Premier Parking Solutions PCN

Coupon-mad

I think I would point out the parts in a - e of section 7.3 of the BPA CoP, which are NOT evidenced as complied with by that witness statement, and yes, you may as well throw in your point about the key pad appearing to have a fault with the 'S' and no other VRN existing with that number.

Your signage points are good spots!

POPLA may or may not agree but it's not binding on you anyway and PPS have moved on to the IPC and perhaps would be less likely to pursue an old BPA PCN than one of their 'new ones' issued under the IPC.

pulpotim1960

Hi Beewi,
I've only just seen this and there isn't time for me to go through it in detail before you need to submit your reply. However, I notice you say that the first letter of the registration is missing on the printed ticket. This is exactly the same problem as I had, so I think you can argue that there's a fault with the machine. Feel free to reference my POPLA case number.


Good luck, I'll keep my fingers crossed!

Beewi

Hi folks,

Just to keep things in chronological order regarding my appeal, please see below the PPS Case File Comments I made to POPLA. Thank you Tim for your message, you will notice that I did use some elements of your appeal in my comments! Please note that I had to email this document to POPLA, as the 2000 character restriction on the POPLA track was insufficient to cover it.

PPS Case File Comments:-
In response to the PPS Case Summary submitted by Sue Blacksmith, I would like to respond with the following additional comments. It is impossible to address these on the appeals track due to the 2,000 character restriction. Consequently, please accept this PDF and apologies for its length.

1.What Parking Charge Notices Represent
PPS have said that ‘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.’

This is NOT a genuine pre-estimate of the additional expense incurred by PPS as a result. At the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, 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 because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.”

2.Conditions on Signage
The photographic evidence of the signage provided by PPS is dubious. Four out of the eight photos submitted by PPS are dated December 2015 but the other four are not dated. I believe that the undated photos are post 1st March 2016, when PPS moved to IPC, because the IPC logo appears on the parking conditions back board on the undated photos (photo 4) but NOT on the December 2015 photos (6).

PPS have also introduced the parking conditions paragraph 11 on the back board beneath the tariff so it is clearer to see (5). However this is NOT evident on the December 2015 photos (6).

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 (2) and so as the driver, I could NOT have read the sign on entering the site as PPS suggests. Also, the pay & display machine obscures the parking conditions back board (6). You would have to be standing right next to the machine in order to read the parking conditions behind it, including the parking charge, which CANNOT be seen from a distance. According to PPS, there are five signs at the site but only four 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.

3.Witness Statement
The statement is a letter from an appointed agent on behalf of PPS confirming landowner authority. However the points raised on the Witness Statement are null and void because they are NOT evidenced in compliance with the BPA Code of Practice as follows:-
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

4.Non-Compliant PCN & Data Protection
The PCN states ‘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’.

It is clear from this that the PCN was issued for one of two reasons: either because no ticket was purchased OR because the car was parked for longer than permitted. As a pay and display ticket had been purchased, therefore it was assumed that the issue was due to the vehicle remaining at the location for longer than permitted.

Only in PPS’s Case Summary does it emerge that this issue rests upon one letter missing at the start of the vehicle’s registration number. This is the FIRST mention of this in ANY of their correspondence. Had PPS explained in the original PCN, or when refusing the appeal against it, this could have been addressed at the time and saved a lot of unnecessary work, both for the appellant and for POPLA. Had PPS been clear about the underlying reason for the PCN, this could have been addressed in the appeal to POPLA and there would be no need for these lengthy additional comments.

The BPA Code of Practice ruling 22.1 states “Under the Code you must have procedures for dealing fairly, efficiently and promptly with any communication from the motorist” and in ruling 2.6 that: “Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.”

Failure to explain in a clear and transparent way why the PCN was issued and why the subsequent appeal was rejected is not acting in a fair, efficient, prompt, professional, reasonable and diligent way and therefore renders the PCN non-compliant at the very least.
Furthermore, PPS supply a copy of the PCN in their POPLA Appeal Folder. Please refer to the right hand panel at the foot of page one, specifically to the second paragraph entitled ‘Data Protection’. The final line reads “Premier Parking Solutions Ltd may also disclose data to a”. Clearly, this sentence is incomplete.

