Premier Park Ltd - Exeter

Coupon-mad

Here is what POPLA said your case was but in fact your case revolved around the fact this looked like public highway and was not marked as private land and was not part of the 'car park' so no restrictions were signed that could apply:

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he arrived at the hotel and he was late meeting someone. He states he unloaded his bags and parked on double yellow lines.

So the Assessor missed the main point of your appeal. Your appeal was NOT 'I unloaded bags on double yelllows'.

And here's what the Assessor said as his first words:

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of sufficient clear signage located throughout the car park

So...how did he completely miss all your statements about the fact that there were no signs seen ON THE ROAD about THE ROAD (never mind in the car park) which was only marked in a way which allows loading/unloading?

I've underlined the obvious things you said and the Assessor ignored:

freester wrote: »

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

Finally, the Assessor talks about 'onsite' but you are saying you were not in the car park so did the evidence pack define the boundary clearly or not - did they show a site map which included the road and showed signs on the roadway? Did they evidence that this roadway is private land and show any signs at the roadway telling a driver that?

The Assessor's understanding of the meaning of double yellows is fundamentally wrong as regards loading/unloading and this should also form part of your complaint:

''this does not detract from the fact it remains the appellant’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions on site by ensuring he is parked within a marked bay rather than double yellow lines. After reviewing the operator’s evidence I can see the appellant parked on double yellow lines, double yellow lines mean no waiting at any time unless there are signs that specifically indicate restrictions.''

NOT TRUE. THE REVERSE IS TRUE AS FAR AS LOADING RESTRICTIONS ARE CONCERNED. Double yellow lines mean that, although parking or waiting is not allowed, there are exemptions including disabled Blue Badge holders and boarding/alighting and in your case, loading/unloading for a period of minutes (the 'norm' re real PCNs on-street being up to 20 minutes and certainly more than a few minutes, on street, which this appeared to be, as your appeal said).

If there is a restriction disallowing loading/unloading then that is when signs are needed, not the other way round. The absence of any kerb 'blips' and loading restriction/ban signs at double yellows tell a driver that loading/unloading IS allowed. He has it ar£e about face.

freester

CM - I couldn't agree more with what you stated above. In answer to your questions...

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Finally, the Assessor talks about 'onsite' but you are saying you were not in the car park so did the evidence pack define the boundary clearly or not - did they show a site map which included the road and showed signs on the roadway? Did they evidence that this roadway is private land and show any signs at the roadway telling a driver that?

No site map. There was a copy of the sign at the public private boundary. This was the one I argued in the rebuttal that I didn't see it. Over 3 metres high above a 5MPH sign. The signage was insufficient (too high, no Group 1 lettering, no letters at minimum 60mm height). I provided photographic evidence in the rebuttal (but not the original appeal).

The Assessor's understanding of the meaning of double yellows is fundamentally wrong as regards loading/unloading and this should also form part of your complaint:



NOT TRUE. THE REVERSE IS TRUE AS FAR AS LOADING RESTRICTIONS ARE CONCERNED. Double yellow lines mean that, although parking or waiting is nor allowed, there are exemptions including disabled Blue Badge holders and boarding/alighting and in your case, loading/unloading for a period of minutes (the 'norm' re real PCNs on-street being up to 20 minutes and certainly more than a few minutes, on street, which this apeared to be, as your appeal said).

If there is a restriction disallowing loading/unloading then that is when signs are needed, not the other way round. The absence of any kerb 'blips' and loading restriction/ban signs at double yellows tell a driver that loading/unloading IS allowed. He has it ar£e about face.

I know I also included that in the rebuttal.

To be honest. I have no faith that I'll get anywhere with a complaint with POPLA. They clearly didn't read my response as far as I can tell. The way I got my notification 3-4 hours after I advanced the case on the tracking tool says it all to me. I am sure they'll play the 'no new evidence in the response to case comments' card which seems to be the norm (best example is Thorfan's recent thread with Premier Park).

I'll submit a complaint but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Next stage ignore all the letters I suppose.

Coupon-mad

ISPA will review it for facts & fairness though - and we NEED all these to go to ISPA so they are fully aware POPLA currently have a huge problem of terrible lack of training on the applicable law(s) surrounding parking, causing the UK public loss as a result.

So do that next, like the other posters in your position are doing. Every complaint counts.

freester

Will direct a complaint to ISPA as well.

freester

Well no surprise as to the response to the complaint:

Thank you for your email.

Assessors will only consider grounds of appeal and evidence submitted when your appeal is first lodged. We cannot consider further evidence supplied when comments have been requested on the operator evidence. As such, the assessor has made the decision based on the information submitted as part of your appeal, and I am satisfied that the points raised in your appeal have been addressed by the assessor in her decision.


We note you are unhappy with our decision. However, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.

thorfan

Popla are now assuming that we are all psychic and can anticipate problems with the PPC evidence packs. The fact that the PPCs see our appeals and then provide evidence packs means the process is slanted against us.

I also wonder how much Premier Park Limited are paying POPLA at the moment.

Coupon-mad

Totally agree - and what's the point of asking for 'comments on evidence' if POPLA now ignore it?!

They used to read it when LondonCouncils made the decisions.

freester

So.

I think I've got the appetite to see them in court if it comes to that.

Final letter to PPL saying (in effect) 'I am happy your signage was inadequate and you didn't have landowner authority so see you in court or stop sending me letters'.

Or just ignore them (unless a Letter before Action appears)?

Umkomaas

freester wrote: »

So.

I think I've got the appetite to see them in court if it comes to that.

Final letter to PPL saying (in effect) 'I am happy your signage was inadequate and you didn't have landowner authority so see you in court or stop sending me letters'.

Or just ignore them (unless a Letter before Action appears)?

You could try that, often an early punch to the nose of a bully sees them run away.

Record of court appearance in the last 2.5 years - c54,000 tickets issued; 10 court cases.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Park.html

Do the math pardner (as they say in the good old US of A).

freester

Thanks!

Umkomaas wrote: »

You could try that, often an early punch to the nose of a bully sees them run away.

Or antagonise them!

Record of court appearance in the last 2.5 years - c54,000 tickets issued; 10 court cases.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Park.html

Do the math pardner (as they say in the good old US of A).

Interesting stats. NO court hearings in 2015 at all, 1 so far this year. Mmmm