PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private Parking ticket, Parking charge @ Zone A +B Holloway street TW3
Pavy
post Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 11:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



the driver and the partner visited Belheim centre on 23rd Morning 1030-1230 pm. We used the underground car parking during our visit. However, as we were returning/coming out of Belheim car park, my parter missed our bag in ASDA (Belheim centre) for which we had to stop. Since,I had left the car parking, I used a parking bay where a few other cars were parked to wait for my partner to return. The street was quite and there was no blocking or traffic at this time. However, soon as I stopped with my car ignition on, I noticed a man in a blue car, started capturing photos of our car. At first I dint expect him to be taking photos. but he moved a bit more in his car and started taking more pictures. I felt very suspicious of his activities, hence I moved my car immediately and luckily my partner returned back with our bag at the same time. So we left that place straight away. This whole stopping ordeal was no more than 3 minutes in total.

A week later (yesterday), we received a parking violation from a private parking company, claiming I had used the parking space which was prohibited and we were in parking violation. We looked at the photographic evidence and clearly the parking signage was behind the container (at least 8foot above the ground) which clearly blocked the visibility of signage. I used the bay just behind the restaurant which we visited that day. Out of all the roadside parking that was available for me, I found this to be safe place at that time given I was the restaurant's customer after all.

we also checked with the restaurant about the parking facilities and they said they owned only the three bays (used for offloading only) not for customers. But the restaurant board just above the parking bays are clearly misleading to anyone visiting the place.

Also, I was at the wheel the whole 2 or 3 minutes, my car ignition was fully on. Do I stand a ground in this case? How to proceed from here.

PCN pictures attached

https://ibb.co/6RKzcWt
https://ibb.co/H2gT7NX

Thanks in advance.

Also attaching the signage
https://ibb.co/PgVc62k
https://ibb.co/9Ngh540

This post has been edited by Pavy: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 - 16:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 11:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 3 Dec 2021 - 17:11
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 3 Dec 2021 - 13:42) *
Pavy - you need to understand


Your proposed wording is crap. It says - I don't need to look for signs. Do you want to give that impression? I wouldn't. It's a good way to look like a complete dick to a court. It's arrogant as all hell
So
1) don't say the driver didn't get out of the car. That's idiotic. Unless disabled, a driver is REQUIRED, BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD, TO GO LOOKING FOR SIGNS WHEN THEYRE ALERTED TO THE LIKELY EXISTENCE OF THEM BY ENTRANCE SIGNS. All in caps so you take the hint

2) a SEPARATE issue is whether or not the driver was given sufficient time to do 1) above, consider the contract on offer (presume there is one, for now) and decide to accept it and stay, or reject it and leave.



This is a bit rude, where is it mentioned this way? The appeal only talks about poor signage, landowner authority, and grace period.
The grace period particularly when the signage is hidden
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 3 Dec 2021 - 22:11
Post #42


Member


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



"...it is difficult for any driver to even locate the existence of the signage without stepping out of the car and taking time to familiarise with the condition"

Right there.

You are probably wanting to say you have to gave time to find the signs and read, understand and decide to accept or reject. You don't say that. The above reads precisely the way I said

Stop taking this personally. You nee to understand how the written word impacts the impression you give.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 10:38
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (DWMB2 @ Sun, 21 Nov 2021 - 20:35) *
QUOTE (Pavy @ Sun, 21 Nov 2021 - 20:15) *
A further point I would like to add is that the signs are vague, inappropriately located in that they are not visible to any driver specially because of the large obstruction (container), as to where the restrictions are placed.

Add this into your existing point about the signs being poor rather than tacking it on to the end of the appeal.
QUOTE
it is impossible for any driver to even locate existence of the signage

It can't be "impossible" to locate, otherwise you wouldn't have found it in order to comment on its contents in this appeal.



To this, it was not visible at that time until a PCN was received. so to reiterate it is impossible to locate.

@nosferatu1001, yes you understood the point rightly. The intention was to emphasize the fact that they have not given any grace time to validate the signs before using the parking space. The ticket issued was only for stopping the vehicle for less than 3 minutes in that space.

