Wish St in Rye PCN - Postal NTK - POPLA appeal

craigwallis

Thats great thanks for your advice. Do you happen to have a useful link to a thread that contains suitable text so that I can copy and paste this as the basis of my POPLA appeal?

Umkomaas

craigwallis wrote: »

Thats great thanks for your advice. Do you happen to have a useful link to a thread that contains suitable text so that I can copy and paste this as the basis of my POPLA appeal?

NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3.

Coupon-mad

craigwallis wrote: »

Thats great thanks for your advice. Do you happen to have a useful link to a thread that contains suitable text so that I can copy and paste this as the basis of my POPLA appeal?

Nope, I told you what to put into the search - you will find more than one link yourself. Easy.

I gave you the search terms and I don't ever spoon-feed links, because people using the forum search is far better for them to see more info than a link arriving without you knowing how I found it. Guess how I would find links, if I did? Yep, searching like I told you to try.

Just use the 'search this board', drop-down box above the sticky threads, in line with the 'NEW THREAD' button (NOT THE 'MSE' BOX TOP RIGHT OF THE ENTIRE PAGE) put in the words I said, then change the default to 'SHOW POSTS' (never 'show threads', which is awful).

All will be revealed.

craigwallis

Thanks for all your help everyone, im glad to say that my POPLA appeal has been successful. Just so that everyone is aware how we achieved this win I will now post three things in this thread:

1) My original POPLA appeal letter
2) My response to the counter-appeal from Euro Car Parks
3) The POPLA results and commentary on my appeal

Hopefully this will help others to beat these robbing barstewards in the future! Never give up and DO NOT PAY THEM!!!!

craigwallis

1) My original POPLA appeal letter:

"Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the Wish Street, Rye car park on 16/06/2017. This car park is run by Euro Car Parks.

To protect the driver, they have not been named.

My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
1. Insufficient grace period
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority


1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere 16 minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“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.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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.”

During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 13:55 and driving out at 15:11 on the same date 16/06/2017. Also, the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. Although no mention is made of any ticket purchase on the NTK, Euro Car Parks have since acknowledged that a ticket was purchased at 13:59 for 1 hour of parking, which expired at 14:59. In their appeal rejection letter, Euro Car Parks state that “The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking and therefore the notice has been issued correctly and will remain payable.”

It is very clear from the evidence that Euro Car Parks have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 16 minutes, a sum of 4 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 12 minutes after the parking period had ended.

By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10/11 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

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


Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

Kind Regards"

craigwallis

2) My response to the counter-appeal from Euro Car Parks:

"I quote from ECP’s response:

”According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before enforcement action is taken. 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.

I can confirm that Euro Car Parks have given Mr Craig Wallis the suitable grace period of 10 minutes and was issued a Parking Charge Notice.

Figure 3 shows a transaction report where a payment of £1.40 which would have entitled Mr Craig Wallis to be parked for up to 1hour. Mr Craig Wallis was on site from 13:55 and exited at 15:11; a total stay of 1 hour and 15 minutes. Regardless of whether the car park is empty or full it is the drivers responsibility to adhere to the restrictions as laid on in the signage“.

I would like to comment on two points in accordance with my original appeal:

1) For one, ECP have stated that “Mr Craig Wallis was on site from 13:55 and exited at 15:11; a total stay of 1 hour and 15 minutes”. At no point has the driver or the occupants of the vehicle been disclosed hence it is wholly inappropriate, presumptuous and incorrect to assume that Mr Craig Wallis (registered keeper of the vehicle) was in the vehicle and/or at the site on that day. Therefore ECP’s appeal is incorrect on many levels to use the name of Mr Craig Wallis throughout their appeal document.

2) ECP are quoted in their response as saying: “According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before enforcement action is taken. 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.”. That is a MINIMUM of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period, hence a total grace period of 15 minutes “from 13:55 and exited at 15:11; a total stay of 1 hour and 15 minutes” is entirely REASONABLE. It takes time to park a vehicle, get out and purchase a ticket (whereby an appropriate 1hr parking ticket was purchased in this instance) and takes time to leave a car park at the end of a stay."

craigwallis

3) The POPLA results and commentary on my appeal:

"Decision Successful
Assessor Name Daniel Kelley
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the parking operator has provided an insufficient grace period. The appellant states the parking operator does not have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN). The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. The signage states, “We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including bank holidays”. The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:55 and exiting the site at 15:11. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant remained on site for a total of one hour and 15 minutes. The operator has provided a system print out which provides the vehicle registration details for vehicles registered at the car park on that day. This demonstrates that the appellant purchased one hours parking time at 13:59, four minutes after entering the site. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that “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”. Upon review of the evidence, I can see that the appellant entered the car park at 13:55, and purchased her ticket at 13:59. I am satisfied that this is classed as a reasonable grace period. In relation to grace periods when leaving the car park, Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “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.” The purpose of a grace period is to allow a motorist who encounters circumstances that may prevent them from leaving the car park, within the time permitted, to be able to leave without incurring a PCN. Upon consideration of the appellant’s circumstances, I am satisfied that 11 minutes falls within a reasonable period. As such, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

craigwallis

Thats all from me folks - good luck!