Tower Road Newquay parking fine

Coupon-mad

Lee12 wrote: »

Following my appeal via their website PE have sent me another PCN. imgur.com/a/IQOvv. And they've added a bit to the bottom. Do I need to take any action due this new letter?

No, it's a standard reminder.

Lee12

Ok, PE have rejected my appeal. Before I start drafting an appeals letter to POPLA does anyone have or know of a picture of the entrance to the Tower road (golf club) car park in Newquay? I don't mean a shot of the entrance from the road as if you're driving by but a shot as if you're driving into the car park. I'm interested to know if there is any clear sign to tell you how long you're allowed to look for a parking space for because I definitely didn't see 1.

Coupon-mad

Lee12 wrote: »

Ok, PE have rejected my appeal. Before I start drafting an appeals letter to POPLA does anyone have or know of a picture of the entrance to the Tower road (golf club) car park in Newquay? I don't mean a shot of the entrance from the road as if you're driving by but a shot as if you're driving into the car park. I'm interested to know if there is any clear sign to tell you how long you're allowed to look for a parking space for because I definitely didn't see 1.

Have a look at IvorpeCheque's posts, he's a Newquay local surf dude who has posted lots of pics and videos of the Newquay car parks here over the past months.

BTW ParkingEye signs never, in my experience, tell a driver how long a 'grace period' they have to find a space.

But you already have a 'trump card' of a non-POFA PCN so just use the same sort of appeal as Mahone1302's winning one, as linked last week in POPLA Decisions. You need to write this as keeper, not shooting yourself in the foot with stuff like 'I NEVER SAW A SIGN'!! You need to say there is no keeper liability and then a second point that the individual they are pursuing has not been evidenced as the liable party (driver only), then the usual stuff about unclear signs and no landowner authority, etc.

Lee12

This is my 1st draft. It is almost the same as that posted by Mahone1302 but I have added the point that the driver did not park.

Dear POPLA

POPLA Appeal

POPLA Ref.

---

ParkingEye PNC no.

---

I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle ---- --- to lodge a formal appeal against the PCN issued by Private Eye to myself as registered keeper on the 25th August 2016 for the alleged breach of parking conditions at Tower Road car park Newquay on the 11th August 2016.

I appeal to you that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1. The driver did not park.
2. ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
3. ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
4. The signage in the car park was inadequate.


1. The driver has stated that while on holiday on the 11th August 2016, he entered the Tower Road car park Newquay but as the car park was extremely busy he left without parking. He stated that as he did not know the area and therefore did not know of another car park near Fistral Beach he circled more times than he otherwise would have done. This combined with very narrow lanes for 2 way traffic in the car park, leading to traffic moving very slowly caused the driver to lose track of time. However the driver has also stated his loss of perception of time is irrelevant as there are no signs that are clearly visible while driving to inform drivers of the time permitted to find a parking bay or of any grace periods.

It has already been decided in the case 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014) that circling/waiting is not considered as parking.

In that case the judge ruled that the 31 minutes the defendant spent driving round the crowded car park in Whit week did not classify as 'parking'. The ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.

This case appears to be a direct parallel to the PCN alleged breach of parking I have receive from Private Eye as the registered keeper.

The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage.


2. ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor (ParkingEye) to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met as stated in schedule 4, paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. It is my belief that ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions of paragraph 6; which states that ParkingEye must have provided myself as the registered keeper with a notice in accordance with paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 states:

The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.


The applicable section here is (b) as the Parking Charge Notice that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was issued on 25/08/2016. This is 14 days after the event, 11/08/2016. Therefore it would be impossible for the notice to have been delivered within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that ParkingEye have failed to act within the legislation set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such can not pursue me, as the registered keeper, for any unpaid parking charges.

Furthermore the Parking Charge Notice from ParkingEye makes no reference to keeper liability, as is required under paragraph 9(2)(f), which states that the notice must:

warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

This is a clear and strict requirement under the relevant legislation that ParkingEye have not complied with and as such can not rely upon to hold me liable as keeper.


3. ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that ParkingEye has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that ParkingEye merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require ParkingEye to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits ParkingEye to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statement would not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the services provided would not be stated in such a vague template document.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

The written authorisation must also set out:
a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation.
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement.
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs.
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


4. The signage in the car park was inadequate.

Since receiving this PCN I have visited the car park where the parking event allegedly occurred, and feel that the signage is not adequate. The British Parking Association CoP requires that terms and conditions on car parking signs must be clearly readable. The signs around the car park detailing the terms and conditions of parking are approximately 2 metres off the ground, which is above the average height for an adult and contain a large amount of writing in small lettering that is not easy to read.

Umkomaas

1. The driver, [STRIKE]has stated that while on holiday[/STRIKE] on the 11th August 2016, [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE] entered the Tower Road car park Newquay but as the car park was extremely busy [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE] left without parking. [STRIKE]He stated that as he did not know[/STRIKE] Unfamiliar with the area and [STRIKE]therefore did not know of another [/STRIKE]other car parks near Fistral Beach [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE] the car park was circled [STRIKE]more[/STRIKE] a number of times [STRIKE]than he otherwise would have done[/STRIKE]. This combined with very narrow lanes for 2 way traffic in the car park, lead[STRIKE]ing[/STRIKE] to significant traffic [STRIKE]moving very slowly caused the driver to lose track of time[/STRIKE] congestion - this was at the height of the holiday season. [STRIKE]However the driver has also stated his loss of perception of time is irrelevant as[/STRIKE] There are no signs outside or within the car park [STRIKE]that are clearly visible while driving[/STRIKE] to inform drivers of the time permitted to find a parking bay or of any grace periods.

Your first appeal point is, IMO, too much of a 'story', so my suggested amendments hopefully sharpens this up. I've also taken out the gender references to avoid the possibility of it being narrowed down to identify the driver.

There were also some statements in it that appeared to acknowledge some degree of 'blame' - I've removed those too.

HTH

Lee12

Thank you. That does sound better.

There were also some statements in it that appeared to acknowledge some degree of 'blame'

This was not intended but I can now see how it can be read that way.

Coupon-mad

You've missed out the vital second point, the new one I mentioned (in your case it makes sense that it will be #3) that Mahone1302 added to the POPLA appeal when I posted on his/her thread. That's what won the appeal! It is also shown in the POPLA Decisions thread at the top of the forum, posted this weekend as a template (and is findable by searching the forum for 'individual POPLA'.

Also there is a better version of the 'unclear signage' shown as a template in POPLA Decisions now too, much more details about signage font sizes and legibility (again posted this past weekend as a template). The only danger for people with a PE PCN - if using the long/detailed template appeal point re signs that I've bunged in on POPLA Decisions - is to make sure the signs in 'your' car park are not the same yellow ones as shown at the Beavis car park. That sign IS linked in the appeal point as a comparison so obviously if your car park signs match it you will need to prune that appeal point.

Lee12

Coupon-mad are you talking about this bit

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“The written authorisation must also set out:
a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I have included this at the end of #3.

Lee12

Ah, or do you mean the section 4 you have written?

Lee12

Ok, I've added the paragraph "The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge."

As for the 'unclear signage' section I think the Tower road car park signs might be too similar to the signs in the Beavis case.

Beavis case signs
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

And a quick google found this for the Tower road golf club signs.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761489