POPLA appeal, ParkingEye - Tower Road Car Park, Newquay

spikypaddy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, email them:

info@parkingeye.co.uk

And BTW they haven't 'made a mistake' or cocked up the deadlines...they know full well that the bulk posting system they use delays posting until a batch is ready to go, some 3 or 4 days later, and means their PCNs don't arrive in time in many cases.

But hey, they don't care because the envelopes are not franked and POPLA can't tell when it arrived because victims can't prove it.

This is not incompetence, it IS the business model.

That's great, thanks Coupon-mad! I'll be sure to copy POPLA and BPA in on that one, too.

spikypaddy

POPLA have forwarded me ParkingEye's evidence pack - consisting of the original NTK x2, NTK reminder x2, registered keeper details, photos of car entering and leaving site, my appeal, my appeal rejection, images of signage and car park, whitelist lookup showing no record of my registration on purchased tickets (to be expected, the driver didn't notice the requirement to enter VRN, but DID pay £5.50 for 5 hours parking!) and a witness statement from Newquay golf club's "Peter Batty".

• The signage images are inaccurate - they display NEW charges implemented AFTER my visit to Newquay. I have found images online showing the original signage in better context and the charges as they were at the time of my visit. The pictures PE have used in their evidence are date stamped 01/11/2016 and appear to have been taken when the new signage was installed!
• I did request in my appeal the PE how evidence of tickets purchased with incomplete or no VRN recorded around the time of my car's entry to the car park, they've instead just shown that my VRN wasn't recorded.
• My original appeal to PE and their subsequent rejection are included, clearly showing their response time of 16 days to my appeal - 2 day over the BPA's 14 day limit in their Code of Practice
• On their site overview image, I can pinpoint exactly where the car was parked, showing that the only sign visible from that parking space is one saying "Have You Paid For Parking?" (which the driver had). I can also pinpoint the machine at which payment was made.
• No unredacted contract (as requested in POPLA appeal), instead a "witness statement" signed by the Newquay Golf Club secretary/manager. Consequently nothing clearly defines the car park boundaries.

Can I use all of these as valid rebuttals?

Also, if I email a PDF rebuttal - should I enter anything via the POPLA site? i.e. "Please see my commentary on ParkingEye evidence - this has been emailed to info@popla.co.uk as a .pdf document, sent on xx/01/2016 at 23:15."

Coupon-mad

Yes, yes and yes, all of the above is good and yep to the final suggestion. Don't make the rebuttal too long or we find POPLA do not read them.

spikypaddy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, yes and yes, all of the above is good and yep to the final suggestion. Don't make the rebuttal too long or we find POPLA do not read them.

Thank you. I think the bulk of the commentary will be images - based on what I've drafted, it's approx 700 words. However, it's about 6 pages because of the use of firstly PE's images, then ones showing wider context and/or the situation as it was at the time of the alleged incident.

spikypaddy

I've finally got an unsuccessful decision back, however the assessor is wrong in her second sentence "The site is a four-hour maximum stay car park." I also don't think my evidence commentary was reviewed judging by this response:

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Gemma West

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued as the vehicle was on site for five hours and 26 minutes. The site is a four-hour maximum stay car park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • No keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant due to the dates and wording used. • He explains the operator has not shown the individual who the operator is pursuing is liable for the charge. • No contract between the operator and the driver. • No landowner authority to form/enforce contracts with drivers. He states that he does not believe that the operator has a proprietary interest in the land. • The appellant states the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). • He explains the operator has breached the BPA Code of Practice on appeals. • He says the charge is a penalty and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. He explains the charge cannot be saved by ParkingEye v Beavis. • Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) accuracy. He says that the ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate. • The appellant states the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • He explains an argument has to be in place in cases where an incorrect vehicle registration plate has been entered.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions as displayed throughout the site, which states, “Parking Tariffs apply between 8 am-11pm, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each of these below. No Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of Schedule 4, paragraph 9, that he does not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA 2012 and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has met all of these requirements. He explains the operator has not demonstrated the individual in whom they are pursuing is liable for the charge. On review of the PCN, the operator states “You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the drive, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”. Therefore I am satisfied the operator has demonstrated the keeper maybe liable for the charge. No landowner authority to form/enforce contracts with drivers. He states that he does not believe that the operator has a proprietary interest in the land. The operator has produced a witness statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. He explains the operator has breached the BPA Code of Practice for ANPR. In response to this, the operator states that “Use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation”. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the ANPR and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park, While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system for, it has not had an impact on the motorist’s ability to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The appellant states the operator has breached the BPA Code of Practice on appeals. The BPA Code of Practice section 22.8 states “You must acknowledge or reply to the appeal with 14 days of receiving it. It is important to note in this appeal that POPLA’s purpose in an appeal is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly, taking into consideration the BPA Code of Practice, the terms and conditions of a car park and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, where applicable. During the assessment of an appeal we may deem the operator to have breached parts of the BPA Code of Practice, although the breach may be reported to the BPA, it may not be sufficient to allow the appeal if it did not affect the circumstance in which a PCN arose. The alleged contract does not comply with the Consumer Contracts Regulations. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 require that certain information is provided prior to the conclusion of the contract. However, under section 6 (2) it states that “These Regulations do not apply to contracts – (a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises”. In this case I have considered “automated commercial premises” to mean a place of business where little to no human contact is required for the conclusion and performance of a contract. Following my review of the evidence provided by the operator, I conclude that the car park I question is such a premises, as the parking is managed by ANPR cameras, and motorists park their vehicles without any assistance. Accordingly, I consider that there is no requirement for the operator to provide pre-contract information to motorists before a contract can be concluded, in this instance. The appellant states the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The BPA Code of Practice section 18.3 states “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. On review of the operator’s evidence I am satisfied the signage at the site meets the requirements set by the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore I am satisfied the sum of the PCN is clearly visible and on a contrasting background which is noticeable. The appellant states’ parking was purchased and displayed the ticket on the dashboard. He explains the pay and display machines are not user friendly and it can only be assumed the vehicle registration was not entered correctly or completed. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal, the operator has provided an online system print out which confirms the vehicle registration was not registered with the operator on the day in question. In addition the appellant has not provided evidence to confirm payment was received. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments; however it remains the vehicle registration was not registered on the day in question. As such the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.


Is there anywhere I can go next?

Coupon-mad

Same as others who lose at POPLA - and someone else here did v PE this week. You can defend in court.

Guys_Dad

But if you do court, then you will nedd to trim your points by 80% and concentrate on the main ones, as you see them.

spikypaddy

I didn't go to court on this in the end - the wife decided we would bite the bullet and just pay the thieves at PE for the sake of an easy life. I'm still massively disappointed and frustrated that my rebuttal to the PE evidence didn't actually appear to have been glanced at by their assessor. Just goes to show how unfair the appeals system is.

Coupon-mad

Ouch!

Perhaps you might consider writing to your MP to tell them about this intimidation. This is a copy of a post by Bargepole:

"Some action at last:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

This Private Member's Bill has Government and cross-party support, and stands a good chance of making it into statute.

The full text of the clauses will be published nearer the date of the second reading, but my sources tell me it's something we should support.

Now would be a good time to write to your MP urging them to support it."


ParkingEye at Newquay were singled out in a debate; also show this to your MP in case they were asleep or didn't attend, and missed it - look at Steve Double's contributions in particular, about PE in Newquay:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-21/debates/382789C8-0168-4C4B-8260-0540AF83C7D3/DVLAAndPrivateCarParkingCompanies


So, get your revenge by turning the screw with your MP's help.