Smart Parking - Remained on site longer

darkcloudi

pappa_golf wrote: »

How long does it take to read the Terms and Conditions,

according to the BPA , you are allowed 5 mins to read , digest and understand the signage

I'd say that on finally being released from their imprisonment,

a perfect use of the 10 min grace period as advised by the BPA

Agree, I specified this in my appeal that I would of required to break the glass to escape but they were having none of it and suggested that as I overstayed I was required to pay the PCN.

Silly ain't it, don't think Smart Parking are very smart. I also provided them with this evidence.

darkcloudi

Reworded driver to registered keeper and included BP COP 18.3 for point 2 and included point 5 as entry time and the exit time shown on the payment ticket is different. So one would assume the exit time on the payment ticket is the time to exit which is 2 hours after payment being made.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number![xxxxxxx]!!Vehicle registration:![xxxxxxxx]

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from Smart Parking. My appeal to Smart Parking was rejected on 24th July 2017 and they gave me POPLA code![xxxxxxxxx].

I am appealing as the registered keeper and authorised gym member held up for ten minutes by faulty doors. Whilst I was an occupant of the vehicle, the actual driver of the car has never been identified and this remains the burden of the parking operator.

The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:
1) The minimum grace periods was not allowed by the operator
2) The signage not clear and legible
3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate, Time on site is not parking time
4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5) Entry times differs to payment time.
6) Keeper liability

1.) Lack of Observation and Grace periods either side of allowed parking time
The charge that was levied is unreasonable for overstaying in the car park for 11 minutes. which was due to the registered keeper being unable to exit the Gym (imprisoned) due to faulty doors which led to the alleged overstay. British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 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.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
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.

The registered keeper entered the car park and it took 5 minutes to locate a car parking space.

The registered keeper paid 2 hours parking for the duration of their stay (as per the entry sign). Payment was made within the premises of the Gym (Pure Gym).
An attempt was made to exit the gym, during the alleged incident the registered keeper was unable to exit due to an IT glitch with the doors, this particular instance required the attention of a member of staff to let the registered keeper out after 10 minutes due to the gym being short staffed and requiring time to exit the car park. (Evidence attached)

Evidence of this was provided to Smart Parking who responded to suggest regardless of the situation, payment should have been made for the 11 minutes overstay, knowing this was out of the registered keeper’s ability to exit the premises within a reasonable timeframe. Even if it took 6 minutes to exit the gym this is still reasonable and within BPA CoP.

Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods and account for situations like above
https://www.britishparking.co.uk
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation ...

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.!
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes’ observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors (e.g. Christmas shopper queues) and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.'

The Signage on entry to Astle Retail Park is not clear detailing the grace period, when the parking period begins and its parking charges. (see attached – Image 1 (will include the entry sign as per above))

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

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.!

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

Image for Beavis Case (attached – Image X (Following image will be attached to case))
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

Image for my case (attached – Image Y. Note to forum readers terms photo shown in previous post of terms)

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and!'agreement on the charge'!existed.


The terms and conditions (Attached) do not state the parking charges let alone the sum payable for unauthorised parking. The BPS COP states:

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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.
18.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations.

The signage before entering the car park states “purchase a parking ticket for the duration of your stay” which the registered keeper complied with. The sign on entry has no reference when the parking period begins (see attached – Image of entry sign).

The POPLA annual report 2016 states:

In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking
period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end
of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking
begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.!

The signage for the terms and conditions has very small font and has over 630 words which is difficult to read and understand. Attached is an image with the terms located at Astle Retail car park.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this


3.) ANPR system

I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, date, licence plate) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge Smart Parking Ltd to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.).

BPA COP 20.5 states
When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.

4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner

Smart Parking has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Smart Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent).!Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Smart Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Smart Parking to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for Smart Parking merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a, the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b, any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c, any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d, who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs!

e, the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement!

5.)
The time of entry also differs to the time on the payment ticket so one would assume that the parking time begins from paying for the ticket as the exit time displayed on the same ticket is two hours after payment has been made.

It could take up to 5-10 minutes to purchase a ticket due to having to walk to the Gym, go through the turnstile doors requiring a pin entry and queue up with others to purchase a ticket. Therefore, grace period should be accounted for in this situation due to the terms contradicting with entry time and start time of the payment ticket.


6.)
!If Smart Parking want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and Smart Parking have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that Smart Parking have complied with these BPA Code requirements for!ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to!POPLA.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.

20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.

I appreciate you taking the above into account during your objective considered assessment.


Regards
Sam

The_Deep

The whole attitude of the PPC is unreasonable. Their T&C are unreasonable, as is their rejection of your appeal, they deserve a kicking, please give them one.

Geoff1963

If it ever gets to court, make sure you are first in, then barricade the door and ask for default judgement. If the claimant's solicitor cannot get in through the door, so arrives too late, that is their problem.

On a more serious note, the traumatic nature of the delay, was the reason why you didn't think to pay for extra parking ; I think it's called a Cognitive Interrupt. I'd tell the gym that if the "invoice" goes to court, you'll be counter-claiming against them for that amount, plus extras. A reasonable person with any kind of fear of enclosure ( or a memory of Grenfell ) would have made short work of some very expensive doors.

darkcloudi

Forgot to include this photo:

darkcloudi

Response from POPLA today (21st Aug 2017) after appeal submitted. Thanks to those that helped and supported me in creating my appeal

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 8********2.

Smart Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Redx

ha ha , what a surprise !! (not)

just goes to show that if you stand your ground and dont blink first they turn tail when they see a decent popla appeal they cannot possibly win !!

well done , and well done for sticking with us and the advice you were given, it vindicates your belief in that what you had done was not wrong and should not be punished

not so SMART lose again