POPLA appeal WY Parking Bradford

Sid2k12

Hi guys,
I have a few until 07/11/2017 before my POPLA appeal needs to be submitted and I was hoping someone could give some advice so that I can make sure I get it correct.

The driver went to Shimla's on Great Horton Road Bradford with their friends on 12/08/2017 and parked behind where there are some garages. They had not seen signs saying parking is not allowed here and were surprised to find a PCN on windscreen due to causing an obstruction. Apparently a few other drivers had received a PCN and told the driver to ignore it which they did.

I received a NTK on 18/09/2017 from PCS regarding the vehicle causing an obstruction and appealed to them via email about the signage using a template. Thinking back to it I should have gone further and mentioned about markings as I went to see this area and there isn't any road markings outside the gate to indicate where not to park. Also there are two signs directly in front of where the vehicle was parked and are pretty too close together saying 'parking for Shimlas customers' and 'no parking'.

As expected the appeal was rejected. I want to share their pictures which they sent to me as it doesn't really show the vehicle causing much of an obstruction and also their signs.

Apologies for the long thread but I would appreciate any help to point me in the direction to go.

Thanks

pappa_golf

does the signage clearly state WY parking with full details inc BPA registration and full company name and address?

Umkomaas

I want to share their pictures which they sent to me as it doesn't really show the vehicle causing much of an obstruction

How ‘much’ of an obstruction does there need to be before it becomes an obstruction?

But it doesn’t really matter in the context of appealing this.

How to appeal via POPLA is detailed in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3. Work through that and show us your draft appeal for critique.

Sid2k12

Hi Pappa Golf

The sign seems to be pretty clear. It is like the one on the link below but at the top it said 'private property, no parking 24 hour access required'

hxxp://photobucket.com/gallery/user/BlueGills93/media/cGF0aDovMjAxNzA2MjRfMTY0NzU0LmpwZw==/?ref=

Thanks

Sid2k12

A few photos I took to better describe the situation.

hxxp://s36.photobucket.com/user/Sid2k12/media/IMG_3029_zpsmflwkhkx.jpg.html?state=replace&sp=false

hxxp://s36.photobucket.com/user/Sid2k12/media/IMG_3032_zpstmw1vvh0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1

The first Image shows the two signs which were directly in front of where the driver parked the car.
The second image shows a silver Toyota which is parked at the same angle as our vehicle was but just slightly to the left. Our vehicle was a little more to the right but not on the kerb area. I can send the images taken by WY parking if you wanted.

Do you guys think I have an argument over the signs?

All this seems quite overwhelming but I will study through the POPLA appeals thread to start getting this together.

I appreciate all the help and feedback given.

Regards

claxtome

The sign seems to be pretty clear. It is like the one on the link below but at the top it said 'private property, no parking 24 hour access required'

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/BlueGills93/media/cGF0aDovMjAxNzA2MjRfMTY0NzU0LmpwZw==/?ref=
Note: something wrong with URL.

A few photos I took to better describe the situation.

http://s36.photobucket.com/user/Sid2k12/media/IMG_3029_zpsmflwkhkx.jpg.html?state=replace&sp=fal se

http://s36.photobucket.com/user/Sid2k12/media/IMG_3032_zpstmw1vvh0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1

Umkomaas

Photo bucket no longer works for me. Seemingly they want payment. So please host on tinypic, imgur or Dropbox to open your images up to the widest readership on the forum.

Sid2k12

I've uploaded the images I shared earlier to DropBox and share these below:

The actual warning sign seems to be pretty clear. It is like the one on the link below but at the top it said 'private property, no parking 24 hour access required'

/s/2x8bi9womexbop8/WYParking.jpg?dl=0

The other two images of the location to give a picture of the situation:

/s/2weebv1f0jjmjgi/IMG_3029_zpsmflwkhkx.JPG?dl=0

/s/uuls1o2o1ic09kb/IMG_3032_zpstmw1vvh0.JPG?dl=0

I couldn't share links so I had to get rid of (http_s://w_ww. dropbox. com) at the beginning of each link. I hope it makes sense though.

The first Image shows the two signs which were directly in front of where the driver parked the car.
The second image shows a silver Toyota which is parked at the same angle as our vehicle was but just slightly to the left. Our vehicle was a little more to the right but not on the kerb area. I can send the images taken by WY parking if you wanted.

Do you guys think I have an argument over the signs?

I'm gonna have a read through other POPLA appeals and start getting a draft ready. Wish me luck guys.

KeithP

Sid2k12 wrote: »

I couldn't share links so I had to get rid of (http_s://w_ww. dropbox. com) at the beginning of each link.

Far too complicated.
All you had to do was replace http by hxxp - just as you did before.

Anyway, here's the links:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2x8bi9womexbop8/WYParking.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2weebv1f0jjmjgi/IMG_3029_zpsmflwkhkx.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uuls1o2o1ic09kb/IMG_3032_zpstmw1vvh0.JPG?dl=0

The sign boldly states PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY.

To me, that is a forbidding sign, and even with the words "contract to park" underneath, is incapable of being an offer to park.
Thus is cannot be the basis upon which a contract is formed.

It sounds like the sign you mention that has the words "private property, no parking 24 hour access required" is even more forbidding.
Can we please see a picture of this sign?

Sid2k12

Thanks for all the help and support I really appreciate it. I am sorry for making it complicated with the links but I tried putting xx as before but this wouldn't work.

This is the actual warning sign:

hxxps://w_ww.dropbox.com/s/qu953jhntu66l1u/Image4.jpg?dl=0

Location of the signs:

hxxps://w_ww.dropbox.com/s/01nrs2ygow8doev/Image1.png?dl=0

hxxps://w_ww.dropbox.com/s/rggo673t1ulvakn/Image3.png?dl=0

There is no charge to park in this area as long as you stay clear of these gates.

I noticed that the notice to keeper shows a location which is not where the vehicle was actually parked. Should I mention this in the appeal?:

hxxps://w_ww.dropbox.com/s/3036w0d2t9xvlz3/Image5.png?dl=0

This is the appeal I have written so far with bits chopped off and copied from here and there. I will try to expand on this:

A parking ticket was issued on 12/08/2017 which I believe is unlawfully issued. Upon receipt of the Notice To Keeper I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:

Directly in front of where the vehicle is parked there are two signs. The first sign states ‘Parking for customers of Shimlas, Central Motors and the Pharmacy’. The sign besides this states ‘no unauthorised parking wheel clamping in operation’. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PFA 2012), it is now a criminal offence to clamp a vehicle without lawful authority on private owned land.

The area in which the vehicle is parked has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are and due to poor lighting it makes it difficult to notice or read the signs especially in the night. Where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract and did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

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.

Sid2k12

I'll upload an image as soon as I get a chance of my NTK. Need to get some sleep now though...