parking sign help

skypilot

somewhere on this site there is information about a particular sign that must be posted at the entrance to a private car park to signify that it is compliant with the BPA guidelines, I cant find it and need to check it as I have been on a fact finding mission to a car park to see if its signage is compliant.
On that point the car park in question is displaying signs which say that clamping can be carried out, I thought that had no been outlawed and if so that would render the car park operator in breach of the BPA guidelines to which it claims to be a member.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

skypilot wrote: »

somewhere on this site there is information about a particular sign that must be posted at the entrance to a private car park to signify that it is compliant with the BPA guidelines, I cant find it and need to check it as I have been on a fact finding mission to a car park to see if its signage is compliant.
On that point the car park in question is displaying signs which say that clamping can be carried out, I thought that had no been outlawed and if so that would render the car park operator in breach of the BPA guidelines to which it claims to be a member.

Were you generally complaining or researching for a ticket you've received?

Either way, put up pictures (you may need to miss off http:// to post the text of the link) and people can pull it apart.

You need to look on the BPA site for the rules on their signs.

da_rule

And yes clamping on (most) private property is now against the law and has been since October 2012. If they are claiming that you can still be clamped then the sign would probably not be compliant with the code of practice.

skypilot

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Were you generally complaining or researching for a ticket you've received?

Either way, put up pictures (you may need to miss off http:// to post the text of the link) and people can pull it apart.

You need to look on the BPA site for the rules on their signs.

I have received a PCN, which has now been followed up by NTK, I decided to ignore the PCN and appeal hence the reason for the visit to the location where the alleged offence took place. When researching on how to appeal I came across a picture, I think it was a large P with some other logo that it had to include to validate the operators claim to function in accord with the BPA. I thought the picture and accompanying text was on Martin's introduction page to fighting parking charges but I just haven't been able to relocate it. I have read so much over the last fews days re this subject I understand completely why so many folk cave in and pay up.
Anyway I'm £100 down so far if I don't appeal so I have used the template for my initial appeal to the PCC just hope Iv'e used the right one!
So I'm now trying to gather material for a Poppla appeal so I don't just have to appeal to mitigating circumstances which if I have understood correctly aren't treated with any real credibility by the PCC or POPPLA

da_rule

Did you use the template from the first post on the newbies sticky thread? If so this is probably the right one. Although incorrect signage is good for a POPLA appeal, you can just allege as part of the appeal that the signage doesn't comply, you don't even have to be too specific. It then forces the PPC to produce evidence of the signs. The main point which always wins out at POPLA (as you're do doubt already aware as you seem to have done some homework) is the no genuine pre-estimate of loss argument.

4consumerrights

Anyway I'm £100 down so far if I don't appeal so I have used the template for my initial appeal to the PCC just hope Iv'e used the right one!
So I'm now trying to gather material for a Poppla appeal so I don't just have to appeal to mitigating circumstances which if I have understood correctly aren't treated with any real credibility by the PCC or POPPLA

You are not a £100 down if you don't end up paying anything!

Firstly though confirm here you are in
England or Wales please

Clamping was made illegal in England and Wales from 1/10/12
(Scotland was earlier - no keeper liability though for parking charges;
NI still has clamping but no keeper liabilty)

And also which PPC is this.

The NEWBIE appeal fits all PPCs and both IAS .

da_rule

For your POPLA appeal do not refer to mitigation as POPLA will ignore it. They are simply interested in the establishing whether the PCN has been issued in line with the POFA and that the amount sought is lawful under contract law.

skypilot

da_rule wrote: »

Did you use the template from the first post on the newbies sticky thread? If so this is probably the right one. Although incorrect signage is good for a POPLA appeal, you can just allege as part of the appeal that the signage doesn't comply, you don't even have to be too specific. It then forces the PPC to produce evidence of the signs. The main point which always wins out at POPLA (as you're do doubt already aware as you seem to have done some homework) is the no genuine pre-estimate of loss argument.

Yes
It starts; As the registered keeper,I have received your parking invoice which of course,I decline ……

I have taken photos of the signs,some which do comply others not so shaw about (ones referring to clamping etc).Not totally sure how too post them on the forum(computer dinosaur) so will get my son to do it if required.
The car park attendant wasn't a happy bunny when he saw me taking the photos, he did inadvertantly let me know that the site is operated by 2 differing PCC'S,and from local knowledge they do seem to practice their craft indiscriminately.

da_rule

At this stage I wouldn't worry about it too much. But if you can get them up it might help. The two different PCC's is interesting. That could give rise to some interesting points on who enforces what. Maybe it's like joint custody, one PPC has the the sight Monday-Friday and the other has it at the weekend and on school holidays. Did you happen to notice if all of the signs referred to the same PPC?

skypilot

da_rule wrote: »

For your POPLA appeal do not refer to mitigation as POPLA will ignore it. They are simply interested in the establishing whether the PCN has been issued in line with the POFA and that the amount sought is lawful under contract law.

Are you advising no use at all of mitigating circumstances, or do I include them as well. I also intend to use what I consider to be other technical failings e.g. the original PCN whilst naming the location of the alleged offence uses a name which seems to general as I have found out that there are 2 operators in the same car park,one which takes care of the majority of car park spaces and the other a very ltd number. The site location box on the PCN was not filled in,the PCC will of course be able to show which part they operate. They also correctly identify the vehicle in question by its registration number but have stated incorrect detail regarding its colour.Minor details but they may help…I hope!

da_rule

POPLA cannot consider mitigation. So if you include it, they will just cross it out and not consider it (so it's kind of a waste of time putting it in there). The PPC can consider mitigation (but 99.9% don't).

These specific failures are good but if you look at the example POPLA appeals on the sticky thread you will see that you need more than just this one issue regarding the NtK. Use the POPLA templates from there when the time comes to chuck everything at them (signage, ANPR (which might not be applicable in this case), no contract with driver, no power to enforce and no genuine pre-estimate of loss).