PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Premier Park "Parking Charge Notice" The Wharf Retail Park
tyuio
post Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 17:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



Hello and thanks for taking the time to read this. Apologies for the length and thanks in advance for any contributions.

Today I received in the post a "Parking Charge Notice" for £100 (£60 if paid early) from Premier Park addressed to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. It states that they have issued it to my vehicle "because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at The Wharf Retail Park, Godalming, GU7 1DR. The exact wording is "The reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is as follows: Exceeded Maximum Stay Period". The letter does not specify what the period for maximum stay is and only mentions the entry and exit times of the car park, not the period of parking, claiming a duration of "02:40".

The letter was sent within less than two weeks of the supposed offence according to the date on it and also arrived within two weeks of the alleged incident. Attached were four photographs, two of the vehicle and two close ups of the front licence plate only. In both pictures of the vehicle it has it's lights on and appears to not be in a parking bay although to the near side of a solid white line on what appears to be a brick surface that may or may not be a car park. There is no signage visible in any of the photographs, nor is it clear from the photographs who the driver was at the time.

There is also a link to the Premier Park website where you can log in with the reference and number plate to see the photos in more detail which I perhaps foolish did upon receipt of the letter before reading the guidance here not to do anything. Digital photos don't show me who the driver was but strongly indicate that the timestamp is wrong for the later photo as it should have been getting dark at the time the stamp was taken if the timestamp were accurate but it appears to be broad daylight rather than sunset.

The final paragraph of the letter reads:

"We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. You are advised that if, after the period of 29 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given, the amount of the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act."

I've prepared an appeal based on a successful appeal at this carpark from a template prepared by contributors to this forum from a couple of years ago. According to the appeals process information I have 28 days from receipt of this letter to submit this appeal either online or in writing via post. I understand that an initial appeal to Premier Park will automatically result in a rejection but a follow up appeal to POPLA may not. I'd appreciate any advice that anyone can offer. Many thanks again to all of you for doing this. I believe I should appeal on the following grounds:

1. Premier Park failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
3. The car park signage was inadequate.
4. Premier Park has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
5. The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.
6. The vehicle is not photographed within the car park.
7. Non-liability of Registered Keeper

1. Premier failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It merely stated the times which the vehicle entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to the start and end of the period of parking.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) ©, the Notice to Keeper did not describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable. The Notice to Keeper merely states the reason for the issue of the PCN as being “Exceeded Maximum Stay Period”; this description is inadequate insofar as it fails to specify the actual length of time that drivers are permitted to stay in the car park.

• On the PCN, it states: “We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle.”

This paragraph is in contradiction to the aforementioned Act which in part states (para 9): The notice must –
(2)(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Consequently, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may determine that Premier’s claim is invalid.


2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


3. Signage Was Inadequate

I have reason to believe that the signs at this car particular park were inadequate. Although Premier Park is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, this is not the case at this car park. The sign is positioned too high for a seated driver. It is on a sharp left turn with narrow lanes and only painted lines separating the two-way traffic. A driver must concentrate solely on navigating this and does not ‘naturally’ see the signage on entering the carpark. It is only on revisiting the carpark after being made aware of the PCN and (possibly illegally) stopping at the entrance did the driver note that the sign was even there.

The evidence provided only shows the vehicle in question at two apparently different points on a road, apparently in motion. It does not show where the vehicle was parked or that signage was clear and visible to the driver at any point.

The signs available did not clearly explain to motorists that parking time would be measured against the times recorded by the ANPR cameras at the car park’s entrance and exit and not as a measure of the time that the vehicle was actually parked.

They did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras; Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. I contend that Premier’s signs do not comply with these requirements.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.


This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size. This is recognised within industry as inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

https://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-l...lity-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''


So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast.

Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

Premier Park should be aware that the BPA Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

So for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat in motion, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


4. No Authority

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I do not believe that Premier Park has landowner’s authority and, as such, the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

• Section 7.1 states “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”.

• Section 7.2 states: “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.”

• Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.”


I do not believe that Premier has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I therefore require Premier to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract is compliant with Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and permits Premier to make contracts with drivers in its own right, providing it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).


5. The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

• ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

• 21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

Premier Park fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Premier Park place signs too high to see on arrival, and on a hazardous bend, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'.

I say that Premier Park have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Premier Park present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Premier Park to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Premier Park to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised with the actual time of day, especially as the ambient light levels in the alleged later photo do not tally with the supposed time the photo was taken.

I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

6. The vehicle is not photographed within the car park.

The photographic evidence supplied by Premier Park shows the vehicle on an unidentified two-lane road. The vehicle is not shown adjacent to any signage or indeed, within a car park. It therefore can not be assumed that these photographs are at the entrance to any car park, let alone the one alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice. It also can not be assumed that the vehicle entered the car park within seconds, or in fact at all.

Therefore, the timings shown on the ANPR cameras (already in dispute as to their accuracy in Point 4) are wholly inadequate as any evidence of that vehicle being parked IN the alleged car park for the alleged time. There is also no photographic evidence to show how full the car park was and whether a driver would require extra time to simply find an available parking space.

