Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 6th Dec 17, 5:59 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 3Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Premier Park - Planet Ice, Peterborough
    • #1
    • 6th Dec 17, 5:59 PM
    Premier Park - Planet Ice, Peterborough 6th Dec 17 at 5:59 PM
    Hi all.

    Parking contravention: Failure to pay for the duration of stay.
    Where: Planet Ice, Peterborough.
    Parking Company: Premier Park Ltd.

    I'm at the POPLA appeal stage, about to submit my text, and would be massively grateful for advice on whether i've missed anything or got it wrong, etc.
    There has been no admittance of who was driving. As keeper, I used the blue text in the Newbies thread for the initial appeal.
    I hope that the POPLA appeal i've drafted contains all the relevant defences? I'm especially interested in people's opinions on the photos of the signage we've had taken (in the same conditions) - but as a new user i appear to be unable to add links to my dropbox images? Any ideas how i can share them?

    I do appreciate that this is a self-help forum to a great degree, so I've tried to get as far as i could on researching content and similar cases.

    As the NtK explains, this car park is now ANPR controlled by Premier Park Ltd. It never used to be, and i can only assume the driver didn't spot the tiny sign on the way in. It was night, so completely dark as shown in the ANPR pictures, and almost all of the signs are unlit which is what the appeal is partly based on.

    I'm going for:
    1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
    3. Inadequate and unclear signage
    4. Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

    I'll bung the full appeal text in the next post.

    Any help and advice greatly received.
Page 2
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 10th Jan 18, 12:08 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Ok, here it is:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/q5kgop88hbzz9f8/evidencepack.pdf?dl=0

    @IamEmanresu: The contract is at the end. Please let me know if you think i can use a specific rebuttal here.

    In general, I'd be VERY interested if anyone spots any glaringly obvious mistakes or comments that can easily be rebutted.

    Thanks.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 10th Jan 18, 12:49 PM
    • 1,948 Posts
    • 3,434 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    There was a recent case where a judge held that the contract was not valid as it wasn't properly validated. He referred to section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 which says

    (1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
    (a)by the affixing of its common seal, or
    (b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.
    (2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
    (a)by two authorised signatories, or
    (b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
    (3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
    (a)every director of the company, and
    (b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.
    (4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

    Although there appears to be a signature by a director (they only have one) it is not witnessed and so does not meet s44.

    The redactions should be challenged too as they can't be checked for key phrases and as such the contract should not be accepted as evidence and your case should be thrown out - if POPLA were truly independent.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 10th Jan 18, 12:55 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Excellent - thank you for the advice. I'll certainly be adding this to my rebuttal.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 10th Jan 18, 1:33 PM
    • 1,381 Posts
    • 1,819 Thanks
    Castle
    According to the latest accounts filed for 31st December 2016, Planet Ice Peterborough Ltd doesn't own any property, so they are unlikely to be the Landowner:-
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07868983/filing-history

    On a related note; I couldn't find any planning applications for the Cameras and Poles and more importantly, no advertising consent for the signs. (You may wish to contact the council and get confirmation).
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 10th Jan 18, 2:12 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Thank you Castle. Much appreciated. You've confirmed a nagging thought i had about the landowner - i'm sure i have a record somewhere of who it actually is?
    However, could Planet Ice (Peterborough) not be determined as having had authority to sign on behalf of the landowner? Part 1.4 of their agreement states "The client confirms that they are either the registered land owner of the location(s) included in this agreement or authorised by the landowner to legally enter into this agreement."
    Nevertheless, I'll add into the rebuttal that they have not proven land owner's assignment of rights as the contract is not with the landowner (and there is no proof of authorisation to do so).
    • Fatlab
    • By Fatlab 10th Jan 18, 2:13 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Fatlab
    Ace,

    I'm just at the first stage of an appeal with Premier Parking at Solihull Icerink with a situation pretty identical to yours. I've had the two appeal rejection emails from PP come through today.

