P4parking POPLA - admitted liability

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, go with that, I think that's the best you can make it when a driver has been identified. Pretty strong - with the transcripts being uploaded as well as this PDF appeal, all under 'OTHER - and might cause P4Parking to give up.

Let us know if they contest as you will have a brief few days to comment on their evidence.

Oh, I did notice one word 'implore' which I would change to 'require'. No-one should be begging a PPC to do anything! Requiring them to do it is better.

Thank you very much for your guidance, have made that edit.
Now to upload and hope for the best! Will let you know if there is any comments and the final outcome.

Just to clarify for the transcripts, would that be regarding all the cases referenced within the POPLA appeal?

Coupon-mad

Yes, and make sure they upload successfully so that a little 'bin' icon appears. Your PDF appeal is your first document to upload - the POPLA system is very odd so do this in an organised way so you know what's in the 'bins'! It doesn't let you re-open them...

If you get in a muddle start again, to be certain you have your uploads all there before submitting it.

barmybilly

Thanks for all your explanations,regarding different Parking Fines. I didn't see my Complaint Letter mentioned, so ,sorry I don't seem to have been helped in my Case.. I have taken the Parking Fine letter ,back to MECCA Bingo, and the Manager has made a note of the Fact, that I was confirmed as being a Bingo Player on that date etc; and along with many other Mecca Members, who have also received Parking Fines,since this checking in "Tablet" NEW System was introduced. The MECCA BINGO Manager is going to APPEAL, on our Behalf.,Thanks to you all, for your suggestions.

Coupon-mad

Who are you? You have no previous posts so we know nothing about your complaint letter. If you need help you need to start your own thread.

mnkut

Thanks everyone!

Have submitted will post the decision results on the relevant thread when I hear back.

mnkut

Hi all,
Was just tracking the POPLA appeal today for the case in the thread and it notes "The operator will send the evidence independently"

Does this mean there isn't any commentary?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

You get send the evidence by email or by post and quite often there is no statement visible in the Portal.

mnkut

Ah apologies!

They have submitted vast amount of commentary (5 pages worth), unsurprisingly leveraging admission by the driver.
I have marked bold the arguments for speedy reading, as there is a lot of repetition

I am a touch concerned about the success of the case now and would appreciate how it best to proceeed, can I submit comments?

Thanks so much

We would like to emphasize the fact that the driver has seen and read the parking terms and conditions, due to the fact that the vehicle was displaying an in date permit provided by the concierge of xxxx. He “stood outside the office waiting for the security team to give me a permit for 15 mins to ensure I do not get a parking charge!”, therefore, he was fully aware of the consequences in case of contravening the parking rules & regulations, thus he cannot claim that the signs are not conspicuous and legible as long as a permit was displayed in the vehicle at the alleged time of contravention.

The Visitor Permit displayed, authorized the driver to park on Unwin/Howard/Letchworth in xxxxx and it was clearly specified that the vehicle is not allowed to park in bays with numbers, therefore vehicle has to be parked on the location the permit was issued for. The operative on duty is only authorised to validate the content written on the permit displayed.

Therefore, permit had specifications and operative issued the parking charge notice correctly. It is the responsibility of the person parking to adhere to the rules governing the parking of the vehicle within the grounds. Ownership of a parking permit does not grant permission to park everywhere.

It is the responsibility of the person requesting the permit to verify the details entered on the permit before displaying it in the vehicle. If any queries, he should have solved the matter at the concierge desk where he received the parking permit from. He should have asked the concierge staff for guidance of which bays he is allowed to park on, he failed to do so. It was his responsibility
to verify whether the bay is numbered or not. P4Parking has only been contracted to ensure that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on the land with authority.

We note the Appellant’s submissions, however, these amount to mitigation. We are only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced and applying relevant law. We have no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description.

Please find attached pictorial evidence of the location, the signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by P4Parking, and parking tariffs apply or a Parking Charge will be incurred, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

(((ALL photo evidence provided has been taken in broad daylight and actually show how obscured and tiny their signage is!! Re any referencing to tiny lettering P4Parking have submitted a close up image of signage surprise surprise)))

As you can see, P4Parking does ensure that the signage is of adequate size, visible at a distance and viewable.

We can confirm that P4Parking Signs meet all the conditions set by BPA code of Practice as the size of a sign on this location is 450 mm x 600 mm, are conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so they are easy to see, read and understand. According to the code, the sign must specify the sum payable for unauthorised parking, adequately bring the charges to the attention of drivers, which you can clearly see from a closer view of the signs and the copy of the parking charge notice.

((( HAH a magnifying glass is also required with that close up view!)))

Please be informed that it is not in P4Parking responsibility to mark the bays as the land does not pertain to us.

(((Interesting point made here, any thoughts?)))

We have only been contracted by SHE Manager Ltd. & SHE Nominee Ltd. C/O Rendall & Rittner to ticket vehicles which do not abide by the parking terms & conditions. P4Parking ensure that signs are visible and in place and can be seen by visiting motorists. At the time the vehicle was ticketed our operative took photographs of the vehicle and offence and also one showing the nearest sign in relation to the vehicle ticketed. After having inspected the photographs, we are confident that the signage was adequately visible to the motorist.

