Premier Parking Solutions PCN

Coupon-mad

Good luck! POPLA are rubbish sometimes right now so it's not certain but even people who lose at POPLA are no worse off/do not have to pay.

Show us your final draft to look at tomorrow though. Give us time! Do not submit it yet.

Do the ANPR photos look like they were taken just OUTSIDE the site, just before the entrance? I've used that as an argument before.

Beewi

Hi,

The photos look to have been taken on entering the car park itself and NOT coming into the main entrance off the road. I had to drive past some old garages before getting into the car park itself and do not recall seeing ANY signs at all.

Beewi

Good morning folks,

So here it is my final draft POPLA Appeal letter...

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

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 as follows:

''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, so the PCN was not properly given. An incorrect contravention is fatal to any PCN, including Council ones and private ones. The facts are:

A. The vehicle did not remain at the site for longer than permitted, including the two mandatory grace periods, set by the BPA.
B. A pay and display ticket was purchased and PPS know that as a fact. They have the reports.
C. No contravention occurred as described. POPLA cannot look for another contravention 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.

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. However 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.

I contend that there was no contravention of the parking regulations because an inadequate grace period was given as required by the BPA Code of Practice, to which PPS must adhere. The BPA CoP 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

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’.

It is 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.

Therefore I require PPS’ 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 correct amount. I believe that the two requested reports for that day (as above) will show the payment made and I also believe that PPS are already aware of that fact and have withheld the information from me.

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 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. The BPA CoP 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 main entrance or within the car park itself advising that it is a managed site, or that ANPR cameras are in operation or that a £100 Parking Charge is payable following a purported contravention.

The size of the font is not in accordance 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 Pay and Display 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 the Beavis case. 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:

xxx Link removed xxx

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.

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 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


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

Umkomaas

Your first appeal point (No Keeper Liability), one of your ace cards, has been blown out of the water by the fact that the driver has been identified in your appeal.

You need to go very carefully through it again and remove/amend any reference (or even inference) as to who drove, who parked, who paid!

Beewi

Thanks for the advice Umkomaas, but unfortunately I have already admitted to being the driver in my initial appeal to PPS.

I realise now this was an error, however that is why Point 1 is centered around the NTK not being compliant (as advised by Coupon Mad).

Coupon-mad

You need to make point #1 clear that you are saying it is not compliant with the BPA CoP:

1.The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice

I would also change 'assumption' here because is fact the NTK misled you:

My appeal to PPS was based on the information wrongly provided by PPS, telling me that the vehicle had remained at the location for longer than permitted. It had not but I knew that payment had been made so it could not have been the latter part of the described 'contravention'.

Beewi

POPLA appeal submitted!

Thank you all so much for your help and support thus far. I will keep you updated.

Fingers crossed!

Beewi

Hi folks,

I have finally had a response from PPS following my appeal to POPLA. I now have until Tuesday 10th May to comment before POPLA progress the appeal for assessment. See below the 'Case Summary' I have received from PPS. I can not believe the blatant audacity of these people!
___

CASE SUMMARY

Background
This vehicle was seen to contravene the terms and conditions of parking on 27-02-2016 at 16:56 by our ANPR camera controlled system as parking had not been paid for at our Fore Street, Totnes Car Park, Totnes. The PCN was sent to the registered keeper on 2 March 2016
The appellant has appealed on the grounds of “The amount requested on the parking charge is not correct”.

Appeals
In their initial appeal the appellant stated they departed some 6 minutes after their ticket has expired as they felt dizzy.
We replied “The vehicle was found to have parked on site without payment having been made to validate its stay. Please find attached a screenshot of the whitelist showing all sessions against the above vehicle registration, you’ll see there was no payment made on the day. The pay and display site is operated by cameras and therefore if the vehicle has not been authorised to park on site then a charge will be issued.

The appellant then appealed to POPLA stating the NTK was not compliant with BPA Codes of Practice, there was an inadequate grace period, misuse of the ANPR system, unclear and inadequate signage, not a genuine pre-estimation of loss and we have no landowner authority.