This is a serious breach of the BPA CoP which may also put them in breach of the Data Protection Act. Ruling 12.3 of the CoP states “You must use data from the DVLA only to carry out the parking control and enforcement activity for which you requested the data. You must not act as an agent to get data from the DVLA on behalf of a third party (for example a landowner or agent), unless that third party becomes a member of the AOS and meets all the compliance conditions. If you do not keep to the Code requirement this could lead to your membership of the AOS and of the BPA being suspended or terminated.”

PPS do NOT state who they disclose data to. Therefore motorists, the BPA and POPLA cannot be sure that the unspecified third party is a member of the AOS and meets all the compliance conditions.

If an incomplete vehicle registration number is deemed a breach of parking conditions, then an incomplete description of PPS’s data protection policy must surely invalidate the PCN. At the very least, PPS are guilty of double standards.

5.The Case Summary makes patronising references to 'payment may have been made' and ' a pay & display ticket may have been purchased' FOR A DIFFERENT VEHICLE.
How did PPS know that the vehicle registration had been entered incorrectly unless they KNEW that I had paid for a ticket with the wrong vehicle registration number? If they knew that then they knew I had paid. Therefore PPS have withheld information because they KNOW payment was made and that a pay & display ticket WAS purchased.
In ‘Other Evidence’ supplied by PPS, the whitelist 'log to show other drivers successfully entered their full vehicle registrations into the machine', clearly shows vehicle registration number XXX XXX, entering the site at EXACTLY the same time as the ANPR evidences MY vehicle entering the location.

I have also checked online and there is NO vehicle registered in the UK with the registration number XXX XXX as shown on the whitelist of so-called '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 it was reported or not.
I refer back to the BPA Code of Practice ruling regarding Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), which states:-
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.”

It is reasonable to assume that no one purchasing a ticket would deliberately choose to omit the first letter of their registration, nor pay for a ticket for a vehicle with a different registration number and risk being issued with a PCN. Therefore how can PPS justify that it is appropriate to take action in this instance?

6.Conclusion
Based on their unprofessional behaviour and for the numerous breaches of the BPA CoP cited in both the main appeal and in these additional comments, POPLA assessors are asked not only to rule in favour of the appellant, but also to report PPS to the BPA’s AOS Investigations Team for bringing the private parking industry in general, and the BPA AOS scheme in particular, into disrepute.

Beewi

Thank you for contacting POPLA.

We note that you wish to submit additional evidence in support of your appeal.
However, we would advise that when submitting your appeal online, you ticked a box to confirm that you understood and accepted our terms and conditions, which stated as follows:

"You will not be able to edit your appeal once you have submitted it. It is important you have provided all necessary information as you cannot change POPLA’s decision later…"

Therefore, we are unable to accept any further evidence you have to provide at the current time.

As such, your appeal will continue based on the evidence you have provided so far and we will be in touch shortly to advise of the outcome of your appeal.

Yours sincerely,
Samuel Connop
POPLA Team

Coupon-mad

Reply and say you have not added new evidence, they are wrong to say 'We note that you wish to submit additional evidence in support of your appeal'. In fact you were merely commenting on the evidence pack and had to email your comments because the comments box on the Portal (if it was even open to you) is ridiculously short and restricted which is inherently unfair to consumers who are faced with a pile of rubbish as evidence from a so-called parking operator, which merits significant comment.

You have merely responded to the evidence pack itself, gone through it blow by blow and pointed out how it is lacking (which you can ONLY do once you see the evidence pack!).

State that you insist your comments ARE included and provided to the Assessor and understand that if the ASSESSOR thinks that you have introduced a completely new APPEAL point within the comments, that they might disregard that point alone. That, you accept.

However comments on evidence are a vital concept within the POPLA process - this always has been the case since 2012 - and it is only fair that they are considered if these points attached are commenting on the evidence pack, WHICH THEY ARE. Otherwise why does POPLA invite comments?

State that you will complain to Nicola Mullaney of ISPA if POPLA is denying your right to comment on the evidence pack and making a completely false assumption that a detailed but relevant set of comments on the evidence pack is a 'new appeal/new evidence' when it is NOT.

Copy in 'complaints@popla.co.uk' as well.

