Premier Parking Solutions PCN

Beewi

All comments welcomed...

To: complaints@popla.co.uk; aos@britishparking.co.uk
CC: david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Formal complaint and request to reopen case Premier Parking Solutions (PCN: A5009899) due to my comments in Point 2 relating to ‘Conditions on Signage’ and Point 5 relating to ‘a fault on PPS’s pay & display machine key pad’, which were not considered at the appeal stage.

POPLA Case Ref: 6860776023

FAO Mr John Gallagher,

Following a recent appeal against Premier Parking Solutions (PPS), I am making a formal complaint about the way my case was unprofessionally handled and contained some serious errors, which could have had a significant impact on the outcome of my appeal.

Following the appeal, I was emailed on 03/05/16 and given the opportunity to respond to the case file submitted by PPS. The email stated “You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.”

On 09/05/16, I submitted a document via info@popla.co.uk, which detailed my comments as I was unable to address all of the salient points I wished to raise on the appeals track due to the 2,000 character restriction.

On 10/05/16 at 09:07, I received an email response from Samuel Connop from the POPLA Team advising me that “We note that you wish to submit additional evidence in support of your appeal. However...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.”

Then at 12:24, I received another email from Siobhan Gooley, POPLA Assessor, advising me that “We have now reached the end of our investigation process and the decision can be found on the portal.” The decision was ‘Unsuccessful’.

On 10/05/16 at 21:17, I responded to Samuel Connop (and copied in complaints@popla.co.uk), stating that my comments could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the appeal and that I was not at all happy with the way the appeal had been handled.

Then on 11/05/16 at 11:28, I received an email from Emily Chriscoli from the POPLA Team advising me that she had ‘...taken the time to review [my] original appeal submission, the operator's case file and the document submitted for [my] comments on the operator's case file.’ And that based on her assessment of my comments, ‘I am satisfied that they would not have made a material difference.’

She then continues to say ‘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. 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.’

Had my case file comments been carefully reviewed and considered, and in her words, “base [our] decisions upon the factual evidence presented to us”, she would have in fact realised that I was merely voicing my concerns and highlighting blatant discrepancies in the photographic evidence provided by PPS. On what authority does a member of the POPLA Team have to assess evidence for a case and make a decision in place of an Assessor?

The comments I made on 'Conditions of Signage' were totally misunderstood and the facts overlooked by an actual Assessor, who has not looked properly at the evidence of the signs at all. Furthermore I was denied my comments on the signage evidence being read by the Assessor prior to a decision being made. Had this happened, I believe that the outcome of the appeal could have most certainly been different because the photographic evidence provided by PPS is dubious and the bad signage renders the Beavis case inapplicable.

I would urge you to properly consider the evidence raised in my original comments, and highlighted again below:-

1. 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).

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. There is no site map provided.

In addition, my comments raised concerns about the PPS pay & display parking machine being faulty ...’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.’

This legitimate concern has been totally disregarded as there is no mention of it in Emily Chriscoli’s email, let alone any further investigation taking place. Incidentally I have since been back to the parking site and have carefully noted that there is in fact a fault with the pay & display machine in question, which I would urge you to consider.

The printed instructions tell the purchaser to enter their VRN. Then whilst you are concentrating on pressing the correct letters and numbers on the key pad, unbeknown to you, after pressing the first letter of the VRN, an instruction telling you what to do appears in the display screen. So, the first letter you press merely activates the idle machine – but it is not registered. As soon as you key in the second letter, the instruction disappears from the display screen and the second letter appears as the first letter on the printed ticket.

The complete lack of good faith and transparency by PPS, not to mention the clear breach of the BPA CoP, has left me feeling extremely distressed. This has been further exacerbated by the unprofessional handling of my appeal to POPLA, which also contained some serious errors. Consequently, I am offering POPLA, BPA and the DVLA the opportunity to review this case and observe that I have been unfairly treated to this point before I am forced to raise the complaint with ISPA.

Coupon-mad

serious errors, which [STRIKE]could have[/STRIKE] had a significant impact on the outcome of my appeal.

On 10/05/16 at 21:17, I responded to Samuel Connop (and copied in complaints@popla.co.uk), stating that this was not 'further evidence' being added, it was merely my comments on the evidence, sent within the seven days - a right offered by POPLA, which POPLA then reneged upon. Why offer for people to make comments on evidence if you then ignore those comments? Comments on the signage evidence are NOT new points - my appeal HAD raised signage as a clear issue and the operator's evidence failed.

Are consumers supposed to be psychic and second-guess in advance, what 'evidence' photos might appear in a pack? How can people do that? People never had to do that under the old POPLA system and both parties under 'old POPLA' were perfectly entitled - and the Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade upheld it as a vital point of fairness - to comment on evidence.

