ParkingEye @ ASDA, Brighton Marina - POPLA help please!

Coupon-mad

The PE aerial 'Signage Layout Plan' confirms this,

I would change that to:

The PE aerial 'Signage Layout Plan' fails to even show the under-road car park area on the left as a car drives in. The 'aerial view' provided by the operator suggests no such parking spaces exist!

The fact is, they do; it is part of Asda's car park (as my videos prove) and yet PE pretend the entire area does not exist (and it is not signed, as shown by my video evidence).

sidvinnon

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would change that to:

Would you remove the link to the photos or keep it in?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Leave in the best ones, this one is great as it shows the unsigned under-road area:

http://imgur.com/a/ObvEu

sidvinnon

Thanks again, will send it over to POPLA now. Fingers crossed they see sense!

sidvinnon

So I won! Sorry it's taken so long to update the thread, I've had many things going on in my life lately and have hardly had any time for admin duties.

Thanks every so much to those that offered help, especially Coupon-mad and fruitcake.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name XXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible; there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not demonstrated the person they are pursing is the driver of the vehicle. The operator has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The site is new car park to Parking Eye, no signs warning of the new restrictions and no advertising consent for new signs. Signs fail to warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras data will be used for, which the appellant states is a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The signage at the site states, “3 hours max stay. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The site operates ANPR, the motorist’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, was captured entering the site at 19:00, exiting at 22:43; the period of stay was three hours 43 minutes, an over stay of the maximum permitted time of 43 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and operator and the BPA Code of Practice. When assessing an appeal the burden of proof lies with the operator and it is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s statement. Section 18.11 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect the operator to provide evidence that demonstrates that the signage was in place before the alleged contravention and evidence that the appellant has been allowed a reasonable grace period to become familiar with the changes. The operator has provided a series of photographs from the site, they have been date and time stamped, however this appears to have been added after the photographs have been taken, accordingly I am uncertain the signage was in place on the day of the contravention. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

beamerguy

Well done :beer:

Please also pop into the thread for POPLA decisions

Coupon-mad will be thrilled skinny

"The operator has provided a series of photographs from the site, they have been date and time stamped, however this appears to have been added after the photographs have been taken"

Are PE doing another UKPC one must ask

A serious point to ask the BPA and the DVLA about

Coupon-mad

Fantastic! Can you give us the POPLA code to quote in future, and the Assessor's surname?

Please also leave the photos you took at Brighton Marina Asda car park up, so others can use them!

I've never seen POPLA say that about PE photos before but we must allege it in future, in any POPLA appeal, and put the operator to strict proof otherwise.

I feel a template POPLA point coming on; we could use it in all cases, just saying something like:

If the operator provides to POPLA, supposed evidence of full terms on signage in evidence photos, it is contended that these signs were not in place at all, or if they were, the terms were not close or adjacent to the vehicle at the material time and could not have been read. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect the operator to provide evidence that demonstrates that the signage was legible, prominent in real-time and in place before/on the day of the alleged contravention, not after.

And any stock photographs ''here's what we say the sign would have said'' and/or aerial picture 'diagrams' with unproven flags or dots added electronically at the whim of an unnamed person on a PC on a random date and with no evidential signature/proof that the person is even familiar with the location, site or signs, will be worthless.

I put the operator to strict proof of signage positions and true dates of photographs allegedly taken on site. Failing to show the photographs were taken where and when the operators tries to say they were (e.g. no landmarks or embedded dates or metadata that cannot be altered) will also mean that POPLA will not be able to conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

Operators often provide a series of photographs from the site but date and time stamps do in some cases, appear to have been added after the photographs have been taken. Clearly I am disadvantaged by having to write this appeal before such evidence has been put forward, but I suggest such photographs should be scrutinised and (if not shown to have been in place and prominently proclaiming the 'parking charge' sum in large letters on the day) rejected accordingly. If the Assessor is at all uncertain that the full terms on signage were clear and in place near the car, and at the entrance, on the day of the event, POPLA will not be able to conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

Umkomaas

I've commented on your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky about the doctoring of photos suspected by the POPLA Assessor. Must raise some questions especially when it is viewed against what District Judge Rogers said in a recent court case.

DJ "No it isn't, you see the witness goes on to state that the signs as indicated on the plan were present on the day of the parking event. That is tantamount to perjury, she has ample access to all of ParkingEye's records and in the course of her employment she has tendered a document to the court which contains evidence that cannot be true. I therefore cannot rely on her evidence and I am dismissing her statement and therefore every document that she produces in that statement. That leaves you with the outline of facts on your court claim which is so brief and without supporting evidence that you cannot sustain a case, so it is dismissed."

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk