POPLA Appeal- REBUTTAL DRAFT - PCN from Premier Park - 7 minutes!

Umkomaas

You need to point out that there is a mandatory 'minimum of 10 minutes' allowed to exit the car park, also provided for by the BPA Code of Practice which they have conveniently failed to add in their quote. So just for completeness:

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Remind POPLA of that!

claxtome

Umkomaas can I just confirm the understanding of the wording quoted below from bpa code of practice->

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Does that apply even if you haven't bought a ticket?
I.e. thought you only agreed to the contract if you bought the ticket - if you know what I mean.

(I am asking this as hopefully help this thread and myself who has a similar 'grace period' and decided to leave after 5 1/2 mins)

Umkomaas

Umkomass can I just confirm the understanding of the wording quoted below from bpa code of practice->

I can only read it as you do, but:

Does it say anything in the BPA CoP about buying a ticket? What about free car parks, you can't buy a ticket there, but you're lead to believe that you accept the contract once you've parked the car, read the signage (contract) and decided to stay.

But never lose sight of the fact that this is an unregulated industry where PPCs will twist anything to get their hands on your money and, judging by performance over the past 9 months or so, will be backed by their trade association - the BPA!

All you can go by is the Code of Practice which the judges at the Supreme Court said was 'effectively binding' on PPCs. The BPA has never refuted this assertion, despite weasel words.

toblerone13

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Ref. POPLA appeal

In response to the "evidence pack" Premier Park have submitted, I have written my reply in the same order Premier Park has laid out their response. In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on xx/xx/2017.

1) Grace Periods

Premier Park should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the car park as per the BPA code of practice section 13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes; not the 5 minutes that they have deemed reasonable.


2) Inadequate Signage

The section ‘No stopping or waiting. If you cannot register for any reason do not park’ on the car park signage cannot be read from a car. The driver must get out and get close to the sign to be able to read it. The photos in the evidence pack provided by Premier Park show how you cannot read the terms and conditions of the signs unless you are really close, which is why the driver should be allowed the previously mentioned BPA recommended grace period to approach the sign, read and make a decision on parking.


I respectfully request that the appeal be upheld.

Yours Faithfully,

toblerone13

I have to submit today, so if anyone has any comments I would be really grateful!

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.

If POPLA reject the appeal (and that would be ludicrous) then this would be practically impossible for Premier Park to win at a real hearing. Their evidence is dire, the grace period not adequate and the ticketing in this case is predatory and exactly the sort of issue that gave rise to the BPA CoP rules on Grace Periods.

toblerone13

I've been unsuccessful. So disappointed.

toblerone13

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameMatthew Yorke
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver was not authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and as such, no keeper liability can be established. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. The appellant says that there is inadequate and unclear signage. The appellant has made comments on Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant says that the entrance sign to the car park is only small. Therefore, the driver must enter the car park to read the additional signage. The appellant states that the signs are small and the information is not legible from a driver’s seat. The appellant says that the operator have not allowed a grace period for the driver to read the signs. The appellant states that the operator has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue ticket or pursue charges.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site will set out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, a motorist should review the terms and conditions before deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “Vets4Pets Customers Only: Non Vets4Pets customers parked on this car park will receive a PARKING CHARGE NOTICE: No stopping or waiting. If you cannot register for any reason do not park: If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.” The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver was not authorised to park. The site operates using an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras captured the driver’s vehicle registration, RE61 LJK, entering the site at 11:52, and exiting at 11:59. The total period of stay was seven minutes. The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not compliant with PoFA 2012 and as such, no keeper liability can be established. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper. I acknowledge the appellant has raised multiple issues with the NtK, which I will now respond to. The appellant has made comments that the NtK did not state the creditor did not know both the name of the driver and a current serviceable address. They further say that the NtK does not invite the keeper to pay the charges or if the keeper was not the driver to notify the creditor of the name and address of the driver and to pass the notice onto the driver. I have reviewed the NtK and I can see that it asks the keeper to provide the full name and current serviceable address of the driver so that the operator can address the request to them. I am satisfied that this is the operator stating that it does not know the name and address of the driver. I can see that the NtK has the details of how to make a payment on it. I am satisfied that this is the operator inviting the keeper to pay the charges. I acknowledge that the NtK does not advise the keeper to pass it to the driver, however I am satisfied that this does not affect the NtK being compliant with PoFA 2012. The appellant has made further comments in relation to the timescale of when keeper liability can be incurred. Upon reviewing the NtK I can see that it states, “If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle.” Section 6 of PoFA 2012 states, “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.” The timescales set out within PoFA 2012 are based on the given date. A registered keeper has 29 days from the given date to either pay or provide driver details in order to prevent liability from transferring to them. As the appellant will not be able to read the NtK from the operator until the notice is given, the reference to within 29 days relates to the given date. I am therefore satisfied, that this wording is compliant with PoFA 2012. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. I am satisfied that this does not have an effect on my decision as the operator has issued a compliant NtK. Therefore, the operator has transferred the liability onto the appellant as the registered keeper. The appellant says that there is inadequate and unclear signage. The appellant has made comments on Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant says that the entrance sign to the car park is only small. Therefore, the driver must enter the car park to read the additional signage. The appellant states that the signs are small and the information is not legible from a driver’s seat. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 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 and understand”. In response to the appellant’s comments in relation to Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice, this does not have an effect on my decisions. .This is because upon reviewing the ANPR camera evidence, I can see that the driver entered the site in daylight. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. The appellant says that the operator have not allowed a grace period for the driver to read the signs. Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”. The operator has provided a site map showing the layout of the site. From this, I can see that the car park is reasonably small with six signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site detailing the terms and conditions. Therefore, I am not satisfied that it would take the driver seven minutes to enter the site and read the terms and conditions to decide they were not authorised to park and leave the site. The appellant states that the operator has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue ticket or pursue charges. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a copy of the contract that they have with the landowner. Upon reviewing this, I am satisfied that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice and therefore the operator had the authority to issue PCNs on the day in question. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the parking charge notice in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the appellant’s vehicle has been on site without being a customer of Vets4Pets, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

nosferatu1001

Wow

Awful, awful decision

Firstly this stupid WRONG line "As the appellant will not be able to read the NtK from the operator until the notice is given, the reference to within 29 days relates to the given date. " They were slapped hard about this. They know this is wrong, and have admitted it in the past

USELESS assessor

Secondly 7 minutes grace is too much? That isnt their decision to make.

Umkomaas

Needs a letter to John Gallagher, Lead Assessor, about maladministration. Wait for other outraged regulars to come with their views so that a comprehensive document can be developed.

Therefore, I am not satisfied that it would take the driver seven minutes to enter the site and read the terms and conditions to decide they were not authorised to park and leave the site.

What objective criteria did he actually use to arrive at this? Would 6 minutes have been OK? How about 5 minutes?

And what about the mandatory minimum of 10 minutes grace period to leave the site? Did you build this into your appeal as I advised in post #42?

I acknowledge that the NtK does not advise the keeper to pass it to the driver, however I am satisfied that this does not affect the NtK being compliant with PoFA 2012.

So POPLA now has authority to interpret an Act of Parliament? And why was it interpreted in favour of the PPC and not the consumer?

I'm sure others will be along before the day is out.