POPLA Decisions

Rickrocks

Hi All
This is my first ever post, therefore apologies if my terminology is incorrect or I miss something.
I have read the threads, but have some questions if anyone can please help...
I have received court order from CEL and sent off my defence (unfortunately I did this before I read all the threads) and I ask for mediation.
My defences was as follows:
I would like to appeal/defend this parking charge due to my car
breaking down. I can provide a copy of the Mansfield Breakdown
Assistance Report if required as evidence.

I entered the parking area unintentionally, due to difficulties
with driving my car. I parked the car to call my breakdown
assistance cover. Thereafter I was unable to start or move the
vehicle and waited for the recovery team to attend. My car was
then recovered to a local garage for repair.

I would also like to point out that I have not received any
correspondence from Civil Enforcement Ltd regarding this parking
charge. I have recently moved to my new address (*******, ******).

I hope this is sufficient information, however please do not
hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
Kind regards…
I received a hearing letter confirming to attend court next week on the 17th and a letter from CEL that they would reduce the amount to £125 if I would pay in 7 days (last day for this today).
Do you think I should bite the bullet and make payment, I have put a witness statement together yet and a bit unsure how to do this.
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks, Rick

KeithP

Rickrocks wrote: »

Hi All
This is my first ever post...

That's now four times you have posted that.
How can it still be true?

You are unlikely to get the response you are looking for by spraying the board like that.

Please start a new thread and delete all your posts from irrelevant threads

WestSussex

@Umkomaas - Yes, Costa is part of the South Coast Road Retail site.

Umkomaas

WestSussex wrote: »

@Umkomaas - Yes, Costa is part of the South Coast Road Retail site.

I can't see what the PPC's problem was for them to issue a PCN, nor why POPLA are banging on about:

I have seen no evidence that the motorist gained any utility from the site.

Am I missing something?

StaffsSW

One I have been dealing with for a customer

De Bradelei House, Belper, Derbyshire - Parking Eye site - 14 minute duration late in the evening. - https://goo.gl/maps/i3yDHYAqGRTQbDYC7

Appeal Summary - Inadequate signage, no contract formed due to "forbidding signage", very large non-PE signage ststes "Free parking" - contra proferentem rule applies.

Appeal Successful - Unlit signage

" the appellant states that it was dark at the time of the parking event and the signage was not illuminated to allow the motorist to make a decision on whether to park I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which advises private parking operators: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Further, Appendix B states: “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. While I am satisfied that the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions, I am not satisfied that it has demonstrated that they can be seen at night time. The operator has not shown that the signs are in close proximity to any sources of light, or that the site is well lit. As such, I am unable to determine whether the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review and comply with them. "

Coupon-mad

WestSussex wrote: »

Decision Successful against One Parking Solution - South Coast Road Retail, Peacehaven

Thanks so much for all the useful advice found on this forum. Without all the help and previous examples of appeals, I would've ended up paying this 'fine'.

No, you wouldn't, not even if you got a court claim, not with myself and ParkingMad frequenting the Worthing and Brighton courts to help Sussex Defendants kill off OPS pathetic 'claims' and try to get high costs for the victims (not us) too.

I'll happily turn up to assist people with their cases in this area, and speak for them in front of the Judge too, if they wish.

That Peacehaven site is the one where OPS have been 'removed' so peace reigns again until a new scammer is pointlessly installed:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17799021.39-greggs-car-park-39-management-stripped-contract-complaints/

As well as forum posters based in Sussex, the local MP is after them too:

Lloyd Russell-Moyle, MP for Brighton Kemptown and vocal critic of the company, said he wants the company ''chucked out'' of the area entirely.

:T

He said: ''The shops have been expressing great displeasure at the way the company is managing the car park. There's no flexibility with the company and you hear stories time and time again – it's giving the area a bad reputation. And as far as I'm concerned One Parking Solutions are unpleasant bullies.

I don't think there’s a place for these companies any more. They pick on people who are gullible enough to pay.''

It's true.

EVERYONE:

Stop paying them and cover your numberplates in retail parks (perfectly legal on private land, where you have no obligation to hand over your data by displaying your car numberplate).