    Looking forward to see how you get on.
    Last edited by Fatlab; 10-01-2018 at 2:15 PM. Reason: typo
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 10th Jan 18, 5:17 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    No worries Fatlab. I'll try to make sure all aspects of my appeal are recorded here. I have seven days to respond to the evidence pack, and then it'll be however long it takes POPLA to make a decision after that.
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 11th Jan 18, 1:39 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    I've done a bit of digging, and Castle is correct in that the freeholder of the Planet Ice site in Peterborough is Nice Leisure Ltd, not Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd. It's not clear, but i assume the latter sold to the former (on 5th January, 2016)? Either way, both companies are owned by the same chap (Michael Petrouis, who appears to own all Planet Ice sites through a number of different companies), so i guess some kind of internal transfer took place.
    However, i hope that the fact the contract was created through PI (P'boro), while not being the landowner, is the relevant fact with respect to the BPA CoP and my appeal.

    In the Solihull case, it appears that Silver Blades Ice Rink Company (Solihull) Ltd are running the site, but you'd have to check with the Land Registry to see who owns the freehold. It might be Nice Leisure again?
    • Castle
    • By Castle 11th Jan 18, 3:53 PM
    • 1,381 Posts
    • 1,819 Thanks
    Castle
    I've done a bit of digging, and Castle is correct in that the freeholder of the Planet Ice site in Peterborough is Nice Leisure Ltd, not Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd. It's not clear, but i assume the latter sold to the former (on 5th January, 2016)? Either way, both companies are owned by the same chap (Michael Petrouis, who appears to own all Planet Ice sites through a number of different companies), so i guess some kind of internal transfer took place.
    Originally posted by AceOfBass
    Nice Leisure Ltd is actually owned by Nice Leisure Holdings Ltd; which in turn is owned by Michael & Kay Petrouis.

    (The bank/lender took a fixed charge over the property on 5th Jan 2016):-
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05340187/charges/KmhqpFiL0q4GEI2Q6wQbBKgQMdA
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 12th Jan 18, 6:03 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    A couple of questions i hope someone can answer:

    1) What is the best method of providing comments to an operator's evidence pack? I don't seem to be able to do anything through POPLA's website - in my 'track appeals' page, the status is still showing as "In progress" on stage 2? I.e. there's nothing to click to create an upload?
    Should i just create a PDF of comments and email it (with the same subject line ID number) to the info@popla.co.uk address that sent me the EP? As an aside, is it best to just refer into the EP by paragraph number, or should i duplicate it and mark-up my comments inline?

    2) It seems that recently the PoFA 2012 section 4 defence of incorrect wording in the timescale statement sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't (yes, i saw post #15). I'd like to reference at least a couple of the wins in my comments - just to point out appeals that have previously been allowed on the same fact. Is it enough to quote the wording used, or do i need to state the corresponding POPLA codes (which i'll request from the 'winners' separately)?
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 12th Jan 18, 6:17 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Oh, one other thing. My appeal included photos taken at the same time of night as stated on the PCN. I recalled reading in one thread that such photos shouldn't include a flash/lights in order to capture the correct lighting conditions. I've just read this from the evidence pack:
    ----
    As the Appellant has stated in his appeal to POPLA, the vehicle entered the site 1 hour and 41 minutes after sunset occurred, therefore the Driver would have had the vehicle headlights on. It is clear to see the Appellant’s photographs have either been captured on foot or within a vehicle without the headlights on. Therefore, this is not a clear representation of the condition of the signage visible when motorists enter the site at night.
    ----
    Does anyone have a decent response to this?
    (The EP contained only daytime photos.)

    I want to use a response along the lines of their entrance sign being too high up to fully catch the light from car headlamps, but i don't know if this is enough? It's only a small 'P' sign - looks just like a standard "Car Park" sign, such as you might find anywhere, if you ask me?

    Or is their statement irrelevant - should the sign be illuminated anyway?
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 15th Jan 18, 10:05 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Here is a draft of my intended evidence pack response. I need to send this off before Wednesday, so I'd be grateful for any advice or comments. There is one outstanding issue marked with [TODO] concerning planning permission that i have yet to call the council about.
    ------------------------------

    Comments on evidence pack PTL:xxxxxxxxxx

    POPLA code: xxxxxxxx
    Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxx

    Summary of comments/response

    • The operator has responded ONLY to points 1 and 4 of my original appeal. Therefore, I respectfully draw the POPLA assessor's attention to the fact that points 2 and 3 stand unopposed.
    • The operator has not shown that a valid and legal contract exists between themselves and the landowner, as required by section 7 of the BPA Code of Practise. The contract provided in the evidence pack is invalid for two reasons:
    o Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd is not the legal landowner
    o The contract contains only one, unwitnessed, signature, and so does not meet the requirements of section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
    • The contract in the evidence pack is also heavily redacted, so even if it was valid it cannot be checked for key information. I therefore suggest the contract cannot be used as evidence in this case.
    • The legal landowner or operator has no planning permission for any of the ANPR cameras or poles, and no advertising consent for any of the signage. [TODO]
    • The operator has provided photographic evidence of all signage throughout the site. These photographs are shown in daylight only and so are not representative of the conditions prevalent at the time of the alleged incident, and should be disregarded.
    • The operator has not stated if and where the vehicle was parked, only that the vehicle entered and left the car park. There is no evidence of what signage might be visible to the driver from their point of view, in the same lighting conditions, and thus no evidence that a contract for parking was accepted.
    • The operator's reference to the 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case, concerning a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There was no use of genuine pre-estimate of loss as a defense in the original appeal, so this clearly templated piece of 'evidence' is irrelevant.
    I respectfully request that due to the large number of non-compliances and illegal parking enforcement, the appeal be allowed.

    Comment detail – B) Case Summary

    Paragraph 2: Our signs are readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk. The vehicle’s headlights would have lit up the signage, the payment machines and the car park also.

    The signs are unlit, and so unreadable during darkness, as proven in the photographs in the original appeal. At best, even if the signs themselves were noticed, the terms contained in the tiny text would still be completely unreadable in darkness. The operator has provided no proof of how all signage and the payment machines might appear when illuminated by headlamps. Thus, this comment should be disregarded.

    Paragraph 8: The sign at the entrance does meet all of the BPAs guidance. The motorist would not be doing 30mph at this point as there is an approach and the motorist is not directly entering the car park from the road.

    The operator cannot know the speed of a vehicle entering the site. The carpark IS directly entered from a main road, so 30mph is a perfectly possible speed to be travelling.
    Please refer to the original appeal for photographs demonstrating the signage at the entrance to the site. The first sign does not conform to ANY aspect of the BPA CoP, and the second 'P' sign is unremarkable, unlit, and contains no mention of the car park being managed.

    Paragraph 10: Our signs are readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk. There is direct lighting above the payment terminals as solar lighting has been installed. The vehicle’s headlights would have lit up the signage and the car park also.

    The payment terminal lighting appears to be PIR-controlled. That is, only activated when standing directly in front. This is evidenced by the photographs in the original appeal.
    All other signage is mostly unlit and therefore unremarkable, let alone readable in darkness.
    A parking contract relies on the motorist having had reasonable opportunity to read and agree to all terms. In this case, no reasonable opportunity exists.

    Paragraph 11: The payment terminals are situated directly outside the entrances of Planet Ice and Papa Johns and can be clearly seen in our evidence.

    The operator evidence photos show a payment terminal in a gravelled area near a banner for Papa John's. This is not a customer entrance – it is a staff loading area/ambulance area. During darkness, a car park user might reasonably not venture into this area. I put it to the assessor that this is not a suitable location for an unlit payment terminal.

    Paragraph 14: In the appeal to POPLA, the Appellant has attached photographs which he admits were taken at a later date, therefore cannot be used as a representation to the conditions on the date of the contravention.

    The photographs in the appeal were taken at the same time of day as the alleged incident and are intended to provide evidence of the lighting conditions prevalent at the time. I suggest the operator has not properly read the appeal text in coming to this conclusion.

    Paragraph 17: The Driver not only drove past the entrance signage which states “Welcome. Mobile Patrols/camera enforcement in operation. Private Land. Parking Restrictions in place. See additional signs for full details.” There are further signs on the left near to the Papa Johns signage and a machine. The Driver would have then driven past the exit sign which states “Thank you for visiting. Reminder. Have you read the signs?”

    As has been stated several times already, what use is signage if it is unlit and impossible to see in the dark?
    Furthermore, the comment concerning driving past the exit sign is irrelevant. At that point, a motorist would be leaving the site?

    Paragraph 26: 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.

    This statement further shows that the parking operator has not properly read the appeal statement, and is merely supplying template 'evidence'. The appeal does not contain reference to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Indeed, any references to the 'Beavis' Supreme Court case in the appeal are concerning signage. I refer POPLA to point 1 of the appeal statement.

