PCN for Wharf retail park Godalming Options

[WhizzKid]

A PCN has been sent to my address from Premier Park

I have requested that they send me with proof of their right to invoice me and provision of a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name.

Let's see where we go with this. They are awaiting the Protection of Freedoms Act keeper/driver deadline they have before they will deem to reply.

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

WHich is exactly the OPPOSITE of what they require
They can only issue ON BEHALF ot the landlord. They cannot offer contracts in their own name, and certainly CANNOT issue a court claim in their own name .

[WhizzKid]

I am learning fast! And am lucky to have access to such experience.

So this seems pretty OK then on that basis:

"Since the initial PCN has been issued I have requested Premier Park's proof that they are able to invoice me. My request for this in the POPLA response has been met with a copy of the contract they hold with the Landlord. By agreeing to operate under the code of the British Parking Association (BPA) they agree to abide by its code of practice. Section 7 of the currently applicable code states that:

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.

The contract supplied by Premier Park does not indicate permission from the landowner that Premier Park has permission to issue a PCN in Premier Park's name, to offer contracts in their own name, nor to take to court in their own name. This is a breach of the BPA code, and I continue to assert that Premier Park, in breaking the code has no right to pursue me as the registered keeper in this matter.

[nosferatu1001]

No it isnt, as it is not specific eenough to the clause you found. Dont copy out the whole BPA CoP clause verbatim, just refer to it and point out that actualy the operator only has authority to operate on behalf of the landlord, and not in its own name.

[WhizzKid]

"Since the initial PCN has been issued I have requested Premier Park's proof that they are able to invoice me. My request for this in the POPLA response has now been met with a copy of the contract Premier Park hold with the Landlord. By agreeing to operate under the code of the British Parking Association (BPA), Premier Park agree to abide by its code of practice. The supplied contract allows Premier Park only to operate on behalf of the landlord. It does not allow Premier Park to operate in its own name. This is in contravention of the BPA code (Section 7) and therefore they are not operating under the code. It is for this reason that I continue to appeal any invoice raised by Premier Park."


Am I getting there do you think?

[nosferatu1001]

I said be specific - you need to refer to the actual clause in the contrct, AND their evidence ref, etc. Make it as easy as possible for the assessor to find what youre referring to.

"As part of my appeal strict proof that the operator has the right to offer cotnracts, and pursue tickets to court, in their own name was required. The contract provided at operator ref X clause Y.Z states that they are only authorised to act on behalf of the landowner. This fails to meet the requirements of the BPA code of practice, and means the PCN was not lawfully issued, as it cannot be issued in their own name.

[GooseOnTheLoose]

If it's useful, please see attached a couple of pics of the signs, as I had taken a couple of pics to try and help my neighbour. One is at the entrance to the park, one is one of the general signs they have. Can provide original higher res versions if required, as had to resize to upload here.

This post has been edited by GooseOnTheLoose: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 14:20

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[WhizzKid]

"Since the initial PCN has been issued I have requested Premier Park's proof that they are able to invoice me. My request for this in the POPLA response has now been met with a copy of the contract Premier Park hold with the Landlord. By agreeing to operate under the code of the British Parking Association (BPA), Premier Park agree to abide by its code of practice. The supplied contract allows Premier Park only to operate on behalf of the landlord (see their contract section 6.1). It does not allow Premier Park to operate in its own name. This is in contravention of the BPA code (Section 7.1), and therefore they are not operating under the code. It is for this reason that I continue to appeal any invoice raised by Premier Park."

Now I am getting it. I feel your exasperation with me. The balance of generic and specific in the right places is quite a new concept to me!

[nosferatu1001]

No, you dont say "able to invoice me"

Anyone is able to send anynoe an invoice. Its just a piece of paper

I told you the correct form to lead in - the right to offer contracts in their own name, and the right to pursue unpaid charges in court in their own name. THose are critical words to use because they mirror the CoP.

"By agreeing to operate under the code of the British Parking Association (BPA), Premier Park agree to abide by its code of practice." isnt neeeded. POPLA knows this already.

You only have 2000 char and must make this SNAPPY.

