POPLA rejected

ant68

Hi, I'm new to this forum, but have successfully appealed 2 PCN's previously, and was very confident on this one.... but... It's been refused.


In a nutshell, the thrust of my appeal was that the car park in question has an open perimeter, and that it is possible to exit the car park on foot at locations where there are no signs. I have copied details of my PCN appeal, my Popla Appeal, and there rejection.... Should I let them come after me or pay?


Thanks for advice - it will be appreciated.


PCN Appeal
I appeal the PCN for the following reasons;


1. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident.


2. The driver "may" have left the car park and returned at a later time. There is a notice that return is prohibited within 3 hours, the time period quoted would allow for 2 short visits within the overall time period of over 5 hours. Please provide CCTV images for the whole of that duration with records of car registrations to ensure this error has not occurred.


3. I have since visited the site to ascertain the signage. The driver may not have seen the sign on entering the secondary area of parking. The first area is a Waitrose car park entered via Archway Rd, which is a separate car park. The driver is then directed to the secondary area (Iceland?) which has separate terms and signage. It is not clear that you are entering a secondary car park, as in effect the drivers enter through the main access point to Waitrose. For reference I attach a google earth picture - the 3 (or possibly 4?) rows to the right of the picture are within one car park and the remaining rows to the left are within the second car park.


4. Within the Iceland area there is a large perimeter which is unfenced - see photographic evidence attached (approx. 50 mtrs along Abbotsmead Place and a further 100mtrs along the service yard road)- a driver could easily vacate the car park without seeing the Parking Notices. Therefore the signage is inadequate for the car park as a driver leaving on foot would be unaware they are violating any terms (if said terms had been agreed to, which I would dispute).


5. I understand that a Parking Charge Notice must also include the following which is incorrect from the notice you have provided and therefore it may be invalid.


"PCN issued by post using CCTV evidence should allow for a discounted payment if paid within 21 days". The PCN issued to me contravenes this as it states there is only a 14 day discount period.


I trust this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the driver is not liable for your invoice charge.

Popla appeal (I made this by email as Parking Eye did not send the file to me initially);
Thank you for contacting POPLA


I have added your comments onto your appeal. Your appeal is now waiting to be assessed. As soon as your appeal has been assigned to an assessor and a decision has been made you will be contacted.


Yours Sincerely,
POPLA Team
I have now received the evidence from Parking Eye via email, but as I submitted my request on the website, the opportunity to comment on the portal is no longer there. I would therefore make my comments as below;

[*]Parking Eye fail to provide details of car registrations that entered and exited on the day in question, I still contend that it would be possible to enter the car park for a brief period, and exit, and then re-enter at a later time for another period. This could be done without contravening the 3 hour waiting time and not returning within 3 hours. As I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day in question I am unaware of its exact movements, but this hypothetical situation could account for the timing. The only way to rule this out would be a full disclosure of the traffic to ensure an exit/re-entry had not been missed.

[*]I would like to draw your attention to the photographic evidence provided by Parking Eye that supports my observation that the signage is insufficient. Referring to the photos on page 39, the top one shows the entrance into the “Parking Eye” car park from the Waitrose car park area. The car park starts at the “give way” road marking, and this can also be seen on the photo on page 35, top right, marked “entrance”. I would observe that as you are already within a car park area, it is both unusual and unexpected to enter a car park from another one, and a driver may not see the signs within this area easily. I would also add that there is really no demarcation as to the fact you are entering a different car park. Photo on page 35 demonstrates this, and a driver looking for a space is not easily directed to the fact that it is a separate car park (a give-way sign is inadequate in my opinion). Going back to page 39, if a driver was to proceed directly ahead and then park in the bays to the left or at the perimeter directly in front, then there are clearly no signs. Looking again at page 35 (top of page), from the car park space adjacent to the “entrance/exit” and proceeding in a clockwise direction, there at 26 places where a car could park without seeing a sign. Crucially, at these locations, there is not a “hard” perimeter, and the perimeter is controlled by low bollards as detailed in my evidence (for ease I refer you to page 18 and 19 of the Parking Eye evidence pack). I contend that the driver of the vehicle could exit the car park on foot through this porous perimeter without observing any signs.

