POPLA Appeal (ECP) - Submitted - awaiting response

MikeHammer

In the absence of any other NtK deficiency, you might want to bolster this paragraph by going to town on the requirement of the law in PoFA (PoFA requirements are not merely guidelines, they are the law), and there is nothing in that law that allows for the PPC, nor POPLA, to interpret period on site (or entry/exit times) as being the equivalent of the unequivocal term ‘parking’.

Thank you - I'll go read back up on PoFA (this all started pre-xmas and my brain's been reformatted since then!) and go to town a bit more about this. Are you perhaps referring to PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

??

You should describe the amount of time taken for the driver to enter the car park, circle around to find a suitable parking space, park, walk around the car park to find the signs, then the driver noticed there were various signs, so you needed to check out what each one said. Then having read it was not a free car park - left. +48 seconds is de minimis and there’s no guaranteed accuracy of the PPCs equipment.

I have the following at the end of Section 1 (Grace Period). Do you think this is sufficient?

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Euro Car Parks claim was 10 minutes 48 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

1. The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.
2. Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at time of the visit – [ENTRY TIME] to [EXIT TIME] (hh:mm;ss).
3. The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
4. The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
5. The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2).

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
• Decipher the confusing information being presented (one example being identifying which fees apply, as discussed further in section 2, page?? of this document).
• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.

Also, Section 7 (ANPR Accuracy/Reliability) discusses the accuracy of the ANPR equipment -
and refers to the entry and exit times and the fact there's no evidence of parking, just entry/exit.

Do you think I should expand on this (or repeat it in another section)?

Do you suggest adding in the bit about +48 seconds somewhere?

HTH

Yes it does - hugely - thank you once again

Umkomaas

Thank you - I'll go read back up on PoFA (this all started pre-xmas and my brain's been reformatted since then!) and go to town a bit more about this. Are you perhaps referring to PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

I’m suggesting you emphasise that entry/exit times are not the ‘period of parking’. The law requires the ‘period of parking’. It is not in the gift of either the PPC or POPLA to substitute ‘entry/exit’ in its place and hold the keeper liable.

I have the following at the end of Section 1 (Grace Period). Do you think this is sufficient?

Seems ok.

Do you suggest adding in the bit about +48 seconds somewhere?

Yes, get that in somewhere as it is a minor time difference.

As an aside on this theme, when POPLