POPLA Appeal Review

eoe21

Hi all,

I’ve followed all of the brilliant advice in the newbies thread and I am now at the POPLA stage – the operator is Secure A Space. In summary

1. Windscreen ticket received for alleged incident
2. Appeal sent via email on day 27 using the template (as keeper)
3. NTK received at the address registered on DVLA (dated 40 days after the initial incident), despite providing the new address on the appeal letter (moved in late Feb, DVLA would not change address as it’s a new build so taken them a bit longer before the post code is valid) – would this be classed as a breach of the DPA if I had provided the details of the most recent address as they had no reasonable cause to do so?
4. Rejection email received 28 days after appeal with POPLA code enclosed (deadline is in about a week)

I’ve based my appeal on the template points outlined in the newbies thread but have not currently included either

• The two POFA points, as I believe the NTK is compliant. It is from PCS and they seem to have corrected their wording from the examples I have seen on earlier threads from just a few months ago. Happy to be corrected if not - NTK can be seen here: imgur.com/XOIfqdd
• This is a private residential parking area, although not a permit zone, so not sure the other 2 points regarding loading/unloading/permit appeal points apply here?

The other point I was toying on was grace period. However I don’t believe these apply to private residential areas? The time between the first photograph provided as evidence and the PCN issue time is 7 minutes, which I don’t believe is enough time for a driver to be able to wander around the site to read the various signs (2 different types) to determine if they agree to the terms or not. However the last photo provided was timestamped 11 minutes after it was first spotted so it could be argued the driver did not return during the 4 minutes the PCN was being issued.

Any advice on the above and if these should be included will be greatly appreciated.

My appeal so far:

1. The alleged contravention did not occur
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

The alleged contravention did not occur

Secure A Space have issued a PCN on the basis that the vehicle in question was not parked within a marked bay. However based on the evidence provided, as keeper of the vehicle I dispute this. The photos provided in the rejection letter clearly show the vehicle was correctly parked within the marked bay, with all 4 tyres within the boundary markings.

The operator’s rejection letter includes some of the wording outlined on the signage, specifically with regards to parking within the bays. I’d like to draw particular attention to the following from their response:

"The contractual agreement signs at this location lay out the terms and conditions that must be adhered to at all times when parking at this location. They clearly state that parking is only allowed within a marked or allocated bay. The bays at this site are clearly marked out with high visibility white paint that mark out the dimensions of the bay."

Firstly, the signage defines that there are two types of bays within this parking area; a marked bay and an allocated bay. The operator does not dispute this with their above response. However, the signage does not identify exactly what is defined by a marked or allocated bay, nor as to the appearance of what these should be. Therefore it is up to the driver of the vehicle to make a reasonable assumption based on what the road markings indicate around the parking site.

The marked bay in question is:

imgur.com/uaMpFU0
imgur.com/NGz8Tgb

The evidence that contributed to the driver’s reasonable assumption that this was in fact a marked bay is as follows:

a) Opposite the area in question there are two allocated bays, whereby the same yellow road markings can be seen to define the left boundary of one of these spaces (E1), and not the “highly visible white paint” the operator has suggested. In fact, there is no sign of any white paint on the left boundary, meaning the yellow markings were not painted over any white markings, and that it was always the true intention that only the yellow markings defined this boundary. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume the marked bay in question follows this same boundary convention, with the left boundary being defined by the same yellow markings without any white paint as can be seen above.

imgur.com/EiHAEU2

b) Additionally, the space next to the one with the yellow boundary (D1) is next to the grass area that is being used to define its right boundary. Again, there are no white markings to highlight where this right side boundary is. The white paint only distinguishes between the two parking bays that are adjacent to one another.

If for example, the right hand space (D1) above did not exist and there was only a single space between the yellow markings and the grass area, then this could be seen as follows

imgur.com/0n0LJeg

The above now looks identical to the marked bay in question, with the only difference being the number allocated to it. Therefore, as the evidence proves, the space in question can be identified as a marked bay by encompassing two different types of boundaries that can be seen in other parking spaces that are very close in proximity to the one in question.

