Premier Parking Solutions PCN

pulpotim1960

Hi Beewi (again),
Reading carefully what the other contributors have said, I think it's worth asking your mum to recall as best she can what VRN she thinks she entered into the machine. If she put in a completely different one - say her own car's VRN rather than yours - then my comments about getting PPS to check for a similar VRN won't apply. The way you play it will be governed by the mistake she thinks she may have made.


One thing is for sure, the issue is most definitely not the overstay. Copied below (in blue) is a paragraph from PPS's 'Case Summary' submission to POPLA regarding grace periods and the real reason for issuing me with the PCN . . .


"Please see our "Other Evidence" documents where we have attached a screen shot of the ANPR set up allowing 11 minutes grace period upon entering the car park and also when leaving the car park. The ANPR system matches up the time the pay and display ticket was purchased and the expiry time and automatically allows an 11 minute grace period at either end. We are not obliged to advertise this fact on our signage. The reason the PCN sent to the keeper states the time of entry and exit is because no payment at all was located during the 2 hours, 4 minutes and 21 seconds the vehicle was on site. This is because they failed to correctly enter their vehicle registration. This therefore proves our systems and whitelist are working correctly, there is no valid parking session showing for K___ ___ because that full registration had not been entered on 9 January 2016. This is the fault of the motorist not our systems."

Coupon-mad

@pulpotim, that's very useful.

I have seen PPS do this so many times and even complained to the BPA last year about them refusing to cancel a PCN where there was one digit wrong on a purchased P&D ticket. The BPA didn't give a stuff. In the complaint to the BPA about PPS, I pointed out this part of the CoP:

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action.''

and pointed out that in a Watchdog article about Excel a few years ago, Excel (who were BPA members at the time) cancelled a PCN where a O had been put into the system instead of a 0 and said it was something they were required to check for under the BPA CoP. Of course they fact it was on Watchdog was what got it cancelled by Excel but the point was made that manual checks must be made before issuing a PCN by ANPR, to ascertain it is appropriate to enforce a charge, and in that case Excel admitted it was not appropriate.

Fast forward to last year and the BPA changed their tune and did not give a hoot about PPCs issuing PCNs where there is a dodgy keypad or a possible typo by the driver/passenger by one digit of the VRN. Suddenly those manual checks meant nothing at all and the BPA woman who responded actually had the audactity to tell me she thought the PCN was issued appropriately even though PPS had known about the single digit error after the first appeal as it was mentioned in the rejection letter in that case.

My parting shot to the BPA was that they'd watered down that CoP point since the Watchdog/Excel article. The BPA disagreed. They would say that, wouldn't they?

Still got the PCN cancelled in another way - I think PPS threw in the towel pre-POPLA!

Anyway - pulpotim, please can you give us the following, in a post in the sticky 'POPLA Decisions' mentioning that your victory was v PPS:

POPLA code
Date of decision
POPLA Assessor

Because we already have POPLA appeals to cite which confirm that Britannia's and F1rst Parking's NTKs are not POFA compliant. But we did not yet have one to quote about PPS.

We need all the help we can get to win POPLA appeals now with rookie Assessors, some of whom do not even understand the basic deadlines and facts in Schedule 4 to save their lives. If we can show them a POPLA code/decision that a named Assessor made earlier, specifically about 'no keeper liability' re dodgy NTK wording, then the new Assessors might be forced to start being consistent and they might learn.

pulpotim1960

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Anyway - pulpotim, please can you give us the following, in a post in the sticky 'POPLA Decisions' mentioning that your victory was v PPS:

POPLA code
Date of decision
POPLA Assessor

Because we already have POPLA appeals to cite which confirm that Britannia's and F1rst Parking's NTKs are not POFA compliant. But we did not yet have one to quote about PPS.

Hi Coupon-mad,
POPLA Code: 6860336005
Decision Date: 24/03/2016
Assessor Name: Sirak Solomon

The grey text in my long post to Beewi is the actual decision statement copied verbatim and in full direct from the POPLA website.

Needless to say, along with all other subscribers to this thread I'm sure, I completely agree with all your comments about making a mistake inputting the VRN. Heaven help the elderly, any number of people who have dyslexia and many others besides.

The argument made by PPS that they need the complete registration to cross reference the VRN from the machine with the VRN captured by the ANPR cameras is a poor excuse - their get out clause - to enable them to provide some justification for trying to squeeze every last penny from anyone and everyone. It must be possible to reduce the match to 5 or even 4 VRN characters to generate a match. No doubt they will argue that you can get two vehicles with only one character difference in their VRNs. However, the chances of both vehicles entering the same car park within the 11 minute grace period that they allow at the start of a parking session has got to be smaller than winning the lottery. Twice! In my case, they knew full well that the ticket I bought was for my car as they stated: ". . .This is because they failed to correctly enter their vehicle registration."