Conditions on Signage and Images
Having no pay and display ticket correctly validating their stay is contrary to the advertised terms and conditions at this site as displayed on signage at the entrance, on the tariff back boards and throughout the site, specifically at Paragraph 1 on these signs. You can see this on the attached photographs in the “conditions on signage” documents. The onus is on the driver to ensure terms and conditions are met.

In the “images” documents you will see the ANPR camera has captured this vehicle entering and leaving the site. In our “Other evidence” documents you will see a screenshot showing that no payment for this vehicle XXXX XXX was made on 27 February 2016.

You will see in our “Conditions on signage” documents that there are instructions for use on the pay and display machine. The first instruction says to enter number plate in, the second instruction asks the motorist to confirm the number plate by pressing the green tick. It is at this point motorists would be expected to check they had entered the correct registration number and if not to cancel and start again. At this point the motorist has not had to put any money into the machine.

Please see our “other evidence” where we have included a screen shot of the white list, showing that a large number of motorists managed to enter their registration correctly. We have also entered a screen shot of our fault log and you will see that no fault had been reported for this site on 27 February 2016.

You will also see in our “Conditions on Signage” documents there is a clear warning sign stating the failure to enter the registration number correctly may result in a PCN being issued. There is a sticker on the machine which reads ‘Failure to enter your vehicle registration details correctly may result in the issue of a parking charge notice’. The word ‘correctly’ is underlined in red.

You will see in our “Conditions on Signage” documents, on all of our signs including the tariff backboard that paragraph 11 states that if required to enter your registration number to authorise parking full and exact details must be entered correctly.

Parking Charge Notice
A copy of the PCN is enclosed. Given the evidence produced this PCN was issued correctly. The photographs in our “Images” folder shows the time the vehicle entered the car park and the time it left. You will see in our “other evidence” no payment had been made for vehicle XXXX XXX. Therefore the appellant has not correctly validated their stay and this vehicle was not authorised to park. The system we use uses a camera to match the vehicle registration numbers of vehicles using the car park to those entered into the machine so that we are able to tell who has paid. Accordingly, we have made it a term of parking that the correct vehicle registration number must be entered.

Payment may have been made by the appellant but not for the vehicle XXXX XXX.
The Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant is actually a Notice to Driver as it is the original PCN as this is an ANPR issued PCN and it is compliant with the BPA Codes of Practice. Please see in our PCN folder. We cited the reasonable cause as “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”.

The fact that no ticket had been purchased for vehicle XXXX XXX, as seen in our screen shot, means that no pay and display ticket had been purchased for this vehicle and the vehicle was not authorised to park.

We agree with the appellant that they did not stay at the car park longer than permitted. We allow a grace period of 10 minutes from entering the car park to allow the motorist to park, acquaint themselves with the terms and conditions of parking and then to either leave if they do not like the terms and conditions or to pay. We also allow a 10 minute grace period to leave the car park after their ticket has expired. All as recommended by the BPA.
A pay and display ticket may have been purchased but not for this vehicle.

We have included a list of all vehicles parked at this site on 27 February 2016 and you will see that there are many vehicles where the motorist has successfully entered their full and exact details as required.

We manually check all vehicles detected by our ANPR cameras every morning. These are checked against our Whitelist (as stated above all vehicle registrations are automatically logged onto our whitelist) and any vehicles not found on the whitelist are sent a Notice.
I am unsure as to why the appellant states we have withheld information from them as they did not asked for any information until they appealed to POPLA.

The appellant states that the signage is unclear and inadequate. Our signs are audited annually and have not found to be lacking in any sense by the BPA.

You will see in our “conditions on signage” documents that the entrance sign puts motorists on notice that they are entering private land and camera enforcement is in operation and for motorists to see notices in the car park. You will see that all of the signs warn the motorists they are entering a contractual agreement and the charge for failing to adhere to all the terms and conditions is £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Again as per the BPA Codes of Practice. You will see the lettering is large and comprehensive.