((( Photo provided is taken with flash)))

It was clearly written on the sign “For the health, safety and enjoyment of all residents and visitors to xxxx you are politely advised that your vehicle may be issued with a ticketed excess charge when:
- parked without displaying a valid permit
- parked causing an obstruction or outside of a marked bay
- parked in contravention of any of the estate parking regulations ... If you park on this land contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay an excess charge to the sum of £100 (or the reduced sum of £60 if the payment is made within 14 days) if this charge remains unpaid vehicle keeper will be requested from the DVLA and you will incur additional costs as a
result of action taken against you … Enforcement may take place at any time. This Land is private property”

Being parked in a resident bay displaying a visitor permit, turned the permit invalid, and the vehicle was obstructing the owner of bay no. 681 to use their bay. We have provided clear evidence that by staying at the location, the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms & conditions of the parking contract including the charges for not complying with the advertised terms and conditions. There are a large number of signs at the parking location,both at the entrance and throughout the site which offers the parking contract to the motorist, and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking area on which the operator will rely, and on which the motorist has agreed to be bound by which will become payable if the terms and conditions of parking are not met.

The driver left their vehicle unattended without a valid permit and obstructing the owner of bay 681 to use their bay and as a result, we find that the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of parking. The onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at each particular site and on this occasion they did not do so.

(((If only the signs were legible in darkness...)))

We find that, by failing to display a valid permit, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.

The parking conditions of the development is that VALID permits are to be displayed at all times when the vehicle is on the development. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the necessary identifications that authorise them to park are displayed before leaving their vehicle.

We would contend that it is too late now to indicate that they are unhappy with the parking charge – this should have been done at the time of accepting the ‘parking contract’ - if the motorist was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained at the location.

On accepting the parking conditions we argue that the complainant can now seek to effectively renegotiate them or to dismiss them in their entirety. The charge of £100 reduced to £60 is as advertised and within BPA guidelines.
Therefore, the parking charge notice was issued correctly by the operative as there was no evidence on the vehicle windscreen or dashboard showing that the vehicle had authorization to park in a residents’ bay.

P4Parking has been contracted by SEH Manager Ltd. & SHE Nominee Ltd. C/O Rendall & Rittner (the Client), owner/manager of the car parking at xxxxx (the Location) to ensure that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on the land with authority.

This authority is dependent upon the rules as laid down by the landowners or bodies acting on behalf of such estate, land or development. P4Parking has the authority to charge any vehicle that is parked contrary to these regulations, please see Contract, Appendix I, Page 5, 5TH Condition: Obstructive Parking.

The Date on the Contract shows 13/12/2011, and at Paragraph 19 it is clearly stated:
“The Company (P4Parking) or the Client may:
a. Terminate this PSA at any time in writing without reason. The cancellation date shall be 30 days from the date of postage and all Parking Charges issued prior to the cancellation date will be enforced.

b. The Company will remove signs at a date agreed by both parties.” (Parking Signs are marked xxxxx(top of the Sign) and P4Parking (bottom right side of the Sign) Therefore, the Contract is enforceable, until P4Parking or the client decide to terminate the PSA, and remove the Parking Signs.

We are not going to disclose this private contractual agreement between ourselves and our client to the motorist that will then have private and confidential information for him to do whatever he choose to do with it. We will provide a contract to the motorist if requested by a court of law. This contract is data protected information between 2 parties, therefore we think is totally against the law for him to insist that we disclose data protected information as he is not privileged to receive such information. This contract will only be provided to POPLA, as evidence of us having the authority to issue parking charge notices on the location.

Paragraph 19.5 states “If the charge is more than £100, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance” As the parking charge notice is £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, it is not required for us to justify it.

The highest Court in this country decided that ParkingEye’s parking charge of £85 is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest (to deter parking overstays) and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

The BPA welcomes the decision which provides clarity on the use of contract law for parking on private land. The ruling supported the view of the Court of Appeal judges in April this year and that of Judge Moloney that the charge should be an effective deterrent.

The judgment confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions. The Supreme Court effectively concludes that the BPA’s Code of Practice for parking on private land is a good and fair model.

In calculating our loss, we have looked at the costs we incur because motorists do breach the Terms & Conditions at the locations we manage. If all motorists didn't park where they shouldn't, paid where they should, didn't overstay and followed all the specified conditions at the sites we look after for our landowner clients, these costs would not exist. The £60 sum is within (well within) the recommendations set out within Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.

This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner and/or his agent of the site. The charge in question is not disproportionately high and insofar as it exceeds compensation its amount is justifiable, and not in bad faith or detrimental to the consumer.

Operators are required to provide a reduced rate for the PCN within an initial period. From the British Parking Association Code of Practice Section 19.7: “If prompt payment is made (defined as 14 days from the issue of the parking charge notice) you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. This reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of the
full charge.” (Please find attached copy of the parking charge notice 121392)

The cost of PCNs 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, we 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. While the charge in this instance is £100, this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. By using the car park without clearly displaying a valid permit in the windscreen, the appellant has parked in breach of the terms and conditions.

I hope this information is enough to prove that vehicle was left in contravention of the site regulations.

mnkut

I also now have a copy of the original appeal submitted by P4Parking as part of POPLA evidence.

Hi Team,
I have recently got a parking notice in xxxx despite having a visitors permit.

The contravention notes said that I was parked in a resident bay but there was no lighten/written signs that indicated it
was a resident bay.

To add to that, the security team informed me as I was getting my visitors permit not to park anywhere on the left as
they were all resident bays, which is the reason why I parked on the right.

I would not fight this if I parked without a permit but I stood outside the office waiting for the security team to give me a permit for 15 mins to ensure I do not get a parking charge!

I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thanks.

Coupon-mad

(((ALL photo evidence provided has been taken in broad daylight and actually show how obscured and tiny their signage is!! Re any referencing to tiny lettering P4Parking have submitted a close up image of signage surprise surprise)))

So you need to put together a brief set of rebuttal bullet points for POPLA and you only get a few days to do that - six days at best, and you might have to email it if the Portal has closed for 'comments'.

Did P4P not supply you with a copy of the contract? I love their teenage chav-style grammar:

we think is totally against the law for him to insist that we disclose data protected information as he is not privileged to receive such information.