Beewi

There are no words!!! :mad:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Siobhan Gooley

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment for parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she purchased and displayed a ticket for parking. She states that the NTK is not compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice as it does not state the reasonable cause for applying to the DVLA, and that the requirement to allow a grace period was not complied with. She states that the requirements to quality check ANPR data were not met, and that the signage on site was inadequate and unclear. She states that the amount does not represent a genuine preestimate of loss and is therefore a penalty and unenforceable. She also states that the operator does not have authority of the landowner to conduct parking management on the site in question.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has supplied photographic evidence which shows the appellant’s vehicle,
registration XXXX XXX, entering the Fore Street Totnes car park on 27 February 2016 at 13:49. The vehicle departed at 16:56, and was on site for a total of three hours and seven minutes. The log supplied by the operator demonstrates that no payment was allocated to the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) in question. The operator advises that the terms and conditions require payment to be made for parking. It states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued for unauthorised parking, and that the appellant had remained on site for longer than permitted, or failed to purchase parking. It has supplied a copy of the payment log for the date in question, which shows that a payment was not made for registration XXXX XXX. The appellant states that the notice issued is not compliant with the requirements of Section 20.14 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as the alleged contravention was stated incorrectly. She states that this means that the operator failed to set out the ‘reasonable cause’ it had for applying to the DVLA for keeper details. I have reviewed the notice, and I am satisfied that the operator identified the reasonable cause, by stating: “your details may have been provided by the DVLA under the reasonable cause criteria, as you were the registered keeper of the vehicle above, on the date it was parked in breach of the posted terms and conditions of a private car park.” Additionally, although not required by section 20.14, I am satisfied that the reasons for issue were identified correctly on the PCN, as the operator had no record of a payment for the appellant’s vehicle, and therefore issued the PCN as no payment had been made, and she was therefore on site for longer than permitted. The appellant also states that the operator did not comply with the ‘grace period’ requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. She states that a 5/10/2016
2/3 ticket was purchased for three hours, and she departed the site within 7 minutes of the contract ending, which falls within the 10 minute minimum set out in section 13. Whilst I acknowledge this, I am satisfied that the operator complied with the Code of Practice, as the appellant was on site for three hours and seven minutes, and no valid payment was made for her vehicle. The appellant states that, based on the evidence supplied by the operator, she can only assume that the details must have been entered incorrectly into the payment machine. She states that as a payment was made, the operator will have a list of unmatched payments, and that by not checking this, the operator has failed to comply with Section 21.2 of the Code of Practice. As this section relates to the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images captured by an operator, I do not consider it to be relevant to the payment log data. The operator has demonstrated that it did not receive a payment for the VRN captured on the entry and exit images, and that the VRN captured by the cameras was correct. The appellant also states that the signage on site is not compliant with Section 21.1 of the Code of Practice. This section states that signs at the car park must tell drivers that ANPR technology is in use, and what the data captured will be used for. The operator has supplied photographic evidence of the signage, which states: “your vehicle’s licence plate has been recorded by automatic number plate recognition cameras. Failure to adhere to the terms
and conditions of parking details above may result in the registered keeper details being
requested from the DVLA under the reasonable cause criteria and a parking charge notice issued by post.” Additionally, the entrance sign to the site states: “camera enforcement in operation.” The appellant states that she was unaware of any requirement to enter an exact VRN. Section 18 of the Code of Practice states that the operator should use signs to inform motorists of what the terms and conditions of parking are. Within its response, the operator has supplied photographic evidence of the signage on site, which states that: “if paying by phone or if required to enter a vehicle registration to authorise parking, full and exact details must be entered correctly, or a parking charge notice may be issued.” The operator has demonstrated that terms and conditions signage is located next to the payment machines, which the appellant advised was used to purchase a ticket. Additionally, on the front of the payment machine, alongside the payment instructions, is a notice which states: “your vehicle will not be authorised to park and you may be issued with a parking charge notice if you enter your number plate incorrectly.” As such, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking were sufficiently notified to the appellant, and that these were accordingly accepted by the appellant, as she purchased a ticket and left her vehicle on the car park. The appellant states that the operator does not have authority to carry out parking management in accordance with section 7 of the Code of Practice, which sets out that authority of the landowner must be obtained. She states that the operator has not given evidence of the written authorisation as prescribed by section 7. The operator has supplied a copy of a
witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner however, which is acceptable as an
alternative to providing a copy of the written authorisation under section 22.416b. As such, I am satisfied that the operator had the required authority to manage the land in question. The
appellant also states that the charge is an unfair penalty, as the sum claimed cannot be a genuine preestimate of loss. She states that the circumstances in this instance can be distinguished from the case of Beavis v ParkingEye, as the car park operates on a pay and display basis. Whilst I acknowledge this point, I do consider the decision in Beavis to be relevant, as the operator has demonstrated that it has a legitimate interest in managing the land in question. The legality of parking charges was considered in the case of Beavis v ParkingEye. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither 5/10/2016 3/3
extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the
landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine preestimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. From the evidence provided to me I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly, as the appellant failed to meet the terms and conditions of parking. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Beewi

