'Grace Periods' when car park rule is 'Do not leave site'

The_Deep · 21 July 2016 at 6:31AM

leaving site claims are uphill work for PPCs

They have to prove that you left site so in most cases the parking weasel has to see you doing so, if which case why did not he/she warm you of the financial consequences of doing so?

The word entrapment comes to mind

Herzlos · 21 July 2016 at 8:50AM

They also have essentially no evidence, as the weasel won't attend court to testify that they watched you left the site - they'd get torn apart, and if they don't their statement is worthless.

AliceMS88 · 22 July 2016 at 12:02PM

Cor, this POPLA appeal is quite hard! My case doesn't really fall into the top 4 categories that they have to choose from so I am having to go down the 'other' route. It does say that appeals based solely on the following grounds (other/extreme circumstances) are less likely to be successful - oh well fingers crossed!

Coupon-mad · 22 July 2016 at 12:08PM

AliceMS88 wrote: »

Cor, this POPLA appeal is quite hard! My case doesn't really fall into the top 4 categories that they have to choose from so I am having to go down the 'other' route. It does say that appeals based solely on the following grounds (other/extreme circumstances) are less likely to be successful - oh well fingers crossed!

You haven't shown us your draft appeal.

And we ALWAYS tell people to put it in as 'other' that is what the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you to do anyway...this is no different from any other case. But we want to help with that appeal in case you've based it on an old one or missed a trick.

AliceMS88 · 22 July 2016 at 12:14PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You haven't shown us your draft appeal.

And we ALWAYS tell people to put it in as 'other' that is what the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you to do anyway...this is no different from any other case. But we want to help with that appeal in case you've based it on an old one or missed a trick.

I will definitely be posting the appeal draft here first - I really appreciate all the help! Sorry, I did read the newbie thread a few days ago but didn't hold as much information in my head as I thought - I will re-read it to hopefully avoid asking questions that have already been answered.

AliceMS88 · 22 July 2016 at 4:36PM

Ok, so here is my first draft, I am expecting quite a few ammendments to be suggested so please don't hold back! I have used various sections from previous POPLA appeals (only 2016 ones) as I am not great with wording.

I visited the site today as I do think the signage is pretty poor, there is only a tiny sign as you enter (not prominent at all) I will see if I can get some photos up.

I do feel like I want to add how unfair the charge is....maybe because I am annoyed...but should I include the fact that the car park is solely for Burger King users, of which I had tried to be one only to find that the restaurant was closed and I had returned well before the restaurant was open so there just can't be any loss to the landowner! In fact, the parking ticket itself cost the landowner some business as I was so furious/upset when I returned that I promptly left the site (I didn't want to spend any money in a place that has such a ruthless parking management company). The ticket has 2 fields that have not been completed but does say the period of parking is the period immediately preceding the issue date/time - issue time was 08:42 and I was trying the restaurant door at 08:40 so the ticket actually only covers 2 minutes!!

Anyway, I will stop rambling...any thoughts on the below would be greatly appreciated.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number [xxxxxxx]!
Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxxx]
POPLA Reference Number: [xxxxxxxx]

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from APEX Parking Ltd.

The Parking Charge Notice was received at Burger King, Havant, PO9 1HB:

The basis of my appeal is:

1) Lack of standing/authority from landowner

APEX Parking Ltd has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

APEX Parking Ltd have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APEX Parking Ltd are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require APEX Parking Ltd to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner or their appointed agents as per section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for APEX Parking Ltd merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner/agent).. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner or their appointed agents, otherwise there is no authority. I also request APEX Parking Ltd to provide the specific land boundary to which they manage.

2) Lack of signage – no contract with driver

The signs were not visible from a distance and are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. I put APEX Parking Ltd to prove otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos of the signs as the driver would seen them on entering the car park. The entrance sign is inadequate and a further sign stating the terms and conditions is in the far corner of the car park (the opposite direction to the restaurant). The driver is not able to view the parking charge details without leaving their car having parked. The mention of an £100 charge is small and not prominent on any signs. Please find photos attached with this appeal to demonstrate.

Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice also states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to fully comply with the following on entrance signage:

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. 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, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

If a driver can't read the sum of the parking charge (the £100) before parking - because the font is too small/the sign unremarkable and too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it.

3) PCN not complete

The PCN issued has two fields which have been left blank. These are the 'Observed From' and 'Observed To' fields.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
Yours sincerely,
[XXXXXXXXX]
[XXXXXXXXX]

AliceMS88 · 22 July 2016 at 4:43PM

Hope these work!

13839690_10153835782419227_708317690_o.jpg?dl=0

13833285_10153835782194227_20249268_o.jpg?dl=0

13728455_10153835782244227_917045281_o.jpg?dl=0

13702315_10153830367534227_744142892_o.jpg?dl=0

Coupon-mad · 22 July 2016 at 4:50PM

should I include the fact that the car park is solely for Burger King users, of which I had tried to be one only to find that the restaurant was closed and I had returned well before the restaurant was open so there just can't be any loss to the landowner!

Nope, see here for why not:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70941053#Comment_70941053

Supreme Court? Hmmm...

BTW I can't see those pics.