IMO, PPS encapsulate everything that's wrong with our society. But I guess that's another topic for another thread - another forum altogether most probably!

Redx

this will be why these t0$$ers have migrated to the dark side IPC sc@mmers recently

from the IPC AOS sc@mmers website
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd

01/03/2016

Fruitcake

pulpotim1960 wrote: »

In my case, they knew full well that the ticket I bought was for my car as they stated: ". . .This is because they failed to correctly enter their vehicle registration."

That's a very valid point. How did they know you had done it incorrectly unless they knew you had paid for a ticket with the wrong VRN? If they knew that then they knew you had paid.


"Own petard" and "hoist with" come to mind.

Beewi

Thanks Pappa.

The 'incident' occurred on 27/02/2016 but the first letter was dated 02/03/2016.

Can still apply to POPLA? PPS have provided me with a POPLA code.

Redx

in that case the "incident" occurred when they were BPA members and if you have a popla code, prepare your draft based on the advice above

do not miss the popla deadline date either , especially as you should be able to beat them under the popla system, which new "incidents" cannot as they are now IPC sc@mmer members

Beewi

Hi folks,
Ok here it is, my POPLA Appeal letter. Your comments would be very welcome, but please be gentle! Please also note that I have already admitted to PPS that I was driving the vehicle. I have until 14/04/2016 to appeal.

POPLA Appeal
Premier Parking Solutions (PPS) PCN: XXXXXXXX
POPLA ref: XXXXXXXXXX

Summary of events prior to POPLA appeal:-

• I received a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from Premier Parking Solutions (PPS) dated 02/03/2016 following an alleged contravention of parking regulations on 27/02/2016.
• The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera detected my vehicle entering the location at 1:49:20 PM and departing at 4:56:00 PM, some 3 hours, 6 minutes and 40 seconds later.
• I paid and displayed for 3 hours parking (at a cost of £3-£4).
• The NTK letter headed ‘Parking Charge: £100’ stated that ‘it has been demonstrated that the vehicle has remained at the location for longer than permitted or no pay and display ticket was purchased’.
• It was ambiguous as to exactly why the PCN had been issued, so I appealed to PPS on the basis that I believed I had ‘remained at the location for longer than permitted’ - 6 minutes and 40 seconds longer.
• PPS rejected my appeal on the basis that ‘the vehicle was found to have parked on site without payment having been made to validate its stay’. PPS attached a screen shot of the white list showing all sessions against the vehicle registration, and stated ‘you’ll see there was no payment made on the day’.

1.The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012

As this is a Pay and Display car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due'. The relevant part of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 states:

(2)The notice must—
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

The Operator has the technology to record car registrations using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), to collect and record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that they are able and indeed are required under the POFA to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show how the parking charges arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

The NTK letter received from PPS is not compliant and specifically fails on all counts for because of the following omissions:

A. There is no certainty of terms, leaving the keeper/driver to question why exactly the PCN has been issued;
- Had the driver parked in a prohibited area?
- Was insufficient payment made for the required parking period?
- Was there a fault with the pay and display machine meaning that payment hadn’t registered properly?
- Was an error was made when entering the vehicle registration number?

B. The letter entitled ‘Parking Charge: £100’ is incorrect and misleading. The unpaid parking charge that should have been requested is that which was unpaid on the day before the Notice to Keeper was issued. This can only be the purportedly unpaid parking tariff and not £100 which had not been requested and which there was no facility to pay on the day before the Notice to Keeper was issued. Consequently £100 cannot be considered unpaid for the purposes of the Act. It clearly demonstrates that PPS has failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act and cannot rely on it. At no time was the registered keeper asked to pay the purportedly unpaid tariff.

C. PPS failed to notify the registered keeper why the parking charge is due as is required by the Act. Their generic template PCN indicates that the vehicle has supposedly either remained at the location for longer than permitted or no pay and display ticket was purchased. The Act states that the reason for the charge is made clear and again PPS have failed to comply with the requirements of the Act and consequently cannot rely on its provisions.

2. Inadequate Grace Period

My appeal to PPS was based on the assumption that the vehicle had remained at the location for longer than permitted. Therefore I contend that there was no breach of contract because an inadequate grace period was given as required by the BPA Code of Practice, to which PPS must adhere. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015 states:

13 Grace periods

13.2 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.

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the
private car park after the parking contract has ended, before
you take enforcement action. If the location is one where
parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The length of the stay was 3 hours 6 minutes 40 seconds according to the ANPR readings. A grace period of a MINIMUM 10 MINUTES must be offered; 10 minutes to exit the car park and an unspecified period to study the signs, accept the terms and make payment. It is wholly unreasonable and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice for PPS to ignore their industry code.