[*]In conclusion I would advise that not only are there insufficient signs, but also Parking Eye failed to address my appeal correctly as they ignored my evidence. I would suggest they take this approach in the hope that the vehicle owner feels pressured into paying a fine, even if the evidence suggests this is incorrect.



Please advise if responding via email is acceptable or if I need to make my submission by other means.

From: POPLA EMAIL="info@popla.co.uk"][COLOR=#0000ff]mailto:info@popla.co.uk[/COLOR][/EMAIL
Sent: 24 January 2017 14:43
Thank you for contacting POPLA.


I have put your appeal on hold for seven days from today. I have contacted the operator and asked it to send you the evidence by email as soon as possible. If you require an extension to provide your comments because of any delay, please contact our offices by 5pm on 31 January 2017 so that we can consider your request.


Yours sincerely,
POPLA Team


Dear Sirs
To date I have not received a copy of the case file. I do not know if this contains any additional evidence or comments other than those made on the PCN ref xxx.


As Parking Eye only enter into correspondence by letter I will send a letter to them today asking for a copy, however it is unlikely that I will receive a response within 7 days of 19th January.


I will enter this as my comments into the POPLA appeal form, however I reserve my rights to comment further as and when I receive my copy of the case file.
For ease of communication I will accept copies by email, so please feel free to pass my response to Parking Eye. For future reference I would recommend that Parking Eye enable correspondence by email.


From: POPLA EMAIL="info@popla.co.uk"][COLOR=#0000ff]mailto:info@popla.co.uk[/COLOR][/EMAIL
Sent: 19 January 2017 18:08
To: anthony chadley <[EMAIL="anthony&#64;aask.us"]anthony@aask.us[/EMAIL]>
Subject: 6060097355 Message from POPLA PTL:0035491





Dear


Your parking charge appeal against Parking Eye Ltd.
We have now received Parking Eye Ltd’s case file. If you have not received your copy then please contact Parking Eye Ltd directly.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.
Any comments that you make after this time may not be considered as part of the appeal process.
Once this time has passed we will progress the appeal for assessment. We will let you know when this happens.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team
ET6104/003

ant68

Just realised I hadn't copied in the Popla rejection - which basically ignores my comments about signage at the perimeter;


Verification Code

6060097355
Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name



Assessor summary of operator case
The appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. The appellant states the driver may have left the car park and returned later. The appellant states he returned to the site to assess the signage and states it is not clear and does not identify the boundaries of the different sites. The appellant states the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) only gave him the discounted amount for 14 days.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state “3 hour max stay. Customer only car park, Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant remaining on site for longer than permitted. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), the appellant’s vehicle registration xxx was captured entering the site at 12:41, exiting at 16:56; the period of stay was four hours and 14 minutes. The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. I note the appellant’s comments and I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper provided by the operator. From the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper meets the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Therefore, as the requirements of PoFA were met the operator has successfully been able to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states the driver may have left the car park and returned later. I note the appellant’s comments however, in terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves; the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration xxx. The appellant states he returned to the site to assess the signage and states it is not clear and does not identify the boundaries of the different sites. I appreciate the appellant’s comments however; the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. The evidence presented illustrates that the signage is clear and informs motorists of the terms and conditions of parking on the site. Furthermore, the site map shows that there are signs located around the car park which the driver would have been able to see. Overall, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the British Parking Association (BPA), Code of Practice, Section 18.3. The appellant states the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) only gave him the discounted amount for 14 days. I note the appellant’s comments however, Section 34.6 of the BPA, Code of Practice states “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 must be by at least 40% of the full charge”. I can see that the date of the alleged parking contravention was on 13 November 2016 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 17 November 2016. The Notice to Keeper states “This parking charge is discounted to £60.00 if paid within 14 days of the date issued: 30/11/2016. After this date, the full parking charge amount will be owed. I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper complied with the requirements of the BPA, Code of Practice and allows the correct timescale for the Registered Keeper to pay the discounted amount. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see from the evidence provided that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that the maximum allowed time is three hours. As the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.

