Permit Holders Only Premier Park

Coupon-mad

Yes if the PCN is a postal one.

intex310

Thank you to all the members and especially to Coupon-mad! I just managed to submit my POPLA appeal!

intex310

Received email from POPLA asking me to provide further comments with reference to the evidence submitted by the Premier Park. Couldn't get around with my argument for defence. They have provided stock images of the signage and argues that my picture as invalid.

"We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by

the BPA Auditing Team. Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the

attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and

conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and

abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that

we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a

PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorists. Our signs are

retroreflective, and although there is no direct lighting at this location, the car park is

lit from the surrounding shops. Also, the vehicle headlights light up the signage.

There is a sign that would be in the direct view of the motorist and lit from the vehicle

headlights upon entry into the site. The site is lit from ambient lighting from the

surrounding shops and businesses in the area. There is also a sign on the outside of

the site, which again would be lit by the street lighting".

Wonder if I could upload the whole document somewhere for all you professionals to read?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can host it in Dropbox then share the link here.

You need to rebut what they say, for example:

Point out to POPLA, this admission by the PPC:

although there is no direct lighting at this location

This is hearsay, no evidence at all that this is/was the case - in fact no signs are 'lit from surrounding shops!'.

lit from the surrounding shops. Also, the vehicle headlights light up the signage.

There is a sign that would be in the direct view of the motorist and lit from the vehicle

That is not the case with dipped headlights as the sign is much higher.

etc.

intex310

Finally managing to upload the file here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3j425NN3gjlSEVoYm41M25Jdmc/view?usp=sharing

Thank you everyone!

intex310

Anything else I can prepare for the argument please?

Coupon-mad

- There are no local shops with lighting. They have disproved what they say in their own evidence, not even the restaurant over the road is lit and the only ambient light to street lamps shown over the road and hundreds of metres away.

- The sign at the entrance is not at headlamp height and has been deliberately artificially lit by a torch for the purpose of these photos.

- The landowner contract is very heavily redacted.

- the Signatories' signatures/names are redacted so POPLA cannot be satisfied that page even relates to that location/company/contract at all.

- The evidence pack says 'this is not a public car park' and talks about permits. But the contract wording that can be read (between redacted sections) is nothing of the sort and talks about a maximum stay of two hours. Whilst the car is shown as entering/leaving in excess of two hours, that is not the contravention alleged on the PCN.

- The contract completely conflicts with the signage and Notice to Keeper and there is no evidence that the landowner has ever authorised any permit scheme at this location. POPLA cannot guess what the current contract (if any) says, or assume that it has been amended to create a contravention of 'unauthorised entry/parking'. The fact is, this contract does not support a PCN issued for that reason.

Therefore, this PCN was not properly given and must be cancelled.

intex310

Thank you Coupon-mad! Just received an notification from POPLA granting me a successful appeal. Thank you all the moderators for providing me with a significant insights!

Here's the decision:

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant was parked without obtaining a permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and as such, no keeper liability can be established. The appellant also says that the car park has unclear, non- obvious and non-compliant BPA signage. Therefore, the driver was not aware of the contract at the time. The appellant states the signs were unlit and the words were impossible to read. The appellant has also questioned landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore when deciding to park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with these when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site which sets out the terms and conditions for parking. The signage states, “Permit Holders Only”. Additionally, it states, “If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay parking charge notice (PCN) £100”. This car park operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site in question at 18:55 on 9 January 2017 and exiting at 21:27, totalling a stay of two hours and 32 minutes. The operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to obtain a parking permit. The appellant has raised more than one ground of appeal. However, I will focus solely on the concerns regarding the poorly lit signage at the site during the hours of darkness. The appellant has said that the car park has unclear, non- obvious and non-compliant BPA signage. Therefore, the driver was not aware of the contract at the time. The appellant states the signs were unlit and the words were impossible to read. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 18.1 sets out to parking operators that “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”. Section 18.3 states that, “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. It also states under appendix B In the BPA Code of Pratice, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times including during the hours of darkness or dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly Lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro- reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”. On this occasion, the operator has provided evidence of signage displayed in the dark however, the sign that is displayed at the entrance is not the sign which advises of the full terms and conditions therefore, I would expect the other signs within the car park to also be sufficiently lit. Having looked at those signs, I am not satisfied that the car park is sufficiently lit for the appellant to notice any other terms and conditions. The signs and the font itself is of a small size therefore, I do not consider this to be obvious signage. As such, I cannot conclude that the appellant had noticed the terms and so a contract cannot have been formed. Therefore, there was no breach at the site and so the PCN has been issued incorrectly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal however as I have allowed the appeal on this reason alone, I did not consider the other grounds.

Once again, I would reiterate, without this forum, would have paid this PCN simply!

Thank you all!

Coupon-mad

Yay, great news!

Please can you update 'POPLA DECISIONS' with a link to this thread, saying it was Premier Park and won on unlit signage, so people might find your posts when searching?