The signage shows that the full and exact details are required if entering the vehicle registration and this information is on all the signs including the pay and display machine.
If, as the appellant has stated, the driver had not seen the signs how did they know to try and pay? We cannot show where the vehicle was parked in relation to the signage as this PCN was issued through ANPR captured photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the site. However, this is a small site of 37 spaces and there are a total of 5 signs in all. The entrance sign is extremely large and it is obvious the driver saw them as they attempted to pay and display, albeit for a different vehicle. The driver had ample time before paying to read the tariff backboard at the pay and display machines as well as the instructions on the machine itself.
It is the motorist’s responsibility to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking whether or not it was not the driver who actually paid but a passenger. The driver is put on notice at the entrance that there are terms and conditions to parking. Therefore having decided to park at this car park for 3 hours, the driver is deemed to have familiarise themselves with those terms and conditions and accepted them. They did not have to remain at the car park if they did not want to adhere to them. Our signs were not obscured and were clearly visible to both the driver and the passenger who paid.

Our entrance signs warning the motorist that they are entering private land and for them to see the notices within the car park are as laid down by the BPA Codes of Practice. As previously stated the motorist has time to park, read the notices and then decide whether to remain there. Having remained at the site it is deemed that they have read and accepted the terms of the contract.

The signage also states that “Your vehicle’s licence plate has been recorded by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. Failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking detailed above may result in registered keeper details being requested from the DVLA under the reasonable clause criteria and a PCN issued by post.

The appellant states the charge is unfair and differs from the Beavis v Parking Eye judgement and it is not a genuine pre-estimation of loss.

The amount requested on the PCN is £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, you will see that this corresponds with the wording on the signs in case of failure to comply with any or all of the terms and conditions and is deemed reasonable by The Supreme Court and the BPA.

What Parking Charge Notices Represent
The Parking Charge Notices that we issue represent liquidated and ascertained damages. When a motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, we incur a loss because incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. The amount of the Parking Charge Notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of the additional expense incurred by us as a result of this.

Exceeded the Appropriate Amount
It will be seen that the charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days is within the prescribed guidelines issued by the British Parking Association, our governing body. The charge is in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has not offered any evidence as to why the charge exceeded the appropriate amount. Additionally this charge has not been paid either in whole or part.

Pre estimation of Loss
The genuine pre-estimation of loss set out below refers to costs that we estimated, at the time of issuing the PCN, may be incurred for this individual PCN only. These same headings have been applied previously to other POPLA appeals, each with their own specific costs.

Initial Loss:
Loss of P&D Revenue for this appeal (please note at the time of issuing
the PCN parking had not been paid for this vehicle as the registration has
not been entered into the system validating it’s stay). 1.60
DVLA Fees / Processing Costs for this appeal. While the DVLA charge
£2.50 we use a third party supplier to obtain keeper details on our
behalf and this obviously carries a cost. 5.00
Admin Expenses for this appeal: Stationery 1.00
Postage 3.00
Printing 1.50
Attendant, administration staff and POPLA Appeals staff wages and salaries
including Employers National Insurance Contributions for this appeal:
Attendants (PCN recording and issuing) for this appeal 2.68
Admin Staff 1 hour (call handling / answering initial appeal by the driver
direct to PPS). Our administrative staff deals with initial
telephone calls and the first appeal received from the driver direct to us.
To be clear, this initial appeal handling is wholly separate from the
POPLA appeals handling as detailed below, the costs
of which are wholly separate to and in addition to those incurred at the
initial appeal by the driver stage. 9.80
When a POPLA appeal is received it is handed over to our POPLA
Appeals Manager and Office Manager to deal with.
Our Office Manager compiles all the evidence, photographs,
contracts etc which is, when the PCN is first issued, put
onto our Zatpark system which enables the admin staff to follow the
progress but cannot be sent to POPLA in this form. The Office
Manager then sets up a unique folder which allows us to send
our Evidence pack in the format required by POPLA.
This will take at least half an hour. 14.66
The POPLA Appeals Manager then reads the POPLA appeal, makes notes,
reads all the evidence that has been compiled and then researches any
specific points that has been raised by the appellant
(i.e. Planning permission requirements, POFA requirements etc) and then
writes a Case Summary. This is the first time the POPLA Appeals Manager
has seen this appeal and therefore needs to be thorough in her examination
of all the facts. This can take between 2 hours and 5 hours depending on
the appellant’s appeal. As a low pre-estimate we have averaged this out at
2.5 hours. The POPLA Appeals Manager will also deal with any further
evidence submitted by the appellant after they have received our
Evidence pack. 59.14
Legal, Accounting and IT advice for this appeal 1.07
Total Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss for this appeal. 99.45

The business model as described above is fair and reasonable and contains simply a manager to compile, a POPLA manager to investigate, research and prepare the case summary.