    Comment detail – D) Registered Keeper’s Details and Liability Trail

    Paragraphs 4 and 5: Driver details requested however none were received so we waited until after 35 days old from date of issue to respond as per POFA 2012.
    Driver is not named, however, Notice to Keeper now states 29 days in respect of providing driver details.

    See points 2 and 3 of my POPLA appeal. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The driver has not been identified.

    Comment detail – Other Evidence

    Paragraph 2: Log showing other payments made while the Appellant remained on site. This shows other motorists were able to see the signage and pay for their stay.

    This is circumstantial evidence at best. The operator provides a screenshot showing a list of parking payments made on that day. This of course does not show how many occasions payments were NOT made for parking, on that day or any other day, and is not proof that all car park users must have seen the signage.

    Paragraph 3: We enclose a redacted copy of the agreement between Premier Park and Planet Ice (Peterborough) Limited to confirm that we have the landowner authority to enforce at this site. The names and signatures of the operators and client’s representatives have been redacted for confidentiality. We have supplied the landowner name and address.

    The agreement between Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd and Premier Park Ltd is not a valid contract and does not provide landowner authority for the following reasons:

    A. The agreement provided is heavily redacted and so cannot be checked properly for key information. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence of a valid contract.
    B. As required by section 7 of the BPA Code of Practise, the agreement for parking enforcement is invalid as Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd was not the legal landowner on the date of the alleged incident. The legal landowner was, and still is, Nice Leisure Ltd, as evidenced by property title CB42222 held by HM Land Registry. A copy of the register and plan is attached as an appendix at the end of this document as proof.
    C. As required by section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, the contract between Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd and Premier Park ltd is not properly validated.
    Section 44 states:

    44Execution of documents
    (1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
    (a)by the affixing of its common seal, or
    (b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.
    (2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
    (a)by two authorised signatories, or
    (b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
    (3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
    (a)every director of the company, and
    (b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.
    (4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

    The contract supplied in the evidence pack is signed by a single individual for Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd. However, it is not witnessed and so does not meet the requirements of s.44. The contract is therefore invalid.

    From the above evidence points, I contend that Premier Park does not have the proper legal authority to perform parking enforcement or issue Parking Charges at the site on the date of the alleged incident.
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 15th Jan 18, 1:30 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Confirmed by the council just now - no planning application has ever been made for any of the equipment or signage installed at the site.

    This presumably means the equipment and signage is illegally installed. Is it enough to state to POPLA that due to the lack of permission/consent, the operator cannot legally perform parking enforcement at the site? Or are there specific legal terms i should refer to?
    Any help gratefully received.
    Last edited by AceOfBass; 15-01-2018 at 1:48 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th Jan 18, 2:24 PM
    • 1,541 Posts
    • 1,692 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Almost certainly POPLA will not give 2 hoots about the lack of planning permission
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 15th Jan 18, 2:42 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    That's a bit sucky, but fortunately not my only defence. Was just following the advice in #24.
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 16th Jan 18, 3:41 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    For the record, what follows is my revised and edited comments submission on the operator evidence pack. This has to be submitted today, so i'd REALLY welcome any suggestions or if there are any glaring issues!

    -------------
    Comments on evidence pack PTL:xxxxxxxx

    POPLA code: xxxxxxxx
    Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxx

    Summary of comments/response

    • The operator has responded ONLY to points 1 and 4 of my original appeal. Therefore, I respectfully draw POPLA's attention to the fact that points 2 and 3 stand unopposed.
    • The operator has not shown that a valid and legal contract exists between themselves and the landowner, as required by section 7 of the BPA Code of Practise. The contract provided in the evidence pack is invalid for three reasons:
    o Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd is not the legal landowner
    o The contract contains only one, unwitnessed, signature, and so does not meet the requirements of section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
    o The contract in the evidence pack is heavily redacted, so even if it was valid it cannot be checked for key information. I therefore suggest the contract cannot be used as evidence in this case.
    • The landowner and operator have obtained no advertising consent for any of the signage at the site, nor any planning permission for the ANPR system, poles or payment machines installed at the site.
    • The operator does not dispute that it was dark at the time of the alleged incident, however the operator-provided photographic evidence of signage is shown in daylight only and so is not representative of the conditions prevalent at the time of the alleged incident, and should be disregarded.
    • The operator has not stated if and where the vehicle was parked, only that the vehicle entered and left the car park. There is no evidence of what signage might be visible to the driver from their point of view, in the same lighting conditions, and thus no evidence that a contract for parking was accepted or agreed.
    • The operator's reference to the 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case, concerning a genuine pre-estimate of loss is irrelevant. There was no use of genuine pre-estimate of loss as a defense in the original appeal.
    I respectfully request the appeal be allowed.

