The contravention took place on 6 January 2018
b. The registered keeper details were received from the DVLA 11 January 2018 and the Notice to Keeper was sent the same day.
The full details of the Notice to Keeper can be viewed in Section B above.
As the registered keeper has not provided us with the name and current address for service of the driver of the vehicle, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding parking charge notice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 23:43
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 13:10) *
1) So not a contract showing an unbroken chain of authority from the actual freeholder then? Meaning they HAVE NOT proven they have LANDOWNER authority to issue charges.

Commencement date is not confirmed? The contract is not valid then. Point out that, as the contract was never completed, they clearly ave no authoerity to act.

Is PZR a managing agent, is it Workman LLP, or someone else? In 1 and 2 you have mixed these up. Be ABSOLUTELY clear.

2) They state they are compliant, but surely you have shown already the specifics of where they are not> If all theyve said is "we are compliant", in the face of you pointing out SPECIFIC areas they are not, then you need to TEL POPLA that, as they are an *evidence* based assessor, and the operator failed to produce any evidence - just an assertion - their response is null, and your appeal point is accepted by them. Your appeal must succeed.

3) Well do the maps match the actual sign locations? anything obvious? They often put in the wrong pics, or take pics in strong daylight vs unlit signs at night, etc.

Your job is to contrast and compare your appeal with their response, and point out any errors or omissions that HELP YOU.

4) Is photo evidence all you raised as being non compliant? Do the photos show this? Is this sht efirst time theyve been shown?

5) STRONGLY rebut this; an unknown point of time is not "parking". POFA is VERY clear that the PERIOD OF PARKING must be given. Time spent driving around a car park has already been ruled, in court, as NOT parking. Their point is rebutted as courts have already ruled against them on this.

6) They say this is a site plan - i.e. where they initially decided to place signs. Are those signs actually there? In good repair? How old is the plan? etc.

7) most of that has nothing to do with ANPR, and provides NO evidence that these systems at THIS carpark have been audited, the results of that audit, the scope of the audit and competence of the assessors - who have been called "as useful as a multistory carpark in the Gobi desert" by MPs - and as such is a bare assertion, and not evidence. As the operator has not provided ANY EVIDENCE to the EVIDENCE BASED appeals process, they have failed to rebut your appeal, and this point must succeed.




I have pasted my draft reply below. Is it sufficient?

In response to your posts dated the 12th of February 2018, please note my replies herewith.
• No landowner authority:
o Section E of your rebuttal documents a contract between PZR Limited (the apparent Site owners) who are represented by an agent Workman LLP. The actual freeholder is not made clear thus not clearing up the issue of landowner authority?
o PZR LTD previous company names was PFIZER PENSION TRUSTEES LIMITED.
o On the 6th of September 2017 Accounts for a Dormant Company were submitted to company’s house, were it is confirmed the company has not traded in the previous financial year. Moreover, PZR LTD acts as a trustee for Pfizer Pension Fund.
o In line with the evidence appeal you have not proven that, PZR LTD a dormant company acting as a trustee for another company has LANDOWENER AUTHORITY.
o Moreover, within the contract the commencement date (section 8 of the contract) remains yet to confirmed, yet the document has already been signed.
• No keeper Liability
I NEED HELP ON THIS SECTION. I HAVE UPLOADED THEIR EVIDENCE IN THE PREVIOUS POST.
• No evidence of the parked period

o The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. Your liability trail is not evidence backed but backed by your belief.

• Lack of signage
o The pictures supplied are all shots taking during daylight hours, the supposed contravention happened during the evening. Moreover, there is no date stamp on the majority of pictures, in comparison the orientation photos which were taken over 6 months ago. In light of both facts and that we cannot ascertain the condition of the signs currently i refute this dated evidence.

• The ANPR System
o Your rebuttal does not provide any evidence that these systems have been audited, the scope of any audit and the competence of the assessors. Moreover, the definition of ANPR quality is also subjective and vague. As this is an evidence-based appeal process I fail to see any information relating to your statement.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 09:53
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,648
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Can they show the chain of contracts back to the landholder, ie the contract between the agent and the freeholder?

The driver needs time to enter the car park find a slot and read and understand the conditions. The driver is also permitted, under the BPA Code of Practise, a minimum period of 10 minutes after parking to leave the site. These 2 requirements more than cover the 13 minutes shown by the cameras when the car was actually moving and not actually parked.

I am doubtful about the "I" statement in the burden of proof section as it hints that the keeper may have been the driver. Perhaps a rewrite?

Repeat again that POFA states that the operator MUST provide a period of parking 9 (2) (b): inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full The ACT clearly states parking and therefore the use of stay which includes time when the car is moving and therefore not parking is insufficient to hold the keeper liable. In case 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014) the judge ruled that the time between the cameras is not parking. The Act specifies parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 12:44
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535





Can they show the chain of contracts back to the landholder, ie the contract between the agent and the freeholder?