The Appeals process is long, complicated and arduous and the same business model as referred to above is used in all parts of our business. It can be seen from the detailed list of costs above, a lot more goes into the issue of a PCN than is detailed here.

Judgments on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis 04-11-2015
Although justifying the PCN as a GPEL in order to outline the costs involved PPS can confirm that the above judgment and the highest Court in this country decided that ParkingEyes parking charge notice is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest (to deter parking contraventions against the advertised terms and conditions of parking) and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is an important clarification of the law and one which cements the lawful authority of private car park management companies to operate on the land on which they manage, lease or own. At para 107 of the ParkingEye judgment the Court said that ParkingEye has : "a legitimate interest in imposing a liability on Mr Beavis in excess of the damages that would have been recoverable at common law. ParkingEye had an interest in inducing him (in this case to observe the two-hour time limit) in order to enable customers of the retail outlets and other members of the public to use the available parking space". The PCN charge of £100 is fair and reasonable and is covered off above and is within the BPA’s guidelines which their Lordships also ruled was a fair and satisfactory codes of practice to follow and take rulings from.

The appellant states that we do not have proprietary interest in the land and demands that we produce a copy of our contract.

Witness Statement
The appellant has asked for a copy of our contract with the Landowners. Obviously this contains highly confidential information and while we would be happy to provide POPLA with a copy of our contract we would not wish it to be put within the public domain. Therefore please see the Witness Statement in our “other evidence” documents showing we have full authorisation and legal standing to manage, control and enforce, as Principal, at this site by way of a contract with the landowner.

Other Evidence
A screen shot from our Zatpark system showing no payment was made for this vehicle, XXXX XXX at this site on 27 February 2016.
A screen shot of our “white list” showing the number of motorists that correctly entered their registration number on that day.
A screen shot of our fault log for 27 February 2016

Registered Keepers Details
With regards to registered keeper details these were applied for from DVLA to ascertain keeper details so the PCN could be sent out.

Sue Blacksmith
PPS POPLA Appeals Manager 28 April 2016
___

I will study this in more detail at the weekend and would appreciate your comments, however these are my initial thoughts:-

1. The white list given as evidence of 'the number of motorists that correctly entered their registration number on that day' clearly shows the registration number of MY vehicle with just the FIRST letter S missing. Furthermore, the times on the white list correspond EXACTLY with the photographic evidence taken by the ANPR (as shown on the PCN), of MY vehicle entering the the location.

2. 'Payment may have been made by the appellant but not for the vehicle XXXX XXX'.
3. 'A pay and display ticket may have been purchased but not for this vehicle'

Re: 2 & 3 above - Where's the common sense here? PPS KNOW that a payment was made and a ticket was purchased, if not for MY vehicle, then whose vehicle? Why would I pay for someone else's vehicle to park?

4. 'If, as the appellant has stated, the driver had not seen the signs how did they know to try and pay?' - The passenger travelling with me had used the car park before and so they knew it was pay & display. They also entered the vehicle registration into the machine and made payment on my behalf.

5. There were 'no faults reported on the machine' that day, but this doesn't prove that there were no faults with the key pad. There are 30 vehicle registrations shown on the white list for that day and NONE of them begin with the letter S. Coincidence?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

Coupon-mad

What Parking Charge Notices Represent
The Parking Charge Notices that we issue represent liquidated and ascertained damages. When a motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, we incur a loss because incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. The amount of the Parking Charge Notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of the additional expense incurred by us as a result of this.

Bingo! That needs seizing upon because that shoots them in the foot if you use the Beavis case to your advantage. At the Supreme Court the Judges held:

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.

Job done (should be) if POPLA have their thinking caps on...but I doubt that will be enough. They really do not get it any more than Sue Blacksmith seems to. What a nasty 'job' she has, giving nothingto Society and just ripping people off for charges when they HAVE paid & displayed and PPS' keypad could easily be at fault.