    Comment detail – B) Case Summary

    Paragraph 2: Our signs are readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk. The vehicle’s headlights would have lit up the signage, the payment machines and the car park also.

    The signs are unlit, and so unreadable during darkness, as proven in the photographs in the original appeal. At best, even if the signs themselves were noticed, the terms contained in the tiny text would still be completely unreadable in darkness. The operator does not dispute that it was dark (see also paragraph 14 below), but has provided no counter-proof of how all signage and the payment machines might appear in the correct conditions. Thus, this comment should be disregarded.

    Paragraph 3: The signage was installed on the site on 6th September 2017, as per our photographic evidence. We have included additional photographs of the signage dated 20th September 2017. These were previously installed on 6th September 2017 but provide a better view of where the signage is placed around the site. We began officially monitoring this site on the 8th September 2017.!

    Under the Town and Country!Planning!(Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (amended), a parking operator must have Advertising Consent for signs displayed in this car park. Peterborough City Council have confirmed to me that no planning permission or advertising consents have ever been sought for any of the parking enforcement equipment or signage installed during 2017.
    I therefore hold the operator to strict proof that they have the required consents.
    Otherwise, it must follow that the parking enforcement signage and equipment at this site is illegally installed, that any parking management/restriction signage is invalid, and no legal contract for parking could have been formed.
    Details and confirmation can be obtained through the Peterborough City Council Planning and Development portal, at:
    https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/planning-and-development/planning-and-building/
    Or by telephoning the department on: 01733 453410.

    Paragraph 8: The sign at the entrance does meet all of the BPAs guidance. The motorist would not be doing 30mph at this point as there is an approach and the motorist is not directly entering the car park from the road.

    The operator cannot know the speed of a vehicle entering the site. The carpark is directly entered from a main road, so 25-30mph is a possible speed to be travelling.
    Please refer to the original appeal for photographs demonstrating the entrance to the site. The first sign does not conform to ANY aspect of the BPA CoP, and the second 'P' sign is unremarkable and unlit. I put the operator to strict proof that the letter size on either sign conforms to Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice.

    Paragraph 10: Our signs are readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk. There is direct lighting above the payment terminals as solar lighting has been installed. The vehicle’s headlights would have lit up the signage and the car park also.

    The payment terminal lighting is PIR-controlled. That is, only activated by a sensor when standing directly in front. This is evidenced by the photographs in the original appeal.
    All other signage is mostly unlit and therefore unremarkable, let alone readable in darkness.
    A parking contract relies on the motorist having had reasonable opportunity to read and agree to all terms. In this case, no reasonable opportunity exists.

    Paragraph 11: The payment terminals are situated directly outside the entrances of Planet Ice and Papa Johns and can be clearly seen in our evidence.

    The operator evidence photos show a payment terminal adjacent to a gravelled area near a birthday party sign and a banner for Papa John's. This is not a customer entrance – it is a staff loading area/ambulance area (see POPLA appeal statement). A car park user might reasonably not venture into this area and so, in darkness, not be aware of the unlit payment terminal. The further terminal at the entrance to Planet Ice appears to be off to one side, and could be also missed by a visitor during night time. No operator evidence has been provided to show how both terminals appear under the conditions prevalent at the time of the alleged incident. Please refer to the original appeal for evidence of lighting conditions prevalent at the same time of day.

    Paragraph 14: In the appeal to POPLA, the Appellant has attached photographs which he admits were taken at a later date, therefore cannot be used as a representation to the conditions on the date of the contravention.

    The photographs in the appeal were taken at the same time of day as the alleged incident and are intended to provide evidence of the lighting conditions prevalent at the time. I suggest the operator has not properly read the appeal text in coming to this conclusion.

