Forbidding sign, grace periods, or both?

happybagger

Which is not employed at this location.

happybagger

happybagger wrote: »

In the meantime I'm stirring it up at the county council re. planning and adv consent as there are 4 anpr cameras and 12 signs welk over the 0.3 sq m permitted. Looked back 10 yrs and have found nothing granted.

While waiting for the popla adjudication, I have receivef a reply from the council, which included the following:

I have read your letters with interest. On initial searches it does not seem that planning permission/advertisement consent has been sought for the abovementioned developments, even though it would appear that they require the benefit of consent from the Authority. Accordingly I have elected to treat the matter as a potential breach of planning control, and have assigned the case with the abovementioned reference number.

☺

happybagger

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Louise D***
Assessor summary of operator case
On 16 September 2017, vehicle ******* was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the maximum time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1: The appellant says that there has been insufficient observation or grace periods 2: They say that the car park contains inadequate / forbidding signage. 3: The appellant says that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. 4. In addition, they say that the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012)

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’1 ½ hour max stay…Customer only car park…Strictly no parking outside of store opening hours…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Whilst I note the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my assessment will focus solely on signage as this supersedes the other grounds. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. The operator has issued a PCN as the motorist has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Whilst I acknowledge this, the signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is one hour and 30 minutes. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 18:52 and leaving at 19:04 after completing a parking session of 12 minutes. In this instance, the appellant has remained on site for a total of 12 minutes, whereas the maximum stay time is one hour and 30 minutes. As such, I can only conclude that they have not parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

happybagger

I don't necessarily agree with all of what she says, however the decision was in my favour. It's a shame they don't reply to all points.

Thanks to all who added their input to this thread ��☺

nosferatu1001

They only need to find one reason, and thats what they usually comment on
well done

Computersaysno

happybagger wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with all of what she says, however the decision was in my favour. It's a shame they don't reply to all points.

Thanks to all who added their input to this thread ��☺

POPLA adjudicators tend to speed read the case, look for an easy win and then use a boiler-plate response to adjudicate.


Several brave? people have taken single points of appeal to POPLA to get a ruling on a single point.....it forces POPLA to consider just that point of appeal and give a ruling on it.


If there was any that needed doing then I would quite happily do it, as a defeat at POPLA doesn't mean that you have to pay the scum!!!!!!!

freester

I guess in this instance PE could have justification to feel hard done by as she doesn't seem to have paid much attention to their evidence. Much in the way we observe quite bad decisions by POPLA against the appellant.

That said. A win's a win. Take the result :beer:

Umkomaas

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

They only need to find one reason, and thats what they usually comment on
well done

But they’ve missed the real reason why PE issued a PCN with only a 12 minutes stay. It’s more than likely at 18:50 (entry) the store was closed, with the OP falling foul of this (forbidding) part of their sign.

Strictly no parking outside of store opening hours…

It was nothing to do with the fact that 1.5 hours was available.

Well done @happybagger, good win. Do please keep us updated on any progress that emanates from your complaint to the local authority re planning permission/advertising consent.

Loadsofchildren123

Typical POPLA, missing the point entirely and as Umkomaas points out in fact they're wrong because the reason the pcn was issued was because the shop was closed (although that was confusing because it had different closing time on a Saturday than week days).
But a win is a win.

happybagger

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do please keep us updated on any progress that emanates from your complaint to the local authority re planning permission/advertising consent.

No real progress, the LA said

I have been in touch with the company’s solicitor and he has assured me that he will look into the matter. I now await his response, which I trust will be forthcoming reasonably promptly.
...
breaches of planning which affect Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and protected trees will generally be afforded the highest priority
...
your forbearance would be appreciated

to which I replied stating that the companies are profiting from the illegal signs, and in some cases from incorrectly issued tickets, and I trust the LA will bear this in mind. Also commented on the Fleetwood PE issues.