Premier Park Ltd - Exeter

freester

Redx wrote: »

thanks, are you sure you cannot view it on the popla website and they didnt email you a copy of it ? nothing to indicate what you have written ?

if so please tell us the details on the appeal

if not , check post #34 of this thread where I outlined the usual appeal points and indicate every appeal point that you have touched upon in your popla appeal


*link deleted by OP*


ie:- if it had info like the ppc appeal above , you seem to have appealed on the following points ?

NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
GRACE PERIODS (Clause #13 of the BPA CoP)
POOR or INCORRECT SIGNAGE (including failing the BPA CoP)

and the CRA2015 too

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That first appeal doesn't look too bad - better than you described - so if they send evidence then you can add to any points you raised to POPLA. On balance if your POPA appeal had that sort of info then I would not withdraw it - but we can't promise a win (can't anyway, these days...seeing as the new Assessors are a law unto themselves as they seem so badly trained on the applicable law).

Why not email POPLA and ask them for a copy of your appeal wording submission. You can add that you feel that the POPLA system and 'guidance' telling you to put it in your own words has let you down and misled you. And you were disadvantaged by having to keep to 2000 characters and thought their email would show you your appeal.

So could they please tell you how to view your appeal or email a copy/paste so you know where you are and can refer to your appeal to compare it to Premier Park's evidence pack, if they contest it.

Thanks again everyone for the advice and reassurance.


I definitely can't access the text of my appeal from the online tracking tool.


I am going to request a copy of my text, and have a moan about the misleading website.

I'll post the text once I've got it.

What I will say is that the text of the POPLA appeal is worse than the original to Premier Park Ltd. I only focussed on what I thought was the inadequate signage. I think I also confessed to being the driver. :embarasse (drawn in by the 'in your own words' grr).

freester

Right here's the POPLA appeal text. I'm embarassed to be posting this. Anyway - hindsight (in this case this forum) is a wonderful thing...


On Sat March 12th my wife and I stayed at the Premier Inn, Southernhay Gardens in Exeter.

We arrived at the hotel and as we were late to meet someone out of town we unloaded our overnight bags by parking on double yellow lines on Southernhay Gardens outside then entrance to the hotel - please see attached photo 1.jpg and 2.jpg (from Premier Inn website) [OP comment these were images from Premier Inn website indicating where I had park in relation to the road and hotel]which shows situation of entrance by the road.

On arrival I was very aware of all the Premier Park no parking signs on the law court car parks. I did in fact turn my car around on the cobbled car park (see 3.jpg - screen shot from Streetview) in front of the law courts before parking on the double yellow lines to unload the car. I was parked there for no longer than 10 minutes. The car was occupied and could have been moved at any time when asked.

I have attached the 2 photos (4 and 5.jpg) [OP comment these were the 2 photos from PPL which sent with the PCN] which show that I was parked on the road, not on any obvious car park.

I wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice as follows:

The signage to not park in the law courts car parks off the road was very clear to me and so I decided to park on the road - on double yellow lines where I understand unloading is allowed unless other signs state otherwise.

My opinion is if the road is adopted by the local authorities then the PCN should not have been issued.

If the road is in fact private property than this was not clear from the signage. I parked on the road. I checked for signs by the roadside and could find no sign to indicate the road was part of the private property and the signage also applied to the road.

As you can see from image 5 the signs indicating no parking are set well back from the road (or on the walls in the car parks themselves). There was no signage or barriers indicating I was on private property or in a private car park by just being on the road. In fact the double yellow lines led me to believe I was on an adopted highway and unloading legally

POPLA didn't want to send this to me. I had to call and ask for the text. 'This is not something we usually do why do you want this?'. Me - 'ermm I want a copy for my records'.

bod1467

Not the greatest POPLA appeal, but unless PPL provide evidence that where you were parked was obviously signed as being private parking then you should be OK.

Wait and see what evidence pack PPL submit.

thorfan

Funny... I don't remember seeing any signs when i stayed there two weeks before you. I am sure that Premier Park Limited do not run the car park under the hotel and I thought all the parking in that area (streetwise) was controlled by Exeter Council. Have a look at your NTK and see if it is fully compliant as one on here has been recently thrown out by POPLA as non-compliant and i know the one that I have has exactly the same wording on it.