What if an operator has shown misleading evidence (as they have here, this operator included new IPC signs installed SINCE this operator left the BPA!). My comments included vital observations such as: ''I believe that the undated photos are post 1st March 2016'' and I explained in simple terms, how I could tell. At what other point am I allowed to say this/could I have said this, having only just seen the evidence photos for the first time the week before? Yet POPLA ignored my comments. To Mr Connop, I stated that my comments on the operator's evidence would have had a significant impact on the outcome of the appeal and that I was not at all happy with the way the appeal had been handled.

I would suggest the above for a start.

Beewi

Thank you CM, these additions are most helpful!

I have updated my complaint letter with your comments. Do you think I need to emphasise the point regarding the photographic evidence provided by PPS being dubious... 'and the bad signage renders the Beavis case inapplicable' ? Or do you think it's ready to go in its current format?

Thanks as always!

Coupon-mad

Yes that is the main thing to emphasise, that they used in evidence, undated photos with IPC logos on, which any fule kno were taken AFTER they joined the IPC and you pointed that out. It was vital and was not a comment you could possibly have made earlier.

If anything shows the importance of a consumer having their comments on the 'evidence pack' read and taken into account, it is this sort of situation. POPLA has failed you. Say so.

Beewi

Sorry CM, I don't think I made myself clear in my last post.

Do you think I need to labour the point about the bad signage 'renders the Beavis case inapplicable' or should I stick to the main argument regarding the dubious photographic evidence and more importantly my comments not being considered?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I think it is long enough and I know you will be fobbed off, so you will be complaining to ISPA. So you don't need to labour the point that bad signage 'renders the Beavis case inapplicable'. Labour the point that you commented clearly that a significant number of the signs in the 'evidence' were provably taken after the company moved to the IPC, so they simply cannot have been there. That is exactly why POPLA MUST take comments on evidence into account and read the comments in full and compare them to the evidence before making a decision.

Beewi

Thanks CM. I have now submitted the following POPLA complaint letter. I will keep you all posted.

To: complaints@popla.co.uk;
CC: aos@britishparking.co.uk; david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr Gallagher,

Re: Formal complaint and request to reopen case Premier Parking Solutions (PCN: A5009899) due to my comments in Point 2 ‘Conditions on Signage’ and Point 5 relating to ‘A fault on PPS’s pay & display machine key pad’, which were NOT considered at the appeal stage.

POPLA Case Ref: 6860776023

Following a recent appeal against Premier Parking Solutions (PPS), I am making a formal complaint about the way my case was unprofessionally handled and contained some serious errors, which had a significant impact on the outcome of my appeal.

Following the appeal, I was emailed on 03/05/16 and given the opportunity to respond to the case file submitted by PPS. The email stated “You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.”

On 09/05/16, I submitted a document via info@popla.co.uk, which detailed my comments as I was unable to address all of the salient points I wished to raise on the appeals track due to the 2,000 character restriction.

On 10/05/16 at 09:07, I received an email response from Samuel Connop from the POPLA Team advising me that “We note that you wish to submit additional evidence in support of your appeal. However...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.”

Then at 12:24, I received another email from Siobhan Gooley, POPLA Assessor, advising me that “We have now reached the end of our investigation process and the decision can be found on the portal.” The decision was ‘Unsuccessful’.

On 10/05/16 at 21:17, I responded to Mr Connop (and copied in complaints@popla.co.uk), stating that I had not submitted ‘additional evidence’, merely my comments on the case file evidence, sent within the seven day deadline - a right offered by POPLA, which POPLA then reneged upon. Why offer the opportunity to make comments on evidence if you then ignore those comments?

Comments on the signage evidence are NOT new points, my appeal had raised ‘Unclear and Inadequate Signage’ as clear issue and the operator’s evidence failed. Are consumers supposed to be psychic and second-guess in advance what photographic evidence might appear in the case file? How is that possible? This was never the case under the old POPLA system and both parties under ‘old POPLA’ were perfectly entitled – and the Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade upheld it as a vital point of fairness – to comment on evidence.

What if an operator has shown misleading evidence, as they have in this case? (PPS included new IPC signs installed SINCE they left the BPA!). My comments included vital observations such as ‘I believe that the undated photos are post 1st March 2016’ and I explained in simple terms, how I could tell. At what point am I allowed to say this or could I have said this, having only just seen the photographic evidence for the first time the week before? And yet POPLA ignored my comments.

I also stated to Mr Connop that my comments on the operator’s evidence would have had a significant impact on the outcome of the appeal and that I was not at all happy with the way the appeal had been handled.

Then on 11/05/16 at 11:28, I received an email from Emily Chriscoli from the POPLA Team advising me that she had “...taken the time to review [my] original appeal submission, the operator's case file and the document submitted for [my] comments on the operator's case file.” And that based on her assessment of my comments, “I am satisfied that they would not have made a material difference.”