Coupon-mad

I have divided the decision into paragraphs (I know they serve it as a wall of words!):

The terms and conditions of the site state “3 hour max stay. Customer only car park, Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant remaining on site for longer than permitted. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), the appellant’s vehicle registration xxx was captured entering the site at 12:41, exiting at 16:56; the period of stay was four hours and 14 minutes.

The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. I note the appellant’s comments and I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper provided by the operator. From the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper meets the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Therefore, as the requirements of PoFA were met the operator has successfully been able to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant states the driver may have left the car park and returned later. I note the appellant’s comments however, in terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves; the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate.

Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration xxx.

The appellant states he returned to the site to assess the signage and states it is not clear and does not identify the boundaries of the different sites. I appreciate the appellant’s comments however; the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. The evidence presented illustrates that the signage is clear and informs motorists of the terms and conditions of parking on the site. Furthermore, the site map shows that there are signs located around the car park which the driver would have been able to see. Overall, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the British Parking Association (BPA), Code of Practice, Section 18.3.

The appellant states the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) only gave him the discounted amount for 14 days. I note the appellant’s comments however, Section 34.6 of the BPA, Code of Practice states “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 must be by at least 40% of the full charge”. I can see that the date of the alleged parking contravention was on 13 November 2016 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 17 November 2016. The Notice to Keeper states “This parking charge is discounted to £60.00 if paid within 14 days of the date issued: 30/11/2016. After this date, the full parking charge amount will be owed. I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper complied with the requirements of the BPA, Code of Practice and allows the correct timescale for the Registered Keeper to pay the discounted amount.

Based upon the evidence provided, I can see from the evidence provided that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that the maximum allowed time is three hours.

As the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.

ParkingEye are likely to sue you now. Nasty firm whose very existence is merely to penalise drivers and then litigate if the victims lose at POPLA or don't pay. Your choice really, the only proactive thing you can do now is to complain to the retail park site agents/landowner and threaten never to darken their doors again...tell hem how much you and your family used to spend there...etc.

ant68

Thanks for the advice - before I agree to pay - a final bit of advice please...


Can I not rely on their failure to display signs adequately? Like I said in my appeal a driver can leave the site without seeing the signs - I have photographic evidence (which is logged in the Parking Eye documents) that demonstrate this - and the Code of Practice makes clear there must be adequate signs. In this site, as it is a car park within a car park, having a notice at the sub-entrance to the secondary car park is not clear (as you are already within a car park managed by a different company) and once in your parking space it is easy to exit the car park at the perimeter without seeing any other signs;


18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your
terms and conditions are, including your parking charges.


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




(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate
notice” means notice given by:
(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance
with any applicable requirements prescribed
in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for
purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph
(2); or
(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of
one or more notices which:
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised
parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice
of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land

ant68

One other things I have just noticed as I was looking at the car park on google earth... the sign at the entrance seems to contravene the recommended text - it says "3 Hour Max Stay. For customers only. This car park is private property, see signage in car park for terms & conditions" - whereas the Code of Practice shows the text as "x hours free parking. Charges apply after this time. See the notices in the car park for details"


I contend that as the driver is traversing between car parks, this sign is not apparent anyway.

Redx

yes you can defend yourself IN COURT on signage issues

and a judge may find in your favour

no point asking us as its a decision for a judge to make, which is a lottery depending on who you get

if you wish to fight , like BEAVIS did , then by all means let them take you to court , fight your corner , try and win

but if a judge decides that the charge is valid, you are well advised to pay the figure set by the judge , promptly (usually within 28 days)

this would avoid a CCJ and higher charges

if you WIN , you could claim up to say £90 in fees and costs and time and parking

any defence will be based on the following

no landowner contract
invalid contract between PE and yourself
Poor or inadequate or conflistivng signage that fails the BPA CoP etc

POFA2012 failures
NTK erros
BPA CoP errors or failures

and anything else you can throw into the pot

all the above should have been thrown at popla , but if it was and you failed, its convincing a judge in the small claims court (not us)

Coupon-mad

all the above should have been thrown at popla , but if it was and you failed, its convincing a judge in the small claims court (not us)

It will be a struggle v ParkingEye, have to say, unless you have something you want to email to them as last minute mitigating evidence or to make a landowner complaint - big time!