Also... I know Premier Park Limited are currently being looked at by the BPA so if you can find any issues make sure you pass them on to the BPA.

freester

bod1467 wrote: »

Not the greatest POPLA appeal, but unless PPL provide evidence that where you were parked was obviously signed as being private parking then you should be OK.

Wait and see what evidence pack PPL submit.

I know. All I can do is wait for the evidence pack.

thorfan wrote: »

Funny... I don't remember seeing any signs when i stayed there two weeks before you. I am sure that Premier Park Limited do not run the car park under the hotel and I thought all the parking in that area (streetwise) was controlled by Exeter Council. Have a look at your NTK and see if it is fully compliant as one on here has been recently thrown out by POPLA as non-compliant and i know the one that I have has exactly the same wording on it.

Also... I know Premier Park Limited are currently being looked at by the BPA so if you can find any issues make sure you pass them on to the BPA.

Basically there is one sign, 8 foot up above a 5mph sign. Just at the point where the road forks - head straight on for the courts, turn right to go to the Premier Inn / Gym underground car park.


Confusingly Premier Parking Solutions (as opposed to Premier Park Ltd) have signs on the short stretch of road from the right fork to the underground car park (and perhaps the underground Car Park itself? I don't know can't remember).


I checked the Devon County Council GIS Road Order system and it looks like they manage down to the 'fork' (with the same double yellow lines). It may be borderline whether the sign above the 5MPH sign is on the actual boundary.


I'll check my NTK tonight when I get back home. Unfortunately the appeal is submitted and I kind have admitted who the driver was in the POPLA appeal so too late for that.

dview99

Hello,
Can anybody help me. My partner has received a first letter from Premier Park Ltd about 3 days ago. It was addressed to her by name. She gets a discounted charge to £60 from £100. I know from your website that that we don't have to pay but you say don't ignore it either.
They got our address from the DVLA as the registered keeper as they are entitled being a member of the BPA. I read your page on Newbies etc, but I don't know which template I should use.
The reason they issued the PCN was because the vehicle was as follows: Parking Session Expired or Unpaid. My partner was at a show and put in £4 for as, she thought, 4 hours but it was for 3 hours and she went over the 3 hours but under 4 hours.

Umkomaas

dview99 wrote: »

Hello,
Can anybody help me. My partner has received a first letter from Premier Park Ltd about 3 days ago. It was addressed to her by name. She gets a discounted charge to £60 from £100. I know from your website that that we don't have to pay but you say don't ignore it either.
They got our address from the DVLA as the registered keeper as they are entitled being a member of the BPA. I read your page on Newbies etc, but I don't know which template I should use.
The reason they issued the PCN was because the vehicle was as follows: Parking Session Expired or Unpaid. My partner was at a show and put in £4 for as, she thought, 4 hours but it was for 3 hours and she went over the 3 hours but under 4 hours.

Please don't jump in on another poster's thread.

You do need to start a new thread of your own, as we work on the basis of 'one case, one thread' so advice doesn't become confused and/or we have a complete free for all with any number of random cases being tagged on.

But first of all you do need to read thoroughly the NEWBIES FAQS sticky at the top of the forum thread list (one page back from here) which will give all of the initial information you need. It was written by Coupon-mad, one of the country's most knowledgeable people in dealing with private parking tickets. You won't find anything more comprehensive than this anywhere online.

The sticky is detailed and you might need a couple of 'passes' to digest it, so bite sized chunks with a cup of tea and armed with a notepad and pen over a couple days might be the best approach. You do need to make the effort to do some research via the sticky before asking for further help from regulars - we are so busy each day it's impossible to type and constantly repeat basic information - hence the sticky with all that stuff covered. But do come back after reading it if anything isn't clear to you.

However, as above - via a new thread of your own please.

HTH

freester

Hi. I got the POPLA Case Pack back from Premier Park Ltd today. So I have 7 days to reply / respond / rebut the 'evidence'. Apologies for the long following post but I'd appreciate feedback on my rebuttal. There is a lot of photographic evidence with this one. So apologies that isn't included but trust me the pictures are there. If you haven't read from the top I messed up my appeal by writing what happened, I hadn't found this website then so didn't appeal according to the recommendations on here so the Keeper / POFA is now null and void.

Anyhow my response is on the inadequate signage (I will put all this along with the images in a PDF) - here goes...