Howelse would you suggest changing the below line, please.
It appears the sign that was placed high up above the container and it is impossible for any driver to even locate the existence of the signage
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 10:47
Post #44


Member


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



Clearly it isn't impossible. You've found it since then. It might have been unreasonably difficult, but cannot be impossible. Use the right words, this is a written medium.

No, again. It IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE

You've failed to mention the breach of the grace period
High on a container- how high is high?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 23:22
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 10:47) *
Clearly it isn't impossible. You've found it since then. It might have been unreasonably difficult, but cannot be impossible. Use the right words, this is a written medium.

No, again. It IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE

You've failed to mention the breach of the grace period
High on a container- how high is high?



Yes, agreed it is unreasonably difficult as the container in the front could be between 8.6-9.6 feet, probably 9.6 feet.
I did mention below point
Considerations & Grace Periods: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

This post has been edited by Pavy: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 23:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 09:08
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




It is funny that you say the appeal should be more like an angry motorist where everyone insists on understanding the legality to fight.

Because the 'fight' start at square 1, not square 21: was there even a breach of a contract to park conveyed by adequate notices in respect of which the proportionate response was to issue a Notice to Keeper?

On this point, I wish people would revisit Beavis because the simplistic interpretation which is often used is very, very wide of the mark:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...80-judgment.pdf

The court even gave examples of the distinction between contracted parking and prohibited parking.

But I don't intend to develop half a story, pl respond to the questions posed in my previous post..or not as the mood takes you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 18:22
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 09:08) *
It is funny that you say the appeal should be more like an angry motorist where everyone insists on understanding the legality to fight.

Because the 'fight' start at square 1, not square 21: was there even a breach of a contract to park conveyed by adequate notices in respect of which the proportionate response was to issue a Notice to Keeper?

On this point, I wish people would revisit Beavis because the simplistic interpretation which is often used is very, very wide of the mark:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...80-judgment.pdf

The court even gave examples of the distinction between contracted parking and prohibited parking.

But I don't intend to develop half a story, pl respond to the questions posed in my previous post..or not as the mood takes you!



I have already given you all the details.. added below for your reference

How long did they say they'd be? the partner intended to get back to the car in less than a few minutes, as they clearly remembered where they left their belonging (bag).

How did they know where you'd be? The driver informed the partner that they will be waiting nearby in a safe place.

You stopped outside the car park but didn't get out of the car; yes, there was no need for the driver to get out of the car as they knew the partner would return any moment and they have to continue with their onward journey. The driver parked their car in a safe parking bay just outside the restaurant they had visited earlier that morning.

Photos were taken of your car from inside another vehicle? Was this marked? Did the operative make any attempt to approach your car? yes, photos were taken from inside another car without any markings, which raised the driver's concerns. The operative did not approach the driver or the car.

You didn't remove your car because you were suspicious, you moved because your partner returned and had no need to remain, surely! Not quite true, as the driver was reacting to the suspicious behaviour of the operative (taking photos without any consent) and chose to move to find another safe place to wait for the partner to return. Coincidentally, the partner had returned and boarded the car soon as the car moved out of the parking spot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 21:39
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



PCN rejection letter was received electronically via email on 8th November, so am I correct that I should appeal to POPLA on 6th December (28th day)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 12:26
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Hi all

I have received evidence pack from Private Parking Solution (London) following my POPLA appeal and wondered if I could have some advice.

Dear Assessor,

The contract (attached) that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The contract formed when parking is between the motorist and the operator through the terms and conditions set out on the signage.
The signage at the location in question is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available: - No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking at any time, unauthorised parking will result in a parking charge notice of £100 being issued.
In this case, the charge was issued because the appellant's vehicle was parked in enforcement zone in strictly no parking at any time area, which is a direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions of parking. The vehicle has been observed not being parked under the terms of the car park within close proximity to visible notices on display, which in large bold letters indicated that parking on the site is not permitted at any time.
The signs are visible and fall within the font size recommended by the BPA code of practice, so the signs were readable and positioned in a way that could allow the driver to understand the terms and conditions. If the driver believed they were not in a position to check and understand the terms of the site, they had ample opportunity to leave the site and seek alternative parking. By instead choosing to remain in a strictly no parking at any time area, they have breached the applicable terms and have accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN.

