NSGL Parking - Peel Centre Gloucester

Ralph-y

"Let me get this right, run me through this again, you see no hope in my appeal to POPLA showing this company has broken the BPA COP several times on several points in plain sight and been fraudulant? And there is no hope? - When it loses then if this is the case, court it is. "

It will be hard to comment fully if we cannot see all the information

Ralph:cool:

Absenthe

Hello all, as you said it would fail it did.

Please advise what to do next

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Graham Davies

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN’) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked without authorisation.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is he does not believe the cost of the PCN represents the loss incurred by the landowner. He states the signage is inadequate and he believed he parked on a public road. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue PCNs.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle on 30 May 2016. This evidence shows the vehicle parked by the roadside on the site. The operator has provided evidence of signage at the site. The signage states: “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING … NO WAITING … A PARKING CHARGE OF £100 WILL BE PAYABLE IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES … PARKED WITHOUT VALID PRIOR AUTHORISATION” The British Parking Association Code of Practice (‘the Code’) provides guidance on signage. From Section 18.1: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Section 18.3 of the Code: “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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.” I note the appellant has raised a concern over the signage at the time of the parking event, and the addition of signage since that time. However, after reviewing the photographic evidence provided by both sides of signage at the time of the parking event I consider it is compliant with the above sections of the Code. I consider the appellant had the opportunity to read the terms and conditions and that it is clear that unauthorised parking is in breach of the site’s terms and conditions. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue PCNs. The operator has provided a copy of an agreement between itself and Gloucester Quays Outlet Centre. The agreement is signed by representatives of both parties and covers St Ann Way. After reviewing this evidence I am satisfied it is compliant with Section 7 of the Code. I note the appellant’s concerns over the location of High Orchard stated on the Notice to Keeper. However, the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle and so I will not consider this point further. The appellant has raised his concern over the cost of the Parking Charge. This issue was considered in Beavis v ParkingEye by 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 loss; the signage at the location 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. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By entering the site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions of the signage. By remaining on the site without authorisation, the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site on this occasion. Therefore, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly

Redx

in future , read COUPON-MAD`s NEWBIES FAQ sticky post , 3 threads down , not "MARTINS" advice

and get advice from here or pepipoo forums before submitting defences or appeals

come back if you get an LBC or an MCOL (not useless debt collector letters)

Absenthe

However, the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle and so I will not consider this point further - does this mean they will chase me at my address?

Redx

it means that assumption was made (or was admitted) that the keeper and driver are one and the same , so the operator is chasing one entity, (which they will continue to do now that they have won at popla)

Coupon-mad

Absenthe wrote: »

However, the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle and so I will not consider this point further - does this mean they will chase me at my address?

Only by a silly, hysterical, red font letter-chain of 'debt demands' that you must file and ignore. No-one can come knocking, they can't send bailiffs round without the small matter of winning in court first, of course. And they do not do court (yet) and if they tried it would be defendable as long as you got help here before submitting the defence (we do help with these as well).

The BMPA insight on this firm shows they are very small, hardly any PCNs, no court claims:

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

You will not be at 'ignore the debt collector stage' for many months until they give up. Read this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

By wasting your chances at POPLA (because you didn't know any different...and we understand that) you are simply in the position everyone used to be in before POPLA existed 4 years ago. We all ignored these PCNs then, I collected 4 or 5 (can't recall) and just laughed at all the letters. At least yours is a minor firm with no record of court!

HTH, no worries, sit tight and enjoy the letters. They are pretty funny once you have read enough to now what to expect!

Absenthe

So they will still chase the Registered keeper? She was not driving. and I am a He?

Is it worth sending a letter to The Peel Centre?

Saturday 31st August

The management company, Peel Centre Retail Park, Gloucester

I am writing to you to request your help with an appeal for a parking charge notices which have been issued to me by NSGL Parking Limited.

Parking Charge Notice 17324 Issue date 30/05/16

These charges relate to an alleged contravention which took place on 30/05/16.

On the Day of the Alleged offense I had borrowed a friends car in order to get to The Peel Centre to Join up to The Gym Group Gym that is located on your property, I was new to the area and parked what I thought was ok, due to not seeing any signage and not parking in The Orchard Pub Car park, many cars and large vans were parked at this spot and again I could at the time see no signs.

I Joined up with The Gym and was very inpressed with the service there, and the Quays as a whole, the guys told me about special parking deal that allows me now as a new member to park in the Peel Car Park, they told me how to get to it and that a Rate of 50p per hour max of 3 hours is allowed, feeling very happy with The Gym Group and The Peel centre, I left to return to my friends car, that had a PCN on it, many of the cars and 2 of the larger vans that covered the signage had moved allowing me to see it.

I Read the details on the Ticket and understood I could appeal, as the place that I parked the car had no signage and the other cars and two larger vans covered the sign that was present on the other side of the road, I appealed to NSGL Parking and heared nothing for weeks, I drove past the spot again, and saw several new sign's up in the place I pointed out did not have it, therefore I would not have parked there, and thought they had chancelled the ticket,

Another two weeks went by and the Registered keeper had a NTK for a charge, I explained to them that I appealled and the Company put new signs up were I parked the car, I then contacted AOS and they informed me to contact the company again, I did this an NSGL told me that "They never recived it".

I provide you with the Pictures of the where I Parked and Pictures Several weeks later after NSGL Parking "Never got my appeal about lack of signage at the point I parked the car"

I would be grateful if you would review this case and under the circumstances request that NSGL Parking cancel these charges.

I regularly shop, eat and Train at the Peel Centre, but now I am considering changing my opinion on this under the circumstances.

If you feel as I am now a member of The Gym and Parked on your property, I would be happy if you assist in cancelling the parking charge notice, I would be happy to pay my Gym Group Parking rate of 50p x 2 or would be very happy to give The Peel Centre Glouceter a great review on Tripadvisor and also make a donation to Help the Heros.

Yours sincerely

Coupon-mad

So they will still chase the Registered keeper? She was not driving. and I am a He?

Yes, but merely with letters, so what? I'm a she and I laughed at mine over the years, having ignored several fake PCNs like this one.

Is it worth sending a letter to The Peel Centre?

Yes but not written in your name - you have just given away who was driving, do NOT do that. The keeper complains - or YOU, in her name, not saying 'I borrowed this car and I parked...'. Eeek, no.

Absenthe

Ok sounds good, will send one and see what happens, if they do not reply or help then its no loss right.

Just ignore until court, if that ever happens, and also not in my name. will be back for more,

Mad Coupon can you PM me, I d would like to ask Private question. unable to PM you.

Coupon-mad

I can't deal with stuff by pm, sorry. I have a very nasty harasser on forums right now so I don't take private messages.