Thanks CM,

See below my email in response to Samuel Connop (1) and their subsequent reply (2):-

(1) My response

Thank you for your email Samuel.

However, you emailed me on 03/05/16 , giving me 7 days to provide comments on the case file submitted by Premier Parking Solutions.

The email attachment that I sent yesterday was not 'additional evidence' in support of my appeal, it was in fact a document containing my comments in response to the case file. I was unable to submit my comments via the appeal track on your website, because the 2000 character restriction was not sufficient to cover all of the points I wished to raise in response.

Consequently, an unsuccessful appeal decision has now been made without my comments being considered, which is an unfair and totally unacceptable practice, as it could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the appeal.

I am fully aware of your terms & conditions and whilst I also understand that POPLA's decision is final, I am extremely dissatisfied with the way my appeal has been handled and would like to make a formal complaint. The poor level of service I have received could have had a detrimental impact to the outcome of my appeal.

I look forward to hearing from you.

(2) POPLA reply

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email received on 10 May 2016.

Please accept my apologies for the previous email you received. I note the document you had submitted was indeed comments in relation to the operator's case file and not additional evidence.

In light of the confusion caused, I have taken the time to review your original appeal submission, the operator's case file and the document you submitted for your comments on the operator's case file.

I note you state in your email that you believe that the comments made would have had a significant impact on the outcome of the appeal, however after reviewing the assessment of your appeal, I am satisfied that they would not have made a material difference. This is because when we emailed you to invite you to provide comments on the operator's case file, it was simply an opportunity for you to voice any concerns or queries you may have had on the case file itself. It is not an opportunity for you to raise new grounds for appeal or even to expand on the grounds for appeal you have already raised. Therefore, while we fully acknowledge the comments, the comments have no bearing on the decision itself.

I have reviewed the decision and more importantly, the rationale behind how that decision was made, and I agree with the assessor's judgement in her refusal of your appeal.
To conclude, while I fully understand that it is disappointing and even frustrating when an appeal results in an outcome that you were not hoping for, our role as an impartial appeals service means that quite simply, we must base our decisions upon the factual evidence presented to us. I am satisfied that this has been done in your appeal and as such, there will be no change to the outcome of our decision.
Kind regards,
Emily Chriscoli
POPLA Team

Coupon-mad

Right, complaints@popla.co.uk first. Then ISPA.

Search this forum for 'complaints@popla.co.uk' to find loads of other threads with cases pathetically badly decided by POPLA and how to word a complaint.

POPLA will fob you off, so don't expect miracles. But do not pay.

ISPA will listen to a complaint if well made, about clear errors in a POPLA decision. I would concentrate on the 'clear signage evidence' which was misunderstood and the facts overlooked, by an Assessor who has not looked properly at the evidence of signs at all. And you know for a fact that you were denied your comments on that signage evidence being read by the Assessor.

Of course your comments WOULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME because bad signage renders Beavis inapplicable!

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.

Umkomaas

And once again POPLA makes the Beavis case for the PPC.

bessieboots

Hi

Although it is probably too late I thought you might like to know that I was caught with a fine for exactly the same reason on 24 March 2016 between 13.37 and 15.37. I bought a ticket but the machine did not print the first letter of my car registration number. I was out of the country when my letter was received so I am still appealing this as I have until 27 May to pay £60. If anyone can provide similar evidence of the machine malfunctioning at this site I would be interested to hear from them.

Besieboots