To illustrate the immediate area surrounding the marked bay in question that enabled the driver in making this assessment, the following image shows the marked bay in question within yards of the other yellow markings that define the boundary of the allocated E1 space, as well as at least three other spaces that use a curb or a wall as a boundary, with the only white paint visible being that of the ones to separate adjacent spaces.

imgur.com/4ImHCaB

Note that the other bays within the parking area contain a number or a letter (or a combination of both) to identify that these are allocated to residents of the property. If a bay does not have a number or a letter (or a combination of both) then it is entirely reasonable to assume this must be a marked bay that the signage is referring to. With the above evidence, it was entirely reasonable for the driver to assume this was a marked bay that the signage referred to. It is very important to note that there is no additional signage in or around the marked bay in question to say that no parking was permitted or that it wasn’t in fact a marked bay.

It is for these reasons the appeal should be upheld. If the operator does not intend for this marked bay to actually be used as a marked bay, then they either need to immediately change the road markings so that the yellow paint covers this entire area, or erect additional signage in front of this marked bay to indicate no parking is permitted. Whichever solution they wish to proceed with, it is vital they do something immediately to defer other drivers from unwittingly parking in this marked bay.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

<template copy of signage - I may alter this slightly to reflect this residential site>

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

<template copy of landowner authority>

If you need any further details please let me know. Appreciate all of the info to date and any further help!

Coupon-mad

I like your first appeal point, makes sense to me.

NTK received at the address registered on DVLA (dated 40 days after the initial incident), despite providing the new address on the appeal letter (moved in late Feb, DVLA would not change address as it’s a new build so taken them a bit longer before the post code is valid) – would this be classed as a breach of the DPA if I had provided the details of the most recent address as they had no reasonable cause to do so?

I agree the NTK looks compliant, and PCS have improved their wording. Surprising but true.

I don't think there is a breach of the DPA in PCS obtaining the keeper's address from the DVLA even though you'd already given a different address. they would have the excuse that they have to apply to the DVLA if they want to hold a keeper liable, and couldn't be sure the person who appealed was the same person, etc.

I would change this:

Therefore it is up to the driver of the vehicle to make a reasonable assumption based on what the road markings indicate around the parking site.

to this:

Therefore it is up to the driver of the vehicle to make a reasonable [STRIKE]assumption[/STRIKE] decision to get out of the car for a few minutes to read the signs and/or fetch a permit from a resident, whilst temporarily stopped in a bay.

and

The evidence that contributed to the driver’s reasonable [STRIKE]assumption[/STRIKE] understanding that this was in fact a 'marked bay' and complied with the signs as drafted, is as follows:

Then re this:

I was toying on was grace period. However I don’t believe these apply to private residential areas?

Yes they do, they apply to every car park, you must be given time to read signs/fetch a permit. Search the forum for:

'eleven minutes Kelvin POPLA'

...to find that wording, that uses the 11 minutes stated in 2015 as due to be updated into the BPA Code, and which quotes Kelvin Reynolds.

eoe21

Many thanks Coupon-mad, appreciate your input greatly. I have updated the areas you have suggested. I'm glad the first point makes sense, it took a long time to ensure it flowed correctly and made sense whilst capturing everything I wanted it to!

I'll look into the grace period pointers you have given and post back with a further appeal point over the weekend. Will the 3 points above + the grace period be enough? Is it worth including the POFA and/or the permit one just to bulk it out or will that be a negative with POPLA?

Coupon-mad

I would not put in stuff that's completely irrelevant. I like long appeals but all 'on point'.

eoe21

Just wanted to say a big thanks to Coupon-mad and everyone else who contributes to the brilliant advice on this forum - had an email from POPLA today saying the operator has withdrawn their appeal (with a reason given that their signage was out of date since the PCN was issued and are currently updating it).

Without the excellent template points I'm not sure my appeal would have had the same impact, so thank you!