Premier Parking Parc Tawe, No times on photo ANPR |
Premier Parking Parc Tawe, No times on photo ANPR |
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 - 11:45
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
The registered keeper has received a Parking charge for allegedly overstaying 3hrs free parking on letter stated 3hrs-12minutes.Photo shows car number from front and rear
There are no date or time stamps on the photos the date and time are printed in the body of the letter above the photo images.Surely the time and date should be on the photos as you get with a speeding ticket. Also on the signs it stated Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry if there is a grace period of 10 minutes would this mean any alleged overstay would be 7 minutes. Please can you advise on any appeal that can be made will post up PCN in due course. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 - 11:45
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 13:53
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
The registered keeper received e mail 2 days ago when is best time
to lodge appeal does the keeper submit it first as last or wait and is it good practice to post here first |
|
|
Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 15:16
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Absolutely no need to rush this appeal, nothing gained by being early> just dont miss the deadlines!
Keeper appeals, as ever Yes, draft your POPLA appeal MSE Forum NEWBIES thread has a good few to look at. This is a *lengthY*, *formal* appeal. not a quick two paragraphs. |
|
|
Fri, 17 Jan 2020 - 16:42
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Please see draft POPLA appeal for views
Dear POPLA, On the xxxxx, Premier Park Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for 3hours 12 remaining at the car park for longer than permitted 3 hours. As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds: 1. The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace Periods Paragraph 13.2 (The driver takes up the minimum grace period and 13.4 Grace period of 10 minutes upon exiting.) 2) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and has hidden terms of contract not displayed To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised: 1.) Failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Periods The BPA Code of Practice (January 2018) clearly highlights within section 13 that a company’s approach to parking management must allow a vehicle ;a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice. Subsections 13.2 and 13.4 offer further clarification stating that 13.2 . 13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes 13.4 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. Upon receiving the Parking Charge, the document described the vehicle as merely entering the car park at 12:04 hrs and merely leaving at 15:17. The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article Good practice includes a ;grace; period: Please see below statements from Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA: There is a difference between grace periods and observation periods in parking and that good practice allows for this. An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPAs guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket he explains. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability. In this instance the vehicle is observed by ANPR entering the parking site at 1204hrs given that at the entrance to the retail site you drive past a sign which indicates that full terms and conditions are explained when you enter the car park and park your vehicle. The signs within the parking site specifically inform you that THE PARKING PERIOD COMMENCES 5 MINUTES AFTER ENTRY (See photograph enclosed).This implies that after parking your vehicle and reading the signs your agreement on this occasion commences at least at 1209hrs the parking period would then be until the maximum period of 1509hrs The BPA guidance defines the grace period as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. To briefly summarise this definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and park. It is very clear from the evidence that Premier Parking have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the car park exceeded the permitted period by only 12 minutes, a sum of 5 minutes prior to leaving the vehicle (finding a bay to park, check the vehicle was parked correctly, secured correctly and then to find and read any available signage and the time of arrival was at 12:04 and 8 minutes after the parking period had ended (to get in the car, drive the vehicle safely to the exit point in the line of traffic and wait at the exit area as there are traffic lights on the adjacent road leading from the site area bearing in mind this is major retail site and it is not uncommon for queuing to take place on the weekend viz Sunday afternoon.) By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 12/13 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA. Again, it is undeniably clear from the evidence that Premier Park have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park. In relation the appeal submitted to premier Parking they have rejected it with the following observations Thank you for your appeal, on behalf of the driver, against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason; As your vehicle exceeded the maximum stay period of 3 hours by 12 minutes. Whilst we note your comments, as the Driver has been provided with a period of 3 hours to decide whether they can comply with the terms and conditions, we do not need to provide a grace period at the end of the session. If the Driver felt unable to exit the car park prior to the 3 hour period expiring, they could have telephoned Premier Park Ltd to report this. Our number is on the signage. Upon checking the reads from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras we can confirm the traffic was moving freely around the time the Driver exited the car park meaning there were no queues to exit. As one can see they have decided to totally ignore the BPA code of practice in relation to the Grace period(s) allowed In relation to the use of ANPR the photographs show entry and exit period times they do not provide accurate information on the actual duration the vehicle was parked. 2) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice as it has hidden terms and conditions. As one can see the Reply from Premier Park they imply that if the driver felt unable to leave the car park prior to the 3 hour expiry they are expected to telephone Premier Park to report this.Firstly the expiration time is disputed. More importantly there is no such helpful advice on the sign(s) within the retail park site this is not pointed out that it is expected.If this is not indicated and only a general telephone number is displayed how is one know that this telephone number is for customer services. It is disputed that at the time of the exit traffic was flowing freely and this point is not relevant in relation to the grace period.One can argue that if there is no grace period provided or required by Premier Park the volume of traffic is of no consequence. This post has been edited by Sandero333: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 - 20:38 |