    Paragraph 17: The Driver not only drove past the entrance signage which states “Welcome. Mobile Patrols/camera enforcement in operation. Private Land. Parking Restrictions in place. See additional signs for full details.” There are further signs on the left near to the Papa Johns signage and a machine. The Driver would have then driven past the exit sign which states “Thank you for visiting. Reminder. Have you read the signs?”

    As has been stated several times already, what use is signage if it is unlit and impossible to see in the dark?
    Furthermore, the comment concerning driving past the exit sign is irrelevant. At that point, a motorist would be leaving the site.

    Paragraph 26: 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.

    This statement further shows that the parking operator has not properly read the appeal statement, and is merely supplying template 'evidence'. The appeal does not contain reference to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Indeed, any references to the 'Beavis' Supreme Court case in the appeal are concerning signage. I refer POPLA to point 1 of the appeal statement.

    Comment detail – D) Registered Keeper’s Details and Liability Trail

    Paragraphs 4 and 5: Driver details requested however none were received so we waited until after 35 days old from date of issue to respond as per POFA 2012.
    Driver is not named, however, Notice to Keeper now states 29 days in respect of providing driver details.

    See points 2 and 3 of my POPLA appeal. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The driver has not been identified.

    Comment detail – Other Evidence

    Paragraph 2: Log showing other payments made while the Appellant remained on site. This shows other motorists were able to see the signage and pay for their stay.

    This is circumstantial evidence at best. The operator provides a screenshot showing a list of parking payments made on that day. This of course does not show how many occasions payments were NOT made for parking, on that date or any other date, and is not proof that all car park users must have seen the signage.

    Paragraph 3: We enclose a redacted copy of the agreement between Premier Park and Planet Ice (Peterborough) Limited to confirm that we have the landowner authority to enforce at this site. The names and signatures of the operators and client’s representatives have been redacted for confidentiality. We have supplied the landowner name and address.

    The agreement between Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd and Premier Park Ltd is not a valid contract and does not provide landowner authority for the following reasons:

    A. The agreement provided is heavily redacted and so cannot be checked properly for key information. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence of a valid contract.
    B. As required by section 7 of the BPA Code of Practise, the agreement for parking enforcement is invalid as Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd was not the legal landowner on the date of the alleged incident. The legal landowner was, and still is, Nice Leisure Ltd, as evidenced by property title CB42222 held by HM Land Registry. A copy of the register and plan is attached as an appendix at the end of this document as proof.
    C. As required by section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, the contract between Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd and Premier Park ltd is not properly validated.
    Section 44 states:

    44Execution of documents
    (1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
    (a)by the affixing of its common seal, or
    (b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.
    (2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
    (a)by two authorised signatories, or
    (b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
    (3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
    (a)every director of the company, and
    (b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.
    (4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

    The contract supplied in the evidence pack is signed by a single individual for Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd. However, it is not witnessed and so does not meet the requirements of s.44. The contract is therefore invalid.

    From the above three points, I contend that Premier Park does not have the proper legal authority to perform parking enforcement or issue Parking Charges at the site on the date of the alleged incident.
    -------------
    (Property title register and plan attached here)
    Last edited by AceOfBass; 16-01-2018 at 5:44 PM. Reason: Typos/minor updates for completeness
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jan 18, 12:36 AM
    • 52,881 Posts
    • 66,408 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's very long for comments, so you'll have to email it to POPLA.

    Make sure you are not adding any evidence or points that were not in the appeal, as POPLA's eyes will glaze over and they won't read any of it if they see this as a second bite at the appeal cherry.

    Comments should be short, bullet points, no attachments as that's new evidence (not allowed).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 17th Jan 18, 9:48 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Thanks Coupon-mad, I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately i had to send my comments last night, so had already done so when you posted.
    I spoke to POPLA yesterday as the online tracker system is still showing as awaiting operator evidence. They advised me to just email in my comments as a PDF, which is what i did. I'll be calling to confirm they received it.

    Yes, it's long, but so was the operator evidence. I did try to mitigate this by adding a bullet-pointed summary on the first page before going into detail. Plus, the PDF has allowed me to format it more cleanly. I've also tried to tie my 'extra evidence' to specific items in the operator submission, so i just have to hope this isn't refused.

    Just have to wait now.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,414Posts Today

8,294Users online

Martin's Twitter