POPLA decision negative but my car wasn't there

rm54

Re: HighView Parking - charge sent by post.

I entered and exited the car park in question twice. The first time it was before PC world was open so I exited and returned later that day. In between I was attending my college course. I was there all day. My evidence consisted of a letter from my course tutor saying I was there all day and also a photograph of my car parking permit for the college. It would in theory be possible to have walked from the car park... according to google maps it's an 11 minute walk ... but it's all uphill and I am 63 and am doing an arts MA so always have a heavy bag - why would I do that?

The charge is from Highview parking. The response from POPLA seems to concentrate on the lovely signage .. I am not disputing the signage although they mis-quoted the signage which in this case is immaterial) They also say that the cameras are 99% correct but they don't seem to have viewed the footage.

I believe that I should be considered innocent unless proven guilty and that they should show evidence of my car parked during the disputed time. I would also like to view the tapes as I believe they are guilty of 'selective viewing'.

The response also refers to my being in college 'later in the day' but my tutors letter makes it clear that I was there for a 'full working day'

In addition.. being a self funded student - I don't have the money.

Can anyone tell me if there is a further step I can take? And what is the end result of not paying?



Here is the response from POPLA;

The appellant states that they did not park on site for the duration and entered and exited twice. They say that on the first occasion they drove straight out without leaving their car and attended their college course later that day. The appellant says that they returned to the car park after college on a second visit and left without contravening the terms and conditions.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Free parking for customers only…2 hours maximum stay…By entering this parking area/parking in this parking area you contract and consent to comply with these terms and conditions…Failure to comply with the these terms and conditions may result in a parking charge of £85.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that ‘’In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start.’’ The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. On looking at the evidence provided, I am satisfied that these terms have been displayed clearly and sufficiently. The appellant states that they did not park on site for the duration and entered and exited twice. They say that on the first occasion they drove straight out without leaving their car and attended their college course later that day. The appellant says that they returned to the car park after college on a second visit and left without contravening the terms and conditions. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, the terms and conditions of the car park still apply. The signage in and around the car park clearly states that the maximum stay time is two hours. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 08:28 and leaving at 15:29 after completing a parking session of seven hours. The appellant has disputed the ANPR evidence on the basis that they left the site and returned. Whilst I acknowledge their comments and evidence provided, I am not satisfied that this proves that the appellant was parked anywhere else but in the car park in question. In addition, I have not been provided with substantial evidence to support them leaving the site before the exit time recorded by the ANPR system. The British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by Parking Operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected are accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is 99% accurate. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must proceed on the basis that the ANPR evidence is accurate. I note that the appellant states that there is an error within the operator’s case file. This error is within the report issued as this states that the maximum stay time is 3 hours, whereas the signage on site shows a maximum stay time of 2 hours. I acknowledge their comments, however this would not make a material difference to the decision and the correct information has been displayed sufficiently around the car park. In this instance, the appellant has remained on site for longer than the maximum stay time. As a result, they have breached the applicable terms and conditions. It is the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the available signage on site and ensure that their parking complies with the applicable terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle unattended on site. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time. As such, they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, and I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Print

beamerguy

Sounds like POPLA are using un qualified assessors yet again, who have no workable knowledge of the known double dip flaw.

POPLA in itself is highly flawed

Now you just and wait

Half_way

do you c have a mobile phone android, or apple?
if so it may have recorded your location history on google maps/apple maps. Also with double dip there is the question of the data protection act, as even if the equipment is flawed the ppc would have no business in accessing using/processing your data.

hoohoo

Did the operator introduce evidence stating that ANPR is 99% accurate or did the assessor make this up themselves.

Does the assessor realise that 99% accurate means that in a car park of 400 cars 4 cars will leave the car park but never be detected arriving, and 4 cars will arrive but will never be detected leaving

Castle

It doesn't matter whether it's 99% or 100% accurate; all the PPC has to do is to delete the first exit and 2nd entry photos.

rm54

So What would the next step be? If I sit and wait what happens now?

Herzlos

rm54 wrote: »

So What would the next step be? If I sit and wait what happens now?

You can:
1. complain to POPLA about the duff decision.
2. complain to PC world to get their agent to drop it.
3. Wait for Highview to try and take you to court, beat them there and counterclaim for DPA violations.

Umkomaas

3. Wait for Highview to try and take you to court, beat them there and counterclaim for DPA violations.

Highly unlikely. ~500,000 tickets issued in 2.5 years, not a single court case.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Highview_Parking.html

Just a flurry of debt collector letters to irritate you over the next few months, then will quieten down. Just to add the caveat that HV have 6 years to pursue you through the courts, but past performance in this regard is probably a good indicator of likelihood.

Carry on with complaining to PCW and to POPLA's Lead Adjusted dictator, John Gallagher.

rm54

Just checked my google maps trail and it clearly shows me parked at college 8.31 to 3.18. My trip to PC world was from 3.22 to 3.29 pm. It doesn't show me going to PC world in the morning because I didn't stop. Thanks for letting me know about this. Now I just have to work out how to use this information, as popla said there was no further appeal.

Coupon-mad

There is no further appeal.

But hey so what, this is only Highview, the ones where we get them cancelled in 2 hours:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72642426#Comment_72642426

Yours is the first Highview POPLA lost case I can remember in years. Email Highview and show them your evidence, if you like, as this proves your whereabouts and that their data is flawed, regardless of POPLA's view:

Just checked my google maps trail and it clearly shows me parked at college 8.31 to 3.18. My trip to PC world was from 3.22 to 3.29 pm. It doesn't show me going to PC world in the morning because I didn't stop.

Next time don't do the appeal like you did. We don't even see Highview proceed to POPLA when they see the forum appeal, they cancel. Luckily for you, they don't sue people.

This is nothing - get on with your life.

Umkomaas

Want proof of HV's avoidance of the court system? Well, here you go:

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Highview_Parking.html

Circa half a million tickets issued in the past 2.5 years, yet not one single court case. Tell you anything?