I said give their reference - they msut have one for the contract. Even a page number. You need to HELP the assessor find EXACTLY what youre referring to in 5 seconds.

[WhizzKid]

I have requested Premier Park's proof that they are able offer contracts in their own name, and the right to pursue unpaid charges in court in their own name.
My request for this has now been met with a copy of the contract Premier Park hold with the Landlord.
The supplied contract allows Premier Park only to operate on behalf of the landlord (see their contract section 6.1, page 39 of supplied evidence). It does not allow Premier Park to operate in its own name.
This is in contravention of the BPA code (Section 7.1 on page 7), and therefore they are not operating under the code.
It is for this reason that I continue to appeal.

It feels succinct!

[nosferatu1001]

The operator was put to strict proof that they are able offer contracts in their own name, and have the right to pursue unpaid charges in court in their own name.
The supplied contract allows the operator only to operate on behalf of the landlord (see section 6.1, page 39 of supplied evidence). It does not allow Premier Park to operate in its own name.
This is in contravention of the BPA code (Section 7.1 on page 7), and therefore the appeal must be allowed

[WhizzKid]

Thank you. It's almost as if you've done this before.
All help has been extremely appreciated.

[Redivi]

POPLA is by now very familiar with Premier Park contracts, some of which clearly include the authority required by the Code of Practice Para 7.2.
If this particular contract did include the authority, it would have stated the fact and the assessor is invited to draw the obvious conclusion

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 - 09:33

[WhizzKid]

My POPLA appeal has been reviewed and adjudicated.

"After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge."

[SchoolRunMum]

Yes we know POPLA think PP's NTKs are compliant, and a fair number of people nowadays lose to PP at POPLA.

Still, no-one on decent forums pays them.

Search this forum and MSE parking forum for 'Premier POPLA lost' and you will find loads of people like you.

A big fat, 'so what' really! POPLA was worth a try but means nowt if you lose!

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 23 May 2018 - 00:06

[nosferatu1001]

PLease post the full decision.

[WhizzKid]

The Appellant entered the site at xxx and exited at xxx. As per the signage, the maximum stay on this car park is 2 hours, therefore the Appellant’s vehicle remained on site 25 minutes over. We are unable to trace that this vehicle was registered on the permit system to authorise a longer stay. Please see Other Evidence. The Appellant states “I write to submit to POPLA the details of my dispute with Premier Park Limited (“Premier Park”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued on xxx in respect of an alleged breach of terms and conditions of parking at The Wharf Retail Park, Godalming on xxxx. I confirm that I am this vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I set out why I am not liable for this parking charge as follows: 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. Premier Park has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park. 4. The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate. 5. The vehicle is not photographed within the car park. 6. Non-liability of Registered Keeper Please see attached file for explanations of these items.” The Appellant has named himself as the Registered Keeper in the appeal to Premier Park. We have responded to the appeal by requesting the driver details, and when none were received, we denied the appeal on behalf of the driver. We therefore, hold the Registered Keeper as liable for this PCN. The signage clearly states “Maximum stay 2 hours – no return within 1 hour” and “If you enter or park on this land contravening the above terms & conditions, you are agreeing to pay: Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) £100.00” In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (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. We do not need to identify where the vehicle was parked. If motorists do not drive into the car park and through the ANPR camera read area they do not get picked up by the camera. This is how we identify that they have entered the car park. If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful. This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this but cannot enforce it. When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. 13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice. 13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. 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. If the driver felt, for any reason, that he/she was not able to adhere to the terms and conditions by, then he/she would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site. The Appellants vehicle was parked on site, exceeding the maximum stay period and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused. With regards to the appellant’s remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Details on the case be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.

[nosferatu1001]

That is the PE case, surely? "We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused." would only be from the operator

You could also put some paragraphs into it. Help us to help you.

Ive given up trying to read it.

[WhizzKid]

My sincerest apologies.

Copied and pasted the wrong section, and in a terrible format!