POPLA Appeal xxxxxxxx
Car Registration yyyyyyyy

RESPONSE TO PREMIER PARK LTD’s CASE FILE
I wish to vigorously rebut the evidence presented in Premier Park Ltd’s Case File. The signage is not in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice recommendations and cannot be easily observed by the driver on entrance to the Private Land nor whilst stopped on the private land.

Section 18.2 of the BPA CoP states “Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park”

Appendix B – Entrance Signs states “Minimum Capital Height for Group 1 Text’ for ‘Parking Entered Immediately by turning off a 30mph road” is 60mm.

The boundary of this private land is with a County Council adopted highway with a 30mph speed limit.

As can be seen in image 1 and image 2 neither the ‘WELCOME’ (40mm) and ‘PRIVATE LAND’ (30mm) are the minimum size recommended for Group 1 text as recommended in the BPA CoP.

Image 1 – Size of ‘WELCOME’ line on sign - 40mm
Image 2 – size of ‘PRIVATE LAND’ wording on sign - 30mm

The entrance sign also does not meet the BPA CoP’s recommendation for Group 1 and Group 2 wording.
BPA CoP Appendix A states:

There must be at least one item from Group 1.
Group 1
Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes’/hour’s/hours’] free parking [for [business name] customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit holders only

Group 2
Charges apply [after this][after x minutes/hours]
Private land
Terms and conditions apply
See the notice [in the car park] for details

The capital height for Group 1 text will depend on the approach speed of traffic. Group 2 text should be at least 50% of this size. All other text should be smaller than 50% of the Group 1 text size. However, the name of the car park or parking area, or a brief welcome message (if included), may be larger.

Image 3 – whole of Entrance Sign

Therefore in image 3 on the Entrance Sign it is apparent

- There is NO evidence of ANY Group 1 item on the sign as included in the BPA CoP’s Group 1 Item list or ‘altered wording to fit the situation’.
- WELCOME is the ‘brief welcome message’.
- PRIVATE LAND is the Group 2 item.

NO wording (let alone any Group 1 items) reaches the minimum 60mm for an Entrance sign for a 30mph boundary entrance.

The BPA CoP Annex A also states:

The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

Image 4 shows the position of the Entrance sign on the sign by the side of the road. Images 5 and 6 show that the BOTTOM of the entrance sign is greater than 3 metres above the ground

Image 4 – Entrance sign at top of post
Image 5 – height of bottom of entrance sign from the ground showing greater than 3m above ground
Image 6 – showing tape measure at 3m limit – for reference the subject’s height is 190cm. (picture of someone at top of step ladder measuring height of sign with tape measure fully extended to 3m)

Therefore I strongly maintain that the Entrance sign was NOT visible as it was not placed in a position that ‘is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead’. [FONT=&quot]The combination of placement, height and size of the lettering would make it impossible for the driver to read the sign without looking away from the road.[/FONT]

I also strongly dispute Premier Park Ltd’s photographic evidence that suggests signage was visible from where the appelant’s vehicle was parked.

In the Case Pack the first image in section F (timestamped yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss) shows the car in relation to a sign indicated by an arrow. Images 6 and 7 below show this sign taken from where the car was parked – the sign is OBSTRUCTED by a tree or presented with a side on aspect. NOT FACING the vehicle at all.

Image 6- Sign obstructed by tree from where vehicle stopped.
Image 7 – same sign side aspect from where vehicle stopped.

In the evidence pack there is a further image ‘PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 1 – PRIVATE LAND SIGNAGE DIRECTLY BESIDE WHERE VEHICLE PARKED’. This statement is UNTRUE and MISLEADING.

It can be seen from the 2nd image in the evidence pack timestamped yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss that the car is stopped BEHIND the sign, the sign is not readable from where the car is stopped. If in doubt the viewer can observe a slight change in road surface colour on the public / private boundary where the Entrance Sign is situated in a number of the images provided in the Case Pack. Using this line as reference it is clear that the car is stopped behind the sign and therefore the driver cannot read the sign from where the vehicle is stopped.

I would also like to add that on revisiting the site on 16th April 2016 I observed that Premier Park Ltd have added a new sign (sometime between 5-16th April) underneath the Entrance Sign facing the road – as can be seen in images 8 and 9.