7. Non-liability of Registered Keeper

As the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, I can not be held liable for the charges as these are the result of actions by the driver. Premier Park have not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such, cannot hold the Keeper liable.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 17:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 17:44
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



They’ll reject any appeal. POPLA will likely agree the charge was ‘correctly issued’.

They are litigious so start collecting your evidence. Personally I don’t think the POFA argument is strong.

It’s a 2 hour limit.


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Fri, 17 Jan 2020 - 08:49
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



Thanks for the warning, JLC, but this was based on a previously successful appeal at this car park. So far as I can see nothing has changed since then and all the grounds for appeal are valid. I know they will reject the initial appeal as they always do no matter how blatantly correct it might be but I cannot see how POPLA could reject this unless things have changed over the past couple of years that I do not know about? Assuming that does happen what evidence should I be collecting?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 17 Jan 2020 - 09:11
Post #4


Member


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



POPLA is going downhill. Additionally the COP changes twice a year, so for example grace periods have changed again (since 01.2020)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Fri, 17 Jan 2020 - 13:05
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



Hi Nosferatu. I've been reading some of the other threads here and absolutely see what you mean about POPLA going downhill. Some of the judgements reported are clearly faulty in law as well as being manifestly unjust in practice. I guess I should just submit and exhaust the appeals process and then reject any further contact but it all seems a bit pointless if the other side are able to ignore the law with impunity. huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 17 Jan 2020 - 13:07
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



In what way have they 'ignored the law'? I can't see anywhere (in that long account) where they have.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Sat, 18 Jan 2020 - 10:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



Hi Rookie - all seven appeal grounds are where they have technically "ignored the law", but if there is something you think should be changed to more distinctly demonstrate this please let me know, or if there is some other criteria against which I should appeal in order to be successful please let me know. Many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 18 Jan 2020 - 13:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Hmmm, I think you're going to find POPLA's decision disappointing.


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Sat, 18 Jan 2020 - 13:30
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 18 Jan 2020 - 13:29) *
Hmmm, I think you're going to find POPLA's decision disappointing.


Okay, then what should I be doing differently?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ludique
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 00:38
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Jan 2020
Member No.: 107,485



Premier Park claimed against me last year in the County Court for a "parking and leaving" PCN at The Wharf from 2015. Their PCN from that date is not compliant with POFA as far as I can see, and once I drew their attention to that, they discontinued the claim.

It's possible that their PCNs are now better-formulated, but the main issue that stuck out for me was the failure to give you the 28-day notice in the correct way. The PCN I got had an "incident date" and an "issue date" on it, and the response/payment time is just stated as "within 28 days". IMO in order to be compliant the notice needs to tell you when the "day after that on which the notice is given" is, as the start of the 28-day period. This requires them to explain when the notice is "given" (which is defined in paragraph 9(6)).

I was going to go into a lot of detail about the crappy definition of the "site" and the contradictory signage (especially the big yellow WARNING sign at the roundabout, which is in very different terms to the other ones inside the car park), but in the end I just emailed them about the POFA non-compliance, and that had the desired effect.

I've done a separate post about the claim.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 08:56
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



Ludique, this was indeed extremely helpful - thanks. The PCN NTK has apparently the same wording as when you received it as the same criteria that made it non POFA compliant for you apply for me also. I expect the POPLA adjudicator will either recognise the non-compliance and not bother to look at the rest of my claim or, as others have said, ignore that it is non-compliant. It will be interesting to see what they say about the fact that the sun should have set at the time the later photo is taken yet it clearly hasn't though. Many thanks once again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 09:54
Post #12


Member


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



If POPLA rule it is compliant, when it clearly isnt, you again comaplin to POPLA - and point out that failing to understand the very simple law that is at the hear of parking cases is simply unacceptbale. If amateurs can do it, then any service *specifically set up* to deal with this MUST be able to understand it as a minimum level of service.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 18:42
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



I didn't know you could appeal POPLA, Nosferatu, thanks for explaining. Is that worth doing if they get it wrong or if the judgement is wrong is it better to follow the stickied advice and simply go no contact?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 10:56
Post #14


Member


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



Yes of course it is good to complain to POPLA
They make mistakes
Bad ones

Look at it this way:if they agree they made a mistake, they cancel the PCN. Its all done. If they dont, youre in EXACTLY the same boat as you were before. Its a no=lose bet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 16:47
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



Well, unless anyone has anything further to add I guess I'll submit the appeal - although presumably it is sensible to wait until until towards the end of the appeal time frame so that they cannot reissue the PCN amending the wording to be POFA compliant?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Jan 2020 - 10:55
Post #16


Member


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



If you wish. Just dont miss the deadline.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyuio
post Mon, 27 Jan 2020 - 16:30
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,041



If it doesn't matter I might as well do it now rather than wait until the middle of next month. Thanks again for all your help and I'll feedback the result when it comes through.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Jan 2020 - 16:06
Post #18


Member


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



They cant reissue a pofa compliant one, as there is only ever a single NTK / NtH etc. It just makes it clear to even POPLA if they dont try to send one out.

Nope, you have another stage - commenting on operator evidence. Your research on POPLA threads tells you this. Dont ask how you will do this, or what to look for, as the advice is *always* the same!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:47
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