Premier Park - Brixham

Redx

the keeper should give full name and address details , including postcode, the PPC already has those details from the DVLA so why hide ?

you presume correctly , use a BRAND NEW gmail email address for this saga (they are free)

I have seen several detailed explanations of this process by coupon mad in recent months on here in answer to these questions - have you read them ?

have you read the parking pranksters blog on this from 2 years ago ?

ps:- the keeper is a motorist , otherwise why would they own a vehicle ?

the NEWBIES sticky thread does not even mention the word MOTORIST

it also says you dont have to answer all of their questions too

Old_Eyes

I'll try to find the parking prankster article/blog


I only read the newbie thread which was excellent, but not so clear on this point. Which is fair enough.

Redx

coupon mad does tell you the system is horrible

the prankster blog is here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html , but its a mish mash of their horrible system anyway

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5696380

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5674461

the NEWBIES sticky thread says do not reveal the driver , nothing is said about the motorist at all ; but I am sure that CM has posted what to write in their spurious boxes in other posts that you have not read

the pdf appeal will contain the pcn ref , the popla ref , the name and address and postcode of the keeper , as well as the appeal itself

the online boxes under OTHER are just a means to an end , but heavily weighted against the apellant

more info https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5677701

and in

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5632539

Old_Eyes

thanks.


All clear now. Appeal submitted.

Old_Eyes

Premier Park have now contested my appeal (see further below).
My appeal was built around these 5 issues
1. Amount demanded is a penalty
2. Misleading, unclear and inadequate signage
3. Insufficient grace period (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)
4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

Point 1 they refer to the Beavis Parking Eye case about how the penalty is justified.
They go into detail contesting points 2, 3 and 5. But a lot of what they write is “we believe”. Well of course they do. I don’t. Their appeal shows every sign in the car park, which there are numerous but there is so much written on some of these signs that there is no way a user of the car park would stand and read it, otherwise they would comfortably exceed the parking ticket time alone!
They have published the ticket times, but how accurate that is I’ve no idea. This has the driver exceeding the ticket period. So I’m not sure how the grace periods could be argued? They did say the grace period at the end should be a minimum 10 mins? But what about prior to buying the ticket and finding a space?
They also argue that a driver should review the full T&Cs before deciding to park. Really? How on earth can a driver spare the time to do that in its entirety.
They do not address point 4 at all.
While addressing point 5, they show a contract with plenty of handwritten crossing outs. In particular the enforceable date. Here it has TBC, but then a handwritten line through it with a date in 2015. How can that be verified that it was correct?
Any support or guidance would be wonderfully appreciated. I know I could look at the "newbie" threads, and I've looked but I couldn't find information about the contesting at POPLA.


What might happen next in terms of the fine?
Thanks ever so much in advance.

We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by the BPA Auditing Team.
Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorist. We enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied that the driver did not see said signage. The signage clearly states that Camera Enforcement is in operation and that this is a Pay on Foot Car Park. Motorists can pay at the machine or by phone using the RingGo payment system. Motorists are requested to enter the full vehicle registration and then validate what has been entered before proceeding with the payment. Motorists are also able to top up if they have overstayed the paid parking session. This means that the motorist can purchase a further parking session to cover the additional time they have been parked, before exiting the site It also states that if you enter of park on this land, contravening the terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. The Appellants vehicle entered the site at XXX. We can confirm a payment was purchased at xxx for the duration of 5 hours, which expired at 1xxxx. The Appellants vehicle exited at xxx. 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 sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. 13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 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. 13.4 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. The Appellants vehicle exited the site 31 minutes after the parking session had expired. The Appellants vehicle was parked on site for 5 hours and 33 minutes with only a payment for 5 hours purchased. Therefore, an expired and an unpaid parking session occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused. With regards to the appellant’s remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis.

Umkomaas

What might happen next in terms of the fine?

You still haven’t got the hang of this!

Point 1 they refer to the Beavis Parking Eye case about how the penalty is justified.

Beavis was most certainly not about a P&D car park as the judge’s at the Appeal Court made it clear, before the Supreme Court dealt with the case. The SC did not challenge or change the AC ruling on this. It is therefore precedent. So you case has nothing to do with Beavis, and the PPC cannot pray that in aid.

They did say the grace period at the end should be a minimum 10 mins? But what about prior to buying the ticket and finding a space?

So you have to argue the ‘front end’ of arrival, circling to find a parking spot in a busy car park, read the heavily detailed signs, visiting more than one because there were seemingly different terms/instructions on other signs. Re-read the BPA Code of Practice Clause 13 to understand just what should be provided at the front end.

They do not address point 4 at all.

Reiterate that to POPLA.

While addressing point 5, they show a contract with plenty of handwritten crossing outs. In particular the enforceable date. Here it has TBC, but then a handwritten line through it with a date in 2015. How can that be verified that it was correct?

Make sure you focus heavily on this, but don’t write ‘reams’ as your rebuttal should be pretty concise - it isn’t a further appeal.

HTH

Old_Eyes

You still haven’t got the hang of this!


No - no I haven't!

nosferatu1001

WHat was meant is that you havent read up - this is all a known part of POPLA appeals, and so you should be prepared

Old_Eyes

Thanks. I'm learning every day

RobinofLoxley

My appeal was built around these 5 issues
1. Amount demanded is a penalty
2. Misleading, unclear and inadequate signage
3. Insufficient grace period (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)
4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

Point 1 they refer to the Beavis Parking Eye case about how the penalty is justified.

Point #1 is pretty much irrelevant as far as POPLA is concerned, they only rule on whether or not the PCN was issued correctly. It could come to play if it goes to court where their reliance on the Beavis case could be contested as yours is a completely different situation to that case as referred to by Ukomaas.

They have published the ticket times, but how accurate that is I’ve no idea. This has the driver exceeding the ticket period. So I’m not sure how the grace periods could be argued? They did say the grace period at the end should be a minimum 10 mins? But what about prior to buying the ticket and finding a space?
They also argue that a driver should review the full T&Cs before deciding to park. Really? How on earth can a driver spare the time to do that in its entirety.

You said in your original post that from entering to leaving the car park was 5 hrs 23 mins. In the extract you have shown from PP's evidence, they are saying it was 5 hrs 33 mins.
Which is it? Because 23 mins can be argued to be within the guidelines for grace periods, 33 mins would be pushing it.

While addressing point 5, they show a contract with plenty of handwritten crossing outs. In particular the enforceable date. Here it has TBC, but then a handwritten line through it with a date in 2015. How can that be verified that it was correct?

This point should be definitely emphasised in your rebuttal. The date when the contract commenced. How long is the contract for? Who signed it on behalf of their client? What is their position within the company?. This person should be clearly identified and PP need to prove this contract was in force at the time of the parking event.

Which company is named as the client, is it MDL Marinas, Marina Developments or another name?

Any support or guidance would be wonderfully appreciated. I know I could look at the "newbie" threads, and I've looked but I couldn't find information about the contesting at POPLA.

You have 7 days from receipt of PP's evidence pack to submit your rebuttal to POPLA.
You can't submit new evidence in your rebuttal but you should question and pick apart PP's evidence wherever you can.

What might happen next in terms of the fine?

It is not a fine, PP have sent you an invoice for the driver allegedly breaking their T&C's.
If POPLA allow your appeal, their decision is binding on PP and they must cancel the charge. If POPLA decide that the PCN was issued correctly, their decision is not binding on you and you still don't have to pay if you don't want to.
If PP then decide they still want to pursue you for the charge, they will have to commence a claim against you at the small claims court. They have 6 years to do this.