General Parking and Landowner Authority

fabs35

Hi


I have received a PCN (issued by ParkDirect UK in Uxbridge) and appeal both to PDUK and POPLA - both appeals have been rejected:


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104424&st=40&start=40


The POPLA assessor has stated that as the car park is not for general use, there is no need for an entrance sign? Has anyone come across this - what is the definition of General Use?


Additionally PDUK have provided a copy of a three year old, hand-written contract - is there a requirement for the agreement to be updated at regular intervals?


TIA


Fabs

Fruitcake

Send a complaint to the ISPA. The Parking-Prankster may also be interested in this.

Ralph-y

hi and welcome to the forum ....

can you post up the full POPLA decision ....

Ralph:cool:

fabs35

No problem - this was my most recent mail to POPLA (which seems to have been ignored by them)...


Dear Sirs

I write in response to the POPLA appeal response from Park Direct UK.

Park Direct seem to have issued a standard response, making untrue and misleading points and addressing points that I have not raised:

•'Despite the motorists claim that the PCN did not state the exact location of the contravention' - I have not stated this
•Implying that I have used the Beavis case as an appeal point. I have not, instead I clearly pointed out (in item 6 of my POPLA appeal) that the circumstances clearly distinguish this case from the situation in Parking Eye vs. Beavis.
•Implying that I have claimed that non-use of ANPR technology is against the BPA CoP - my appeal clearly states (point 5 of my appeal) that their KADOE agreement with the DVLA requires that either PCN's should be issued on the windscreen (at the point that the alleged contravention occurred) or by post, having used ANPR technology. Walking around using a mobile telephone to take pictures for evidence is a clear breach of the agreement and I will be reporting the PPC to DVLA.

Instead, Park Direct have failed to address the every one of my appeal points and in some areas have proved to be deceitful:

•Grace Period - Park Direct claim that they instruct their attendants to give a grace period before issuing a ticket. This is incorrect - as the vehicle had stopped (not parked) for just over two minutes. If they claim that a grace period had been given, they are required to provide evidence of their claim, which does not and cannot exist.
•Inadequate signage - I have attached the picture of the entrance provided by Park Direct and also attached two pictures of the entrance that I have taken. The pictures that I have taken clearly show that there are no BPA compliant signs at the entrance. The Park Direct photo shows two signs at the entrance - one of which (on the far left) on top of a very basic yellow sign, has been superimposed and manipulated in order to mislead POPLA. I have since visited the site on a number of occasions and witnessed that sometimes there are no signs and sometimes there is one sign, placed temporarily on the floor.
•The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012, schedule 4 due to numerous failings, which have been detailed in my POPLA appeal. Therefore keeper liability cannot be established, resulting in an invalid parking charge.
•No contract with landowner - In the evidence pack provided to me, there is no contract with the landowner (please see the screen-shot below). I have since spoken with a POPLA customer team member and been told that Park Direct have provided a different evidence pack to POPLA, which includes the contract. I was asked to email Park Direct and to request a copy, which I have done but I still have not received the contract. I will be reporting Park Direct to the BPA.
•Breach of DVLA KADOE agreement - as previously stated, the DVLA do not permit the use of mobile phones to gather and use as evidence for issuing penalty charges. They have failed to address this material breach.
•Penalty charge rule not disengaged - The Beavis case related to specific circumstances which involved the offer of free parking for a limited period. This alleged contravention relates to alleged trespass, where the penalty rule is always engaged (as stated by the Judges in the Beavis case). They also stated that third parties without title, cannot pursue a charge for trespass; only the landowner can. The Beavis case works more in my favour than for Park Direct as there is no similarity, not in the non-existent entrance signs, nor the allegation, nor the timings, nor their rationale for the disproportionate charge, nor the lack of evidenced grace period, nor the DVLA and BPA breaches, nor the manipulated images, nor the lack of compliance with POFA 2012, nor the planned differing evidence packs and nor the unfair terms.

Additionally as Park Direct have confirmed, there was an attendant watching the driver and rather than attempt to mitigate any losses by informing the driver of the terms of parking, he took the opportunity to take secret pictures in order to allow Park Direct to issue an invalid charge, backed up by manipulated evidence. In the case of Vehicle Control Services vs, Ibbotson, Judge McIlwaine stated that:

"the parking attendant was there and saw Mr Ibbotson walking away, whilst it may
not be his responsibility to stop him walking away, as he is a lawful authorised member of the company at the time he is there and there is a duty to mitigate the loss, can you explain to me why he did not?"

It is clear that Park Direct are back to using underhand and deceitful tactics (as widely publicised in the general media) in order to intimidate members of the public into paying over extortionate sums. I hope that the POPLA assessor upholds my appeal based on the serious and misleading evidence provided by this private parking operator.

fabs35

and this was their decision...