Ms Chriscoli then continues to say “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. 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.”

Had my case file comments been carefully reviewed and considered, and in her words, “base [our] decisions upon the factual evidence presented to us”, she would have in fact realised that I was merely voicing my concerns and highlighting blatant discrepancies in the photographic evidence provided by PPS. On what authority does a member of the POPLA Team have to assess evidence for a case and make a decision in place of an Assessor?

The comments I made regarding ‘Conditions on Signage’ were totally misunderstood and the facts overlooked by an actual Assessor, who has not looked properly at the evidence of the signs at all. Furthermore I was denied my comments on the signage evidence being read by the Assessor prior to a decision being made. Had this happened, I believe that the outcome of the appeal could have most certainly been different because the photographic evidence provided by PPS is dubious and the bad signage renders the Beavis case inapplicable.

I would urge you to properly consider the issues with the case file evidence as raised in my original comments, and highlighted again below:-

1. 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).

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. There is no site map provided.

In addition, my comments raised concerns about the PPS pay & display parking machine being faulty ...’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.’

This legitimate concern has been totally disregarded as there is no mention of it in Ms Chriscoli’s email, let alone any further investigation taking place. Incidentally I have since been back to the parking site and have carefully noted that there is in fact a fault with the pay & display machine in question, which I would urge you to consider.

The printed instructions tell the purchaser to enter their VRN. Then whilst you are concentrating on pressing the correct letters and numbers on the key pad, unbeknownst to you, after pressing the first letter of the VRN, an instruction telling you what to do appears in the display screen. So, the first letter you press merely activates the idle machine – but it is not registered. As soon as you key in the second letter, the instruction disappears from the display screen and the second letter appears as the first letter on the printed ticket.

The complete lack of good faith and transparency by PPS, not to mention the clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice, has left me feeling extremely distressed. This has been further exacerbated by the unprofessional handling of my appeal to POPLA, which also contained some serious errors. Consequently, I am offering POPLA, BPA and the DVLA the opportunity to review this case and observe that I have been unfairly treated to this point before I am forced to raise the complaint with ISPA.

Cazzamo

My daughter has received a PCN for parking in the next town to Totnes. She paid £4- 00 which would have given her 12 hours parking but was parked for 2 1/2 hours. She is unable to find the ticket (typical)....The PCN has been sent to our address but she no longer lives with us and has updated her new address with the DVLA. We also believe a digit was entered incorrectly an 'o' instead of a zero. She intends to ignore this notice and have no contact with them as they are clearly scamming for money when they know she paid.

I have read other threads on this site advising to ignore these letters, PPS state that 'at the time of this notice we do not know both the name of the driver or the current address for service for the driver and as the registered keeper of the vehicle.'

I would welcome a bit of advice please.

Thank you

Redx

the best advice is that you start a new thread of your own and copy and paste the above into the posting box

then please read the NEWBIES sticky thread

there is no advice on here to IGNORE these pcn,s and only a fool would do so

ie:- always appeal to the PPC and complain to the landowner - period

do not name the driver or even imply it

Beewi

Hi folks,

I have some fantastic news for you all.....WE WON! POPLA have finally seen sense and allowed my appeal :j

I can't say thank you enough for all of your help and advice, in particular Pulpotim & Coupon-mad. Justice has at long last prevailed! I am relieved beyond belief and glad for it to be over with; there is nothing more exhausting and frustrating than trying to prove your innocence.

And so for the final piece of the jigsaw, please see below the response from POPLA:-

Your parking charge Appeal against Premier Parking Solutions.

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal.

We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number A5009899, arising out of the presence of a vehicle with registration mark Sxxx xxx.

The Appellant Appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Allowed.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.

Assessors summary of operators case:

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

Assessors summary of appellants 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 pre-estimate 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s determination: The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal. The following decision will focus on the ground of inadequate or unclear signage, as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal.

The operator has supplied photographic evidence which shows the appellant’s vehicle, registration Sxxx 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 Sxxx xxx.

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. Further, Section 18.3 of the Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Within its response, the operator has supplied photographic evidence of the signage on site. Some of these are date stamped December 2016, and some are not date stamped. The date-stamped photographs are not clear enough to make out the detailed terms and conditions of parking. The photographs of the signage which are clear are not date stamped, and from these, I can see that the signage on site has been amended at some point with an International Parking Community logo and a sticker over the existing terms and conditions.

As such, I am unable to determine what signage was in place on the date of the parking event, and whether the driver was sufficiently notified of the terms and conditions of parking, or the circumstances in which a PCN would be issued.

It is the responsibility of the operator to provide clear and concise evidence to show that the appellant has not adhered to the terms and conditions set out at the site. As such, I cannot confirm whether the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

Accordingly, the Appeal is Allowed.

Yours sincerely

Siobhan Gooley
LT6109/003