PCN from CPP

Redx

Panzellus wrote: »

Hello. I've received the evidence pack from CPP (via POPLA website) and drafted my rebuttal, which is below. I do have some questions, and again thank you in advance:

1) I have yet to receive the evidence pack from CPP themselves. Should I comment about this? As I said above, I only got it from the POPLA website itself.

2) CPP have submitted photos of my car and where it was parked, but when I initially appealed to CPP about the PCN, there were no photos in their log of my PCN. Should I comment about this?

3) In their evidence pack, CPP have a "Final Signage Plan" with their own letterhead on it. It just states the account manager and the date the signage plan was created. The boxes for 'Approved by' and the 'Date' [approve by] are blank - is there any scope for commenting here?

4) I think I read on these forums somewhere that I can email my comments in if they're over 2000 characters. I would just like to check that this is still okay?

1) AFAIK it all changed this year and you have to log into the POPLA portal to view their evidence , so I dont think its relevant myself

2) you can do if you wish to

3) definitely point out ANY and ALL errors in their paperwork

4) I believe so yes , but maybe phone them once done and ensure that they have received it and added it to the case file

Panzellus

Thank you for your advice.

I did forgot to add that this evidence pack from CPP is, in my opinion, terrible. There is zero mention of my appeal to POPLA in it, so I suspect they haven't bothered reading it at all and in general it's really poorly put together, such as the too low resolution images of the signage.

Panzellus

Thanks for all the help. My updated version of my rebuttal is below.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I have read through the 27 page “evidence pack” Car Parking Partnership (CPP) have submitted with regards to my POPLA appeal and it is clear that it is a quickly hashed template with no acknowledgement of my appeal or its arguments. In response to the pack, I have the following points of rebuttal:

1. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
2. Poor/obscured signage that does not comply with BPA:CoP

1. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
Page 5 of the evidence pack from CPP states the following:

‘Car Parking Partnership can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).’

This is the only “evidence” CPP have submitted which claims they have landowner authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices. This evidence is worthless and nowhere else in the pack do CPP provide a full/redacted landowner contract nor a witness statement as actual evidence that they have a landowner contract. CPP have failed to prove that they have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices at the site in question which means the Parking Charge Notice issued to the driver is invalid - I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. Poor/obscured signage that does not comply with BPA:CoP

The bottom-left photograph in the evidence pack from CPP shows the vehicle with registration [number] parked in a bay with a parking sign behind it. A photo of this sign was also submitted in my appeal (it is the last photo). In both the evidence from CPP and myself, the sign is shown to obscured by a branch over the bottom half, making it impossible to read a significant portion of the text. I also submitted photographs of the other nearby signs which were all also partially or completely obscured in a similar manner. The obscuring of signage is in direct breach of the British Parking Association: Code of Practice (BPA:CoP) – this particular sentence of Section 18, Paragraph 3 (S18P3):

‘…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. …’

Furthermore, I also argued in the appeal that the sign is too high and the text is too small which makes it impossible to read. I believe both of these arguments are supported by the evidence that CPP provided. Firstly, the sign is shown to be too high in the (bottom-left) photograph supplied by CPP, which makes it challenging to read due to how much your head needs to be angled upwards (as above, a breach of BPA:CoP S18P3). Secondly, the text on the sign is too small to read (also a breach of BPA:CoP S18P3) and remarkably it is not possible to read the fine print text in the sample signage images that CPP provided in their evidence pack either. Whenever I zoom into the images of the signs to read the fine print, it gets too blurry to read which makes the complete understanding of the sign impossible to ascertain.

Page 22 of the evidence pack from CPP contains a “Final Signage Plan” which has empty boxes for ‘Approved by’ and the ‘Date’ [when approved]. This incomplete signage plan fails to prove that the signs have been checked for compliance with BPA:CoP, even though the signage contains the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme logos which imply that the BPA:CoP is being complied with, but that cannot be assumed in this case.

Therefore, since the contents of the signage is impossible to read in its entirety in both physical and digital forms, which has been supported by the CPP evidence, I once again request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform CPP to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Best Regards,
Registered Keeper

Panzellus

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Linda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is as follows: • He states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. He states that the signs offer no contract that a driver can accept: • He states that there is no evidence that any contravention took place: • The appellant states that there is no landowner authority allowing the operator to issue and pursue charges on this site: • The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle: The appellant has submitted an eight page document expanding on the above. This includes undated images.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The appellant states that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle, however he has nominated himself as the vehicle driver in his appeal to the operator. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, for the purpose of this appeal, my report will focus on the issue raised regarding landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (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”. The operator has not provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming it had the authority to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the day in question. I am satisfied therefore, that the operator has not shown that it had sufficient authority to issue this charge on the day in question. I note the appellant has raised other issues and has submitted a full explanation and images to support his appeal .However, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Therefore, from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly.

Redx

well done

please post the details , name of PPC and a link to this thread in the POPLA DECISIONS thread at the top of this forum

CPP lose out again , no valid contract submitted