3. Misuse of the ANPR system

PPS’ evidence shows no actual parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out of the car park. Therefore it is unreasonable for the operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival if they in fact offer a pay and display system, which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock actually starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock or even to relate to the same parking event.

However following my appeal to PPS, they reported that the vehicle was ‘found to have parked on site without payment having been made to validate its stay’. They attached a screenshot of the white list showing all sessions against the above vehicle registration, which according to PPS ‘showed that there was no payment made on the day’.

I know for a fact that 3 hours of parking was paid at around £3-£4 at approximately 1:51:00 and a ticket was produced. I can only assume that the incorrect vehicle registration number (VRN) was input into the pay and display machine by the passenger; perhaps mistaking an S for an F or not sufficiently pressing a button and therefore missing a digit.

Therefore I require PPS’s evidential records including partially redacted VRN’s showing all payments made during the hour (from the minute the vehicle is shown driving in). I also demand a list of all unmatched payments made for that hour for whatever reason. I am aware that ANPR records can and do produce these as part of a daily report.

On this account PPS have failed to meet the BPA CoP which with ANPR systems requires them to make careful checks before issuing PCN’s to make sure it is appropriate to issue a charge. This is an unenforceable penalty because it is unfair and punitive to charge a person for a typo when PPS’ own records hold this information and they KNOW payment was made and that these sort of PCN’s should never be issued. The relevant part of the BPA CoP states:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
General principles

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action.''

I am incensed that I have had to work this out for myself and that PPS have tried to fob me off in their misleading appeal rejection letter with a perfunctory search for the ‘exact’ VRN when they know that this must be a VRN error, something they are required to pick up in their ANPR manual checks in order to avoid exactly this sort of 'inappropriate' PCN.

The BPA has stated to Watchdog in the past that their member’s recognise that motorists may input an incorrect digit(s) of their VRN when purchasing a pay and display ticket and as such, processing must include a manual review/quality check of PCN’s before they are issued.

4. Unclear and Inadequate Signage

As with all methods of enforcement on private land, proper enforcement is dependent on clear signage that is visible from all points of the car park. The BPA’s Code of Practice contains recommendations for the size, placement and information for private car park signage, including the fact that the car park is monitored by ANPR technology and that DVLA with be contacted to obtain keeper details in the event of a parking contravention occurring. BPA CoP Paragraph 21.1 states:

21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.

On entering the location, there is NO clear signage at the entrance or within the car park itself advising that it is a managed site, that ANPR cameras are in operation or that a £100 Parking Charge is payable following a purported contravention.

I contend that PPS has failed on counts 3 and 4 because there are no clear signs stating how data will be used and I put them to strict proof to the contrary, bearing in mind that these points are mandatory as is shown by the word 'must'.

5. No Legitimate Interest - Beavis case not relevant to a tariff car park

This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgment because it is a contractual charge from a pay and display car park; an offer of parking for a set sum was made and in return payment was made in full. This makes plain that the sum of £100 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors and is consequently unenforceable.

The charge is for an alleged (but denied) breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified that this non-landowning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages. However, no such GPEOL or justification can apply here.

Unlike in Beavis, it is confidently argued that this charge (£100) is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and as this was a paid parking site that can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis. If PPS believe that inadequate payment was made (which their PCN fails to make clear and which is denied by the driver) their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. If PPS believes their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss it is demanded they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this has been calculated.
In addition, the sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whatever the alleged breach of contract may be. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £60 on days 1 to 14, then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by the Operator.

However there can be no Beavis case comparison at all because there is no legitimate interest in pursuing a driver for £100 when PPS know full well that driver did pay and they are withholding that information, even though it is already in their mismatched VRN report for that day.

6. No Landowner Authority

As PPS do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, to issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such a contract.

Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award PPS could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss to them or the landowner at all and therefore there should be no charge.


Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point raised above.

Coupon-mad

Unfortunately I mistakenly revealed that I was the driver of the vehicle.

Unfortunately that strikes out appeal point #1 completely. POFA Schedule 4/keeper liability is only relevant to a keeper where a driver has not been identified.

So you can't use the POFA but you can use point #1 to say something like:


The Notice to Keeper/postal PCN was not properly given because it stated the alleged contravention wrongly. That means PPS failed to state the 'reasonable cause' (the actual facts and reason) for getting the data of the keeper from the DVLA. The BPA Code of Practice requirements have not been met in this regard and this is fundamental to any PCN:

''20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also
include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable
cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.''

PPS' postal Notice says the following, which is not true and the facts would certainly have been known to them:

''Therefore it has been demonstrated that the vehicle has remained at the location for longer than permitted or no pay and display ticket was purchased, thereby contravening the parking regulations advertised on the signage on site.''