So what did you spot about the signs? It's not about 'not seeing a sign;' at all (no doubt there are signs up). But it's about the terms and specifically, the CHARGE not being in 'large letters' as per ParkingEye v Beavis again. The passenger put the VRN in and made payment because she knew it was a tariff car park but that doesn't mean you are saying no-one 'saw' any signs. Just that the driver certainly did not see a sign near the car where the 'parking charge' was adequately warned about prominently (not hidden in wordy small print). Ergo, no contract was formed with the driver to pay any sum above the tariff because no such wanring with the pakring charge in large letters, was seen.

So what does the evidence look like? Can you show us their signs? Did they show a site map and indicate where your car was parked in relation to a sign? Doubt it. Are the signs readable from a site photo (not a stock example 'here's a sign we made earlier').

And what did you make of the witness statement...date, details, location, does it meet a - e of 7.3 of the BPA CoP? If not, spell it out to the POPLA Assessor who might well have swallowed the above template drivel from Sue B.

The is not about common sense and your thoughts will not be considered by POPLA. You have to seize on errors in the evidence and even then POPLA may not get this right.

Beewi

Thanks for your comments CM.

I have just spent the last hour typing a reply to your message and the site crashed when I tried to post it ! I could cry! I will try to summarise it again:-

1. Signage
The photographic evidence of the signage is dubious. 4 out of 8 photos are dated December 2015 but the other 4 are not dated. I believe that the undated photos are post 1st March 2016, when PPS started using IPC, because the IPC emblem appears on the parking conditions back board on the non-dated photos but NOT on the December 2015 photos. PPS have also introduced the parking conditions Paragraph 11* on the back board beneath the tariff so it is clearer to see. This is NOT evident on the December 2015 photos.

* Paragraph 11 states that if required to enter your registration number to authorise parking full and exact details must be entered correctly or a parking charge notice may be issued.

More importantly, on entering the car park, the pay & display machine and parking conditions back board (which PPS refer to as the 'extremely large entrance sign'), is FACING AWAY from you - this is evidenced by PPS - and so as the driver I could NOT have read the sign on entering the site. Also, the pay & display machine obscures the parking conditions back board. You would have to be standing right next to the machine in order to read the parking conditions behind it, including the parking charge. According to PPS, there are 5 signs at the site but only 4 of these are evidenced.

PPS also mention a sticker on the machine which reads ‘Failure to enter your vehicle registration details correctly may result in the issue of a parking charge notice. The word ‘correctly’ is underlined in red'. There is NO photographic evidence of this.

There is no site map provided.

2. Witness Statement
This is a letter from a local Accountant on behalf of PPS, confirming landowner authority as follows:-

On behalf of Hart, Maiden and Tall I confirm that:
1. The site is Fore Street, Totnes
2. The Landowners are Hart, Maiden and Tall who are the owners of the site.
3. The leaseholder is Premier Parking Solutions Ltd
4. Premier Parking Solutions Ltd has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site.
5. This authority is contained in an agreement dated 22 December 2014 running from 22 December 2014 to 21 December 2021.
6. Premier Parking Solutions Ltd is authorised by the Landowner to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.
7. The terms and conditions are as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
8. The issuing of parking charge notices is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
9. Premier Parking Solutions Ltd is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above.
10. Premier Parking Solutions is authorised by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.
I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature
Name S E Aylwin
Position Accountant
For and on behalf of Hart, Maiden and Tall
Date 20 January 2015

3. What irritates me the most are the patronising references to 'payment may have been made' and ' a pay & display ticket may have been purchased' FOR A DIFFERENT VEHICLE! The 'log to show other drivers successfully entered their full vehicle registrations into the machine', blatantly shows my vehicle registration number with the first letter S missing, at the site at EXACTLY the same time as the ANPR evidences MY vehicle entering the location.

I have checked online and there is NO vehicle registered in the UK with the registration number as shown on the log of 'full' vehicle registrations provided by PPS. Also, of the 30 vehicles listed on the log, not ONE has a registration number containing the letter S, suggesting that there was a fault on PPS's machine key pad on that day, whether reported or not.

Is there any mileage in arguing these latter points?