|
|
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 - 08:52
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Is it worth expanding on the lack of information about contacting
Premier park by telephone on the day of the parking issue has anyone received a similar reply to a rejected appeal.Is it worth mentioning that if there were to be any issues that would likely to delay exit that signs should state this not just providing a telephone number it does not specifically state this.As the car park is staffed could they also not state in addition you can also approach the car park attendant. This post has been edited by Sandero333: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 - 09:33 |
|
|
Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 08:04
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yes, you can point out the signs do not say to contact if there are any probvlems, as POPLA sometimes comment that the driver should have known
Only 2 sections? Where is your part about Standing, that is in EVERY POPLA appeal ever? (near as makes no odds) |
|
|
Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 15:05
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Can you please explain the standing part of the appeal with any wording thanks
|
|
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 09:35
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Make them prove they have a contract with the landowner to offer contracts and take you to court in their own name.
Its on every single POPLA appeal, so find a 2019 one |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 09:44
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Thanks will amend
|
|
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 15:02
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Is this is what is required.
Lack of standing/authority from landowner o Lack of standing/authority from landowner Premier Park has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Parking Eye to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Premier Park have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Premier Parkare entitled to pursue these charges in their own right. I require Premier Park to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for Premier Park to merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority |
|
|
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 19:49
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Grateful for your reply and advice on the above contents
|
|
|
Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 10:58
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
That is indeed standing
Given you copied and pasted, rather than get us to review it, giving the link to where you found it is infinitely better. WE dont want to read copied and pasted text. |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 20:23
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
The registered keeper has just over two weeks left to appeal to POPLA will tidy it up and hope that the assessor comes down on the side of common sense fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 09:15
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Is it worth stressing the point that Premier Park in their reply state there is no requirement to provide any grace period after the end of the arming period as well as prior to parking commencing.If thi was not the case there would benn no requirement to amend BPA policy in January 2020
This post has been edited by Sandero333: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 09:20 |
|
|
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 - 11:58
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
As the date has now passed to accept their generous offer to
relieve RK of £60 do I need to inform them or will the appeal to POPLA suffice thanks |
|
|
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 - 16:54
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Of course you state that the explicit change to he CoP Jan 2020 proves there were two periods before hand, and that POPLA has ruled on this previously.
Just appeal to POPLA. You dont give two hoots about th PPC. |
|
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 11:53
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
I have attempted to submit appeal on line but only allows max 2000
Words per box to I split appeal or reduce word count or send by post |
|
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 - 12:29
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
You can email it as an attachment rather than being constrained to the 2000 word limit.
|
|
|
Mon, 3 Feb 2020 - 07:43
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
2000 character, if this is in repsonse to a POPLA evidence submission.
If your rebuttal is ober this amount, its likely FAR too long. Youre not restating your appeal, you are homing in on SPECIFIC points to rebut the operators claim. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 08:52
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 111 Joined: 17 Dec 2019 Member No.: 107,101 |
Appeal lodged and I understand operator has 28 days to respond
The registered keeper will be out of the country for a week how long does registered keeper have to rebut any evidence |
|
|
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 08:33
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
7 days
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:04 |