If everyone did this, the ANPR or CCTV-reliant scammer PPCs will be dead in the water. More people need to carry something in their car to cover their numberplates and make a point when on foot, of sussing out where the cameras are, and which way they are pointing (CCTV being different from ANPR which just targets the entrance & exit).

If people were more robust in this Country we'd soon kill off the likes of OPS.

Ralph-y

hi, and welcome to the forum ........

there will be plenty for you to read up on ...

but first you need to start your own thread ....

go to the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou

first and have a general read up

then visit the start page

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163&order=desc

where you will find the 'new thread button '

Oh ... and using a phone to browse the site can cause problems.. so please try a laptop/PC











HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Use the Forum Jump button (one near the top and one near the bottom of this page) to get back to the forum thread list. Just above the threads, on the right, is a heading along a line, next to forum tools, called 'Search this Forum'. Put your key word(s) in and change the default search from 'Show Threads' to 'Show Posts'.






NEWBIES - HOW TO UPLOAD LINKS TO PHOTOS/SCANS TO MSE

To upload a photo/scan link, you first need to host it on a free photo hosting site (like Dropbox, Imurg or Tinypic), copy the URL, paste it here, but change the http to hxxp and we'll do the conversion. Newbies can't directly upload links to photos/scans until they've a few posts under their belt.

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

I like your comprehensive reply, Ralph-y, can I copy it sometimes for newbies?

Ralph-y

I am flattered ....



most of it has been cribbed from the illustrious forum members ...


Ralph:cool:

MinnieSox9

Hi, as some background I received two NTK from Fistral Beach in Cornwall, I sent two appeals, both got rejected, my appeals were the same minus the time and NTK details...




Decision


Unsuccessful


Assessor Name


Stuart Lumsden


Assessor summary of operator case


The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to unpaid tariff time.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant’s case is that the NTK sent by post fails POFA 2012. She states there is no grace period on site. She states the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is the driver. She states there is no evidence of land owner authority. She states there is no evidence of period parked. She states the images contained in the PCN are non-compliant. She states that Cornwall council have not given planning permission for the pole mounted ANPR cameras. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision


The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Parking Tariffs Apply. Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100.00”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 17:06, and exiting at 18:29, totalling a stay of 1 hour 22 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that The appellant explains that the NTK sent by post fails POFA 2012. I note the appellants comments and have reviewed the NTK, I must point out that it does comply with POFA, only just, the breach date is 3 July, as stated in POFA the 14 days starts the first working day after the breach, as such the appellant has confirmed this was received on 18 July, day 14. She states there is no grace period on site. I must advise that the operator does offer a 10 minute grace period at the end of the parking event as per the BPA code of practice, it also offers a grace period at the start of the parking period to allow motorists time to decide if they wish to be bound by the terms of parking, the appellant has not made it clear why she believes the operator has not adhered to this. She states the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is the driver. I note this and advise that it has authority to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle unless the drivers name and address is provided to it, I note this has not happened. She states there is no evidence of land owner authority. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided a copy of land owner authority, this states the site it operates on and is also signed by both parties, I find this sufficient to illustrate the operator has authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question. She states there is no evidence of period parked. The ANPR cameras on site show the entrance and exit times which is sufficient to illustrate the time the appellant was on site for, I note the appellant has not contested the time she remained on site. She states the images contained in the PCN are non-compliant. I have reviewed the PCN and find that it does comply with POFA, it sets out the entrance and exit times and page 2 shows the ANPR images. She states that Cornwall council have not given planning permission for the pole mounted ANPR cameras. I acknowledge this but it is not within POPLA’s remit to investigate planning permission, just the validity of the PCN. The appellant may be better off speaking with the council in regards to planning permission. The appellant has not stated at any point whether a parking ticket was purchased on the day of the breach, the operator has provided evidence to show that the appellant did not purchase a parking ticket, as such I must conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. Whilst I appreciate the appellants grounds of appeal, I must refuse the appeal for the reasons stated above. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions due to unpaid tariff time As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.