While we acknowledge that the appellant has referred to Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice, in relation to Entrance signs, however, Appendix B makes it clear that there may be reasons why an entrance sign is impractical such as, “at parking areas where general parking is not permitted”. The appellant says that the driver was out of the vehicle, reading, and then considering the signage, and it is not unreasonable to think that it would take one a minute or two, to do so.

The appellant adds that a grace period was not followed. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out the standards that it expects its members to meet when managing car parks. Key to this case, paragraph 13.3 states “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. However, parking is not permitted on the site at all, and therefore, the appellant cannot benefit from a grace period.
In line with the signage, the vehicle was not authorised to park in this area, therefore they were not entitled to park or remain on site.
There is also no evidence of any motorists in view at the time the pictures were being taken and we reject the appellant's statement that the driver was reading the signs. Please note that the operator must provide signage at the site, which outlines the terms and conditions clearly as stated in the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice.
The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. The only requirement is that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it.
The images provided by the warden show that there are two signs in direct view of where the appellant chose to stop, and therefore, the terms were adequately brought to the attention of the appellant. As there is no evidence of any circumstances forcing the appellant to park in no parking at any time area, the warden has acted in line with the signage in issuing the charge.


This post has been edited by Pavy: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 13:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 12:29
Post #50


Member


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



What's your question? Or do you expect us to read a wall of unformatted text and guess?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 13:48
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



@nosferatu1001 sorry about the unformatted text, I posted as received.

I need help to understand and construct my response
1. Parking company states it is not practical to provide signage at the entrance where general parking is not permitted - then how to understand the restriction?
2. Appellant can not benefit from grace period as it is no parking at any time, so what does the ample opportunity mean?
3. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. The only requirement is that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it - The Private Parking Solution (London) clearly evidenced the signs where the car was parked but have failed to address whether the sign could have been read and the terms and conditions fully understood in a car with a huge container nearly 9.6 feet tall obstructing where visibility would have been reduced
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 13:57
Post #52


Member


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



It might be how you got it, but that's not our issue. Make it easy for volunteers

Well obviously if there is no parking allowed, then entrance signage can definitely say "no parking". How is that difficult

Of course they can benefit from a grace period. To find out the terms - which are no parking - someone has to have a chance of finding this out. It's trite law that there must be time given to understand the terms of a supposed contract, so reinforce that to popla.

So you point that out AGAIN. Point out that the operator does not dispute that there was a container in the way of the signs...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 16:17
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Thanks, @nosferatu1001

I have drafted the below rebuttal for POPLA, let me know if this needs any correction.
Thanks in advance.


1. PPS has acknowledged Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice and yet failed to place the relevant entrance sign. The car park belongs to the restaurant the appellant used so without a parking restriction on the entrance sign, it was reasonable to assume it was a free car park.
2. Secondly, the sign should be placed that it is readable.
PPS has evidenced where the signage is located but failed to address whether the sign could have been read and the terms and conditions fully understood in a car with a huge container nearly 9.6 feet tall obstructing where visibility would have been reduced. Clarity is an important factor in this case. The font size on the signage as being 0.39pts, which on a computer screen in front of one's face is legible, but once printed and placed 11 feet in the air, is hardly readable. These signs are not in compliance with BPA guidance.
3. Without an entrance sign, readable sign, the appellant has given no chance of finding the restriction. It's trite contract law that there must be time given to understand the terms of a supposed contract, an independent adjudicator cannot be expected to rule out the grace period.
As provided in the previous evidence the time spent in the car park was only 1 minute and 46 seconds.
4. PPS has failed to supply a valid copy of a contract between PPS and the Car Park and in the absence of any physical evidence, I simply do not accept that they have a BPA-compliant landowner contract.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 17:43
Post #54