The have included an evidence pack were the claim they can prove a contract with the landowner.
The evidence consists of a site services agreement with the agent who is Workman LLP. This agent is representing the site owner who are PZR Limited, a dormant company acting as a trustee for a PZR Pension fund. The contractor in all this is MET parking.

Is this sufficient proof of the actual landowner?

This post has been edited by URBAN TECH: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 12:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 21:34
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Dormant companies cannot contract, I don’t believe. If they do they’re not dormant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 23:51
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



I have almost finished my appeal, but need some help advice on Keeper liability. In their POPLA representation, MEP Parking sent me a a liability trail, which included the following, after mentioning the registered keeper details.

I have gone through it a few times and it does seem a lot of hot air, but it seems they have complied Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or am i mistaken? All correspondence
is in the timelines allowed etc.



Liability Trail
We believe we can pursue the registered keeper for payment of the charge notice as:
1. The land on which the vehicle was parked was private land and falls within the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act.
2. The driver of the vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land and the charges have not been paid in full.
3. We have the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid charges but are unable to take steps to enforce that requirement because we do not know the name and current address for service of the driver.
4. We have given a notice to the keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, this notice:
a. Specifies the vehicle, the relevant land on whit it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
b. Informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay the charges and they have not been paid in full;
c. Describes the charges due, the circumstances and other facts that made them payable;
d. Specifies the amount unpaid;
e. States that we do not know the name and address of the driver and invites the keeper to either pay the charges or advise us of the name and address of the driver;
f. Warns the keeper that if we after the specified time the charges are not paid in full and we still do not know the name and address of the driver we may (subject to having met all the criteria) have the right to recover the outstanding sums from the registered keeper;
g. Informs the registered keeper of the prompt payment discount and arrangements for dispute resolution;
h. Identifies ourselves as the creditor and specifies how to make to payment to us or correspond with us;
i. Specifies the date of sending the notice;
j. Specifies the Creditor.
5. The notice contains appropriate evidence by way of date stamped photographs
6. The notice was given in accordance with sub-paragraph 9(4), 11 and 12 in all relevant respects.
7. The timetable of events is listed below:
a. The contravention took place on 6 January 2018
b. The registered keeper details were received from the DVLA 11 January 2018 and the Notice to Keeper was sent the same day.
The full details of the Notice to Keeper can be viewed in Section B above.
As the registered keeper has not provided us with the name and current address for service of the driver of the vehicle, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding parking charge notice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 00:49
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,204
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You are NOT at appeal stage, so don't call it that. And don;t address it to MET. They don't get to see your final comments.

You have a mere 2000 characters in a POPLA box, to give POPLA your 'comments on the evidence' not re-appeal. They won't read that.

You really just need:


QUOTE
These are my comments:

Landowner contract
2 or 3 lines, point out if any of the contract is obscured, the signatures/names covered, or the start/end date unclear. Seems to be signed by a dormant company and not the landowner. The document talks about the services, contractor materials etc., but when it comes to the section about “Commencement date” it clearly states “TO BE CONFIRMED”!


Signage
2 or 3 bullet points, point out if the dates on their signage pics are old, if they show scarce signs or don't include a SITE MAP of signs.


Keeper liability - unless you have anything else to add then leave that without comment.

ANPR - forget it.


Your first point should win so keep it short and focus on pulling apart the Landowner contract letter first, and signs (no site map?) second, because those are what will win at POPLA, unless the overstay was so close to ten minutes that 'no suitable grace period' is worth pushing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
URBAN TECH
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 10:56
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,535



Hello all.

POPLA decision reached today. It was rejected. I have pasted their notes below. Is there anything else i can do?

Highlights include;

They rejected my landowner Authority angle, although the contract clearly stated that the start date between the various parities is yet to be CONFIRMED.
They also rejected that the 13 minute overstay although I did give plausible reasons why this could have happened.

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Matthew Yorke

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they question the operator’s authority from the landowner. The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that a Notice to Driver was not served whist the car was stationary. The appellant says in order to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. The appellant states that a sign, which states no unauthorised parking, never offers parking to anyone that is unauthorised. The appellant says that without an offer of parking, there can be no parking contract.

The appellant states that without a parking contract no PCN can be issued for a contractual sum or a breach of contract. The appellant has raised issues with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 20.5a. The appellant that the PCN in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. The appellant says that they do not clearly show the vehicle entering or exiting the car park as required in the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period the vehicle was parked. The appellant says that the PCN clearly implies the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. The appellant sates that by virtue of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system only recording entry and exit time, the operator are not able to definitively state the period or parking. The appellant says that there is no evidence to show the vehicle was parked for longer than the time allowed plus the mandatory grace periods. The appellant states that there is a minimum 10 minutes to leave the car park, and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, reads the terms and conditions and decides whether to park. The appellant says that there is a lack of signage.