Images of new sign facing the road

Therefore it is clear that Premier Park Ltd did consider the signage at this point as insufficient / inadequate and have taken remedial work since issuing this Penalty Charge Notice, and this appeal, to address and improve the signage.

I would also like to respond to further images / ‘evidence’ of signage provided by Premier Park Ltd in the Case Pack:
Timestamp yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss – this is the sign I have already shown could not be observed from the vehicle as it was either obscured by the tree or a side on aspect.

The rest of the signs were not observed as the driver / car did not progress any further onto the private land.

Further responses to the Premier Park Ltd’s Evidence pack are as follows

“The vehicle was parked on double yellow lines and was observed by our operative for 4 minutes.”

The BPA CoP recommends “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.”

I firmly rebut that 4 minutes is a ‘reasonable’ grace period for a driver to read the signs and decide to leave.

The evidence pack also includes a Witness Statement from, and confirming, that the Landowner is Major Security Services Ltd. I have applied for all three titles at this address (from the Land Registry) and the land owners are either

- Enterprise Civic Buildings Limited
- Exeter City Council
- The First Secretary of State

Therefore Premier Park Ltd has no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers as it does not have a contract with the Landowner.

“As can be seen from our photographic evidence, there is clear signage to advise motorists that they are entering PRIVATE LAND. This can be seen in both of the pictures of the Appellants vehicle.
“The vehicle was not authorised to park on this site and therefore, a Parking Charge Notice was issued.
“It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not.”

In summary I vigorously rebut the evidence in Premier Park Ltd’s Case Pack:

1) The Entrance Sign could not be easily observed as it did not meet the BPA CoP recommendations for
a. Lettering size
b. Group 1 item content
c. Position in relation to the road
2) Entrance sign and additional signs within the private land could not be observed from the stopping point
3) Premier Park Ltd does not have a current valid contract from the Landowner (s) to operate on this site

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld.

Coupon-mad

That's good signage detail except you have missed out saying that the actual terms and figure of £100 (or whatever) parking charge is in small print and can't be read from a car before parking. You have not used the Beavis case in your favour, such as by showing the Beavis case sign and comparing and contrasting the minimal words and large lettering for the £85 - and quoting from the Supreme Court judges about the signs being 'very prominent' and the actual £85 charge being easy to read.

Beavis sign here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

...use it and use the Supreme Court case because surely the PPC has cited it (Beavis)? You can't remain silent about it, show how it actually supports your appeal; turn it on its head.

before parking on the double yellow lines to unload the car.

And have they tried to argue that double yellows = no parking? Not true. Use the Highway Code and quote it like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70455677#Comment_70455677

You can argue any reasonably circumspect UK driver would follow the Highway Code meaning and understand that double yellows with no kerb blips are not an indicator of a loading/unloading ban. You will have to quote and even screenshot images from the Highway code - expect the 'wet behind the ears' new and badly trained POPLA Assessors not to have a clue.

HTH

freester

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's good signage detail except you have missed out saying that the actual terms and figure of £100 (or whatever) parking charge is in small print and can't be read from a car before parking.

Great - thanks. I'll add that.

You have not used the Beavis case in your favour, such as by showing the Beavis case sign and comparing and contrasting the minimal words and large lettering for the £85 - and quoting from the Supreme Court judges about the signs being 'very prominent' and the actual £85 charge being easy to read.

Beavis sign here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

...use it and use the Supreme Court case because surely the PPC has cited it (Beavis)? You can't remain silent about it, show how it actually supports your appeal; turn it on its head.

No mention of Beavis in the Case Pack (I rushed the POPLA appeal so didn't use the GPEoL argument). But I think I will use this to back up support of my appeal as an example of 'good' signage.

And have they tried to argue that double yellows = no parking? Not true. Use the Highway Code and quote it like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70455677#Comment_70455677

You can argue any reasonably circumspect UK driver would follow the Highway Code meaning and understand that double yellows with no kerb blips are not an indicator of a loading/unloading ban. You will have to quote and even screenshot images from the Highway code - expect the 'wet behind the ears' new and badly trained POPLA Assessors not to have a clue.

Yes they have mentioned the Double Yellows so I'll add that bit.

HTH

Thank you. Yes this has helped very much.


Final question - should I include the 3 PDF Land Registry title files with my rebuttal?