Dear xxxxxx

Your parking charge Appeal against Park Direct UK Ltd.

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 xxxxx, arising out of the presence of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.

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 Refused.

In order to avoid any further action by the Operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Reasons for the Assessor’s determination: In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.
The appellant has advised the operator has no authority to issue parking charges on the site. After reviewing the contract provided I am happy that this complies with section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, and I am satisfied that the operator has proven that it had the authority to operate on the land on the date in question, as well as pursue unpaid parking charges through the courts.

The appellant has raised the ground for appeal that no contract has been formed with the driver due to inadequate signage.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.1 “you must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

Also the BPA Code of practice section 18.3 advises “you must place signs containing the specific terms and conditions throughout the site.”

I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA.

Having reviewed the appellant’s statement he has made particular reference to the entrance sign stating the sign is small and has been placed on the floor. In the BPA Code of Practice section 18.2 states that “entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”.

While I appreciate that the sign has been placed on the floor the BPA Code of Practice section 18.2 goes on to state “a standard for of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance of the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical for example: at parking areas where general parking is not permitted”.

In this case, the parking area is not for general use, while I appreciate that on site there are parking bays situated they are for the staff of the local shops. As stated on the signage “unauthorised vehicles strictly no stopping/ waiting or parking”.

The appellant has also raised the ground for appeal that sufficient grace period has not been provided for the driver to have the time to read the signs on site and then leave after the driver could not comply with the terms and conditions of the signage.

The BPA Code of Practice section 13.1 states “your approach to car park management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

The BPA Code of Practice goes on to states in section 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 you signs and leave without taking enforcement action”.

Both section 13.1 and 13.2 outline grace periods in the BPA Code of Practice for drivers to have the time to read the terms and conditions of the site, and if they cannot agree to those terms, the driver has the time to leave the site without penalty.

The appellant states in his statement that the driver stopped to drop someone off, they noticed the signs indicating no stopping or waiting on the land, they left and spent a period of two minutes on site.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant parked on site, where the passenger of the vehicle is captured exiting the vehicle. Within close proximity of the appellant’s vehicle is a sign that states “no waiting” therefore in this case the grace period is not applicable as by the appellant’s own admission he dropped a passenger off, and grace periods are only applicable to understanding and accepting the terms and conditions of the car park.

The appellant has also raised the ground for appeal that breach of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) KADOE contract.

The rules governing the KADOE contract and the release of information are the DVLA’s rules to interpret and the DVLA has willingly provided the information to the parking operator. Further to this, I can find nothing in the KADEO contract (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf) to suggest that the DVLA can only release details for an ANPR car park. There are a number of Manual Number Plate Recognition (MNPR) car parks that the DVLA regularly finds that applications from such car parks had reasonable cause; as it releases the details.

The appellant also states that the charge is not based on a genuine pre estimate of loss.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signs on site that state “vehicles stopping / waiting or parking on this land not displaying a valid parking permit or is parked outside of a designated parking area will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice immediately by a Park Direct UK attendant or surveillance camera at a charge of £100.00 to be paid within 28 days of the notice serve date or reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days of the notice served date.”

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. 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 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 pre estimate of cost to the landowner; the signage at the site 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 £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the appellant has not adhered to the sites terms and conditions by stopping on site were parking restrictions are in place.

As such, I can confirm the PCN was issued correctly..

Accordingly, the Appeal is Refused.

Yours sincerely

Mark Yates

They seem to have ignored my photograph showing no entrance sign present (which means that on the day that my car had stopped in the car park, it is possible that no sign was displayed) and also the fact that the landowner contract is in two parts but
show the landowner as two different companies.

Fruitcake

That is a disgraceful decision. Definitely contact Parking-Prankster.

You mention that a sign has been superimposed in an evidence picture. I'm sure everyone here would like to see that here. If you are certain it has been doctored than contact trading standards and the DVLA as this is fraud. Refer them to the recent cases where UKPC doctored photo' "evidence."

beamerguy

Mark Yates clearly is very ignorant.

It is the sort of rubbish that comes out of the IAS

fabs35

Hopefully this will work...


http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j367/fabs35/20160426_203635_zps51usaztt.jpg

fabs35

vs...


http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j367/fabs35/Manipulated%20entrance%20photo%20from%20PDUK_zpsjktirxtn.jpg

Fruitcake

fabs35 wrote: »

Hopefully this will work...


http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j367/fabs35/20160426_203635_zps51usaztt.jpg

Is that your picture, or the one where you allege the parking scumpany has imposed another sign onto it? That's the one we really want to see.

Quentin

fabs35 wrote: »

vs...


http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j367/fabs35/Manipulated%20entrance%20photo%20from%20PDUK_zpsjktirxtn.jpg

Link no good

photo removed