The appellant states that there were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. The appellant says that they want the operator to provide evidence of the signage. The appellant states that as well as a site map, the operator needs to provide evidence of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the site. The appellant says that the sign breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice, which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver. The appellant states that there is no adequate notice of the charge on the signs. The appellant has raised issues with the ANPR system.

The appellant says that it is unreasonable for the operator to record the start of parking time, as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. The appellant states that they require the operator to provide records with the locations of the cameras used to show when the equipment was checked. The appellant says that they require the operator to rebut the suggestion that a local camera took the image, but a remote server added the time stamps.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “Great Cambridge Road: Retail park Customers Only: 90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY: IG YOU BREACH ANY OF THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE YOU WILL BE CHARGED AS FOLLOWS: £100.00 PARKING CHARGE.” The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

The site operates using an ANPR system. The cameras captured the appellant’s vehicle registration, *******, entering the site at 21:08, and exiting at 22:51. The total period of stay was one hour and 43 minutes.

The appellant’s case is that they question the operator’s authority from the landowner. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If 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 charges”.

As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a copy of the contract that they have with the landowner. Upon reviewing this, I am satisfied that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice and therefore the operator had the authority to issue PCNs on the day in question.

The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant 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 appellant as 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 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.

The appellant states that a Notice to Driver was not served whist the car was stationary. The site operates using ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site. As the operator does not use wardens to monitor the site then a PCN will not be issued to the vehicle. Operators that use ANPR cameras to monitor sites will send the PCN through the post.

The appellant says in order to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. The appellant states that a sign, which states no unauthorised parking, never offers parking to anyone that is unauthorised. The appellant says that without an offer of parking, there can be no parking contract. The appellant states that without a parking contract no PCN can be issued for a contractual sum or a breach of contract. This has no effect on my decision as the site is a maximum stay car park, and not a no unauthorised parking site. The appellant has raised issues with the BPA Code of Practice section 20.5a.

The appellant that the PCN in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. I have reviewed the evidence of the PCN that was sent to the appellant dated 11 January 2018. I can see that the PCN has images of the appellant’s vehicle as well as a close up image of the vehicle registration number. Therefore, this has no effect on my decision. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period the vehicle was parked. The appellant says that the PCN clearly implies the vehicle was parked during the relevant period.

The appellant sates that by virtue of the ANPR system only recording entry and exit time, the operator are not able to definitively state the period or parking. The appellant says that there is no evidence to show the vehicle was parked for longer than the time allowed plus the mandatory grace periods.

The appellant states that there is a minimum 10 minutes to leave the car park, and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, reads the terms and conditions and decides whether to park. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that an operator cannot determine the period of parking when using ANPR cameras to monitor the site. To accommodate this the BPA introduced grace periods to allow motorists to park, and read the signage and decide if they want to stay. There is also a grace period at the end of the contract to allow motorists to leave the car park. In this case as the site does not have any ticket or registration requirements then the time starts upon entry as there is no way to determine when a vehicle has parked. Therefore, the operator does not need to allow a grace period at the start, as there is no ticket or registration requirement. Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” The appellant has left the site 13 minutes over the maximum time allowed. The operator has provided a site map to show the layout of the site, and from this, I can see that the site is reasonably small.

The appellant has not provided a reason for leaving the site 13 minutes over the allowed time. Therefore, I do not believe that 13 minutes is a reasonable period to leave the car park. The appellant says that there is a lack of signage. The appellant states that there were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. The appellant says that they want the operator to provide evidence of the signage. The appellant states that as well as a site map, the operator needs to provide evidence of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the site.

The appellant says that the sign breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice, which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific 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 vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that they wanted the operator to provide evidence of the signage as the driver would have seen it. However, this is not a requirement for the operator.


The operator only needs to provide evidence of the signage that is on the site. A motorist does not need to read the signs to enter into a contract, they just need to be afforded the opportunity to read the signs. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions.

The appellant states that there is no adequate notice of the charge on the signs. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount.

Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin.


Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I have already covered section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice in relation to signage. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within PoFA 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge.

The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.


Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

The appellant has raised issues with the ANPR system. The appellant says that it is unreasonable for the operator to record the start of parking time, as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. The appellant states that they require the operator to provide records with the locations of the cameras used to show when the equipment was checked. The appellant says that they require the operator to rebut the suggestion that a local camera took the image, but a remote server added the time stamps. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the BPA audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. The operator does not need to provide evidence of when the equipment was last checked. In relation to the appellant’s suggestion that a local camera took the image, and a remote server added the timestamp, there is no evidence to suggest this.


Therefore, I cannot take this into account, and it does not affect my decision. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the driver’s vehicle has been on site exceeding the maximum time by 13 minutes, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Wednesday, 14th November 2018 - 03:39
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.