Member


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



1) nope, that's not what an entrance sign has to say. All it needs to do is a) alert you that there is parking here and b) that there are terms and conditions attached to this offer of parking.
2j you're now talking about a sign WITHIN the carpark but that's not obvious at all. Make. It. Clear.
You've managed to totally confuse the issues. It's 39pt, not 0.39pt, for a start. 0.39 would be illegible on a phone...
Issue 1 - the sign was hidden.
Issue 2 - the sign was so high up that even at 39pt font you couldn't read it, EVEN IF the container wasn't in the way
3) start with them claiming that as it wa a no parking area, then no "grace" period applies. That's the obviously wrong bit
4) bloody hell you hid that!!!

What do you mean by "valid" contract. Do you mean
- they didn't give you a contract at all
- they gave you something they claim is a contract, but it's invalid because...

This, if valid, is POINT ONE.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 12:42
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 17:43) *
4) bloody hell you hid that!!!



What is this related to?

This post has been edited by Pavy: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 12:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 12:55
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



Your point #4 presumably... The fact that they failed to provide a valid contract.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 13:44
Post #57


Member


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



QUOTE (Pavy @ Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 12:42) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 29 Dec 2021 - 17:43) *
4) bloody hell you hid that!!!



What is this related to?

I gave you a big hint by
- using your own numbering
- then talking about what yiu mean by "valid contract".

Tick rock. You had 7 days to respond. How many left?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 14:16
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Operator Information and Evidence Submitted 24/12/2021, so by EOD I have to submit my response...

@nosferatu1001 appreciate your time and patience in explaining things....I have edited below, let me know what you think?

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as a response to the evidence provided by the Private Parking Solution (London).

1. The entrance sign has to alert the motorists that there is parking here and that there are terms and conditions attached to this offer of parking. The PPS has failed to provide the no parking signage at the entrance Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice
2. Within the carpark PPS has evidenced where the signage is located but failed to address whether the sign could have been read and understood the terms and conditions from the line of sight of the car with a huge container blocking.
3. To make it worse in this case the signage was placed so high that even 39pt front will not be legible, even if the container wasn't in the way. Clarity is an important factor in this case. These are not in compliance with BPA guidance.
4. Although PPS claim parking is not permitted on the site at all, they have clearly chose to ignore that they didn’t give the opportunity or benefit of grace period to the motorists to read and understand the contract before accepting it.

Again I would like to point out that in this case, the signage are in place to ‘deter abuse’ and that in PPS's own words haven't met BPA Code of Practice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 14:27
Post #59


Member


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



1) nope. Don't understand this. They DO NOT have to put an entrance sign stating "no parking". I have literally no idea why you are raising this
2) nope. Still a mess.
3) marginally better. But vague. How high is "too high"?
4) so it was or want a parking bay? That's what you claimed in yiur opening post.

Look, I can't help much more here. You gave us a total of two days and wasted most of that.

What happens with the bloody contract?!?!?! We asked you LOTS OF QUESTIONS and suddenly it disappears, despite me telling you how important it could be!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Fri, 31 Dec 2021 - 00:57
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 30 Dec 2021 - 14:27) *
1) nope. Don't understand this. They DO NOT have to put an entrance sign stating "no parking". I have literally no idea why you are raising this
2) nope. Still a mess.
3) marginally better. But vague. How high is "too high"?
4) so it was or want a parking bay? That's what you claimed in your opening post.

Look, I can't help much more here. You gave us a total of two days and wasted most of that.

What happens with the bloody contract?!?!?! We asked you LOTS OF QUESTIONS and suddenly it disappears, despite me telling you how important it could be!



I agree... I'm not good at this, I tried reading NEWBIES where it says my case is not different but the response here confused me.
There might be loads of mitigating circumstances, but shouldn't they all be similar?

Parking companies are scammers, but to challenge them going through google to understand legality is way too complicated.
@nosferatu1001 honestly I tot I answered everything, more than once like the mitigating circumstance, why, where, and how long the car was parked.
Anyway I loaded my rebut, might struggle to win at POPLA, but whats next after I lose?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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 - 08:24
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