Here is their response:

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows;
• The appellant states the parking charge does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states the operator has not demonstrated that the individual they are pursuing is in fact the driver. The appellant states the registered keeper is not liable.
• The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges
• The appellant states the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is unreliable and not accurate.
• The appellant states the photographs of the vehicle are not taken within the car park.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, “Camera enforcement in operation; Maximum stay 2 hours; No return within 1 hour; If you enter of park on this land contravening the above terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay; Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.00”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant overstayed. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle, HN17 YLC, entered the site on xxxxx and exited the site at zzzzzz. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 2 hours and 25 minutes The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each of these below.

• The appellant states the parking charge does not comply with PoFA 2012. The appellant states the operator has not demonstrated that the individual they are pursuing is in fact the driver. The appellant states the registered keeper is not liable. Upon a review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge.

• The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges. I have reviewed the contract provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the operator has authorisation from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the site.

• The appellant states the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is unreliable and not accurate. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association 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 work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to provide POPLA with any evidence to substantiate their claims that the vehicle did not remain in the car park for the length of time suggested by the ANPR cameras. I must therefore work on the basis that they were in working order on the date of the contravention.

• The appellant states the photographs of the vehicle are not taken within the car park. I note the images are not taken in the car park. However, these images show the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. By entering the site the driver was therefore agreeing to the terms and conditions displayed on the signage at the site. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the vehicle overstayed, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[nosferatu1001]

I would complain

The contract DOES NOT allow them to take to court in their own name, and you raised that. The assessor has not justified their assessment with reference to WHERE in teh contract this is found
They also do not have authorisation to issue in their own name which again you raised.
Your comments either were nto read, or the assessor failed to even look at the contract and just assumed

COMPLAINT TIME

State that, as the assessor HAS found this clause, yuo require POPLA to indicate with para ref EXACTLY wher in the contract shared with you this is to be found. EXACTLY. They are claiming it is there, so this will be utterly trivial for them. Also, they did not comment on the lack of abiltiyt ot ake to court in their own name, therefore POPLA agrees that is NOT there, and therefore the appeal must be UPHELD instead of refused. You require an explanation for this lack of assessment.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Thu, 24 May 2018 - 09:22

[WhizzKid]

I sent them this complaint:

Dear Sirs,

I have recently submitted a POPLA appeal, with reference xxxxxx.

The appeal decision has been judged as unsuccessful.

"The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges. I have reviewed the contract provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the operator has authorisation from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the site. “

The assessor must have looked through my case in the detail required to come to this unsuccessful conclusion. In this respect the contract that was supplied must have been analysed in detail. In each aspect of my complaint a detailed response has been provided to explain why the appeal is unsuccessful. However the assessor has simply summarised to say that they are “satisfied” as noted above. However I have no knowledge of why there is satisfaction from the assessor, and do not know which aspect of the contract refutes my appeal. To refute my appeal the assessor must have found a clause in the contract to support this inference. To summarise and withhold this information when so much other detail has been provided is disingenuous. May I please request that the information that is the reference to the exact clause of the contract that had been supplied as part of this appeal that refutes my appeal is supplied to me.

Additionally, I note that the assessor has made no reference to my assertion that Premier Park is unable to take me to court in their own name. This implies then that the assessor is unable to find a clause that refutes this in the contract. This means then that my appeal should be upheld in stead of refusing.

I very much look forward to receiving a full explanation as to the reasons for this lack of assessment as I believe that it has adversely affected the decision made.

Yours faithfully,


And the reply came back:



Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA team, as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Premier Park.

POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service and we do not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence and documents from either party in support of their submission and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both parties at the time of the appeal. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed.

I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct.

I have read the assessor’s report where she has stated the following:

“The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges.

I have reviewed the contract provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the operator has authorisation from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the site.”

The assessor in this instance has relied on the provisions laid out in the British Parking Association (BPA) section 7.1 which 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.”

It further states in section 7.2:

“If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”

The assessor reviewed the document and was satisfied that it complied. I agree with the assessor’s rationale. I am satisfied that the operator on this occasion had the permission to act on this land on behalf of the landowner.

As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely


So that didn't get any further attention.