POLPA stage - Park Direct UK in Uxbridge

Chinaski

Great, all submitted now.

Thanks again to all who have posted, I'll post an update as and when I get one.

Chinaski

just a quick bump - my appeal date is in a week and I've yet to receive any evidence packs, is this normal? is there any way i can check if ones been submitted by PD?

Redx

yes its normal, any evidence pack tends to appear in the last 7 days , you can email popla and tell them that nothing has arrived and do they have one ? otherwise its sit and wait on the same tenterhooks you have been on for weeks

Chinaski

Well, its been quite a while - almost a year since I posted this thread - and only now have PDUK submitted a response (!). I just got the email (luckily I checked my junk mail folder) so haven't had much of a chance to go through it. And to be honest, its been so long, I've forgotten a lot of what I wrote in my appeal. Besides, are they even allowed to take this long to respond?!

I'll be sure to check out the stickied threads again to get back up to speed with it all but just thought I'd give this a little bump, if any kind soul wanted to help out.

Chinaski

Guys,
Could do with some feedback on my response below. I've focussed heavily on the grace period points due to the nature of this specific case. I won't post their response unless requested, as its quite lengthy and might deter some :rotfl:


I would like to take this opportunity to clarify and highlight some of the points raised by myself during the initial appeal, in light of the evidence pack provided by Park Direct. I would also like to state that no evidence pack was sent to me directly, and as such I have been given little time to prepare a response, having only received the pack on 12/05/16 and afforded only 7 days to reply. So please excuse the brisk nature of this message.

1. In their response, Park Direct UK state on Page 2, first paragraph, that the PCN is compliant with POFA 2012, yet have not addressed the specific points raised in the initial appeal. Most crucially, the Notice to Keeper fails to state the period of parking (POFA Paragraph 9 [2][a]). As stated in the original appeal, point 9, and as taken from the BPA Code of Practice:

“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.”

The initial PCN did not clearly state the amount of time the vehicle was stopped. Images provided on the PCN suggest a total of 42 seconds. Upon inspection of subsequent evidence received by Park Direct UK – which was not part of the original PCN – the timestamps three of the photographs are 58 seconds apart, and the final photograph clearly shows the vehicle leaving – as evidenced by its changed position on the street, and brake lights on, as the driver waits for pedestrians to cross the road, and another car to clear the road ahead.

So not only does the PCN not clearly state the alleged period of infraction, the additional evidence – which was only provided upon appeal - is that of 58 seconds, during which the vehicle was leaving the area in question. By any measure, 58 seconds must clearly fall within any reasonable grace period.

2. In reference to bottom of paragraph 2 on page 2, the statement that the keeper does not dispute a contravention occurred is not true. And evidence of a lack of contravention has been provided throughout the original appeal and continues with this subsequent response.

3. The “Site contract” requested as per point 6 in the original appeal is illegible, and does not clearly state who the client is. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of the land or boundaries as set out as mandatory in the BPA CoP Section 7.3:

The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

4. Point 7 of the original appeal has not been addressed regarding the covert nature of the ticketing operation. To quote from the BPA CoP, Section 9.1:

The Code is based on the understanding that operators and drivers should deal with each other in a respectful way. This means that as a member of the AOS you must maintain a professional standard of behaviour in carrying out your operational duties. This includes making sure that:
• vehicles engaged in parking enforcement, such as ANPR vehicles, are marked clearly with appropriate livery or your business name, so that members of the public can see that you are the operator. Vehicles used only to transport parking enforcement staff do not need to be liveried.
• your front-line operational staff wear a uniform and carry a photo-identity card that is visible and available for inspection by drivers

Given the lack of grace period as set out in point 1. above and point 9 in the original appeal, the covert nature in which the photographs were taken would suggest BPA CoP procedures were not in place, and the operative was not adequately trained.
 

Redx

its now a different popla than the one when this was appealed, so complain to the BPA at the time lag and the change of popla too, as well as the delay in the PD response, enclosing copies of all papers received so far

this is unless the old popla adjourned your case pending BEAVIS, in which case wright hassell are dealing with it

Chinaski

sorry, it appears to be the latter as wright hassell were the ones who contacted me with the response from PDUK. What does this mean for my case?

Redx

it probably means you are doomed Mr Mannering , doomed I tell yah , lol

read the recent WH events on here and on parking pranksters blogsite

one WH referral was lost and posted today, the first I have seen

Umkomaas

Chinaski wrote: »

sorry, it appears to be the latter as wright hassell were the ones who contacted me with the response from PDUK. What does this mean for my case?

It means it's likely to be dealt with far less impartially, far less reasonably, the word of the PPC likely to be believed ahead of yours and many points skimmed over as they go 'desperately seeking Beavis'.

You are where you are - let's see how they handle it, don't expect much and you're less likely to be disappointed.

Don't forget, their 'verdict' is not binding on you, only on the PPC.

Chinaski

oh great. Clearly I didn't read the mail properly. I'll paste below what WH said but is it even worth me sending a response? I've cited various points from POFA and the BPA CoP - will they even care? the strangest thing is that the Beavis case only impacts one part of a larger appeal, the most compelling point being the lack of grace period. Should I just expect that to be completely overlooked?

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body,
under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider
both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are
not instructed to act on behalf of either party.
We were unable to make a decision on the Appeal in the absence of further evidence. We requested further
evidence from the other party in the Appeal. Please find enclosed the response received.
If you wish to provide any further evidence in relation to the Appeal in light of this response, please do so
within 7 days from the date of this letter. If further evidence is not provided we will have no option but to
assess the Appeal based on the evidence we have before us. You can send your evidence by email to
popla.evidence@wrighthassall.co.uk or by post to POPLA c/o Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue,
Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV34 6BF. The email address is monitored for the purposes of receiving
evidence only. We are not able to respond to any other correspondence from you nor are we able to provide
any information to you over the telephone.