The facts are not as the Notice alleges and PPS will not, without intellectual dishonesty, be able to demonstrate that no payment was made with a near-miss VRN. So the PCN was not properly given because it disclosed nothing about the VRN being entered wrongly. An incorrect contravention is fatal to any PCN, including Council ones and private ones. The facts are:

- the vehicle did not remain at the site for longer than permitted, including the mandatory grace periods x 2, set by the BPA

- a pay and display ticket was purchased and PPS know that as a fact. They have the reports.

- no contravention occurred as described. POPLA cannot look for another contravention/term and PPS cannot change it now at POPLA stage. For example, even if it is shown that possibly the passenger put in a slightly wrong VRN (as I have worked out because PPS are notorious for doing this) that was not as stated on the PCN and so the 'reasonable cause' was misstated.



I would add something here:

I know for a fact that 3 hours of parking was paid at around £3-£4 at approximately 1:51:00 and a ticket was produced, because I know that the passenger paid and displayed. I can only assume that the incorrect vehicle registration number (VRN) was input into the pay and display machine by the passenger; perhaps mistaking an S for an F or not sufficiently pressing a button and therefore missing a digit.

Or quite possibly, PPS' keypad here is not functioning well and is unreliable. An ANPR system report from that day will show the error rate of unmatched VRNs and one would not expect to see many - but I do expect to be shown mine, as evidence.

and here:

Therefore I require PPS’s evidential records including partially redacted VRN’s showing all payments made during the hour (from the minute the vehicle is shown driving in).

I also demand a list of all unmatched payments made for that hour for whatever reason. I am aware that ANPR records can and do produce these as part of a daily report.

I require these because I know as fact that the passenger paid the right amount. I believe that the two requested reports (above) for that day will show the payment made and I believe that PPS are already aware of that fact and have withheld the information from me.

re #4, add more about the signs, specifically something about the size of font re £100 and no evidence of where the car was actually parked:

The size of the font is not inaccordance with Appendix B of the BPA CoP. Vitally, the so-called parking charge of £100 is not in (unlike in the Beavis case) 'large lettering' nor prominently displayed around the site and so, as the driver, I had no idea that you could possibly pay more than a few pounds as a tariff. No other figures were seen on a sign so there can have been no contract to pay £100.

The terms are also in small print and the passenger had no idea at the P&D machine that an exact VRN had to be input in full to avoid £100 fine. This was not made clear; it is not enough to 'have signs up'. An unknown secondary 'obligation' to pay £100 is not clear and prominent as the Supreme Court commented on in Beavis. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.

The only contract known was the obligation to pay (we did) and display (we did). Under contract law I am not liable for another secondary contract/term/charge I knew nothing about. There was no other known or agreed offer and no consideration flowed between the parties. I was never given a fair opportunity to learn from large unambiguously stated warnings, of the onerous terms by which I would later be bound.

There is no chance of accepting a contract that a consumer cannot read (font too small/high and no legible sign near where the car parked). I rely on the binding authority in Vine v Waltham Forest CA [2000] about a driver not seeing the terms and not deemed bound by them. This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_v_London_Borough_of_Waltham_Forest

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established.

The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking. There was never any suggestion that the plaintiff was other than a truthful witness and the clamping fee extorted from her under no lawful excuse was an act of trespass and the charge had to be refunded.

That case supports and upholds my appeal and it is a Court of Appeal judgment, binding on lower courts, which is far more relevant than the Beavis case in this instance where PPS have no prospect of any 'legitimate interest' and clearly aim to hide the facts about slight VRN errors and then punish any alleged defaulter, without making their terms clearly legible from a driver's seat before parking.

It will not be enough for PPS to show a signage 'map' and a close-up of a sign or an archive example of the signage wording in isolation. There has been no evidence showing where the car was actually parked in relation to a sign and I state as fact, because I was there, that there are areas of this car park where the signs are lacking and no terms about £100 could have been read. Bear in mind please that I myself did not pay and display - a passenger did.

For this reason, it is even more vital that PPS must show that full terms including the parking charge and requirement to input the full VRN correctly, would beyond any doubt, have been legible from a driver's seat before parking. It is argued that all of this must have been visible at the entrance because PPS are arguing I was bound by (unknown) terms at the point of entry past their ANPR cameras (I had no idea). A contractual term cannot be relied upon that is only seen afterwards/when walking away, as that is too late to be incorporated into a contract. Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532 is the applicable and binding case law for this: Denning LJ held that a clause a consumer can only learn about after the contract was allegedly formed was too late to be incorporated into the contract.



Re #6 I would change this as shown:

6. No Landowner Authority

As PPS do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, to issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract.

I do not believe they have such a contract and specifically they must demonstrate that they can enforce this charge in their own name and all of the following from the BPA CoP:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

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

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


[STRIKE]Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award PPS could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss to them or the landowner at all and therefore there should be no charge.[/STRIKE]

Beewi

Thank you for all of your help CM. It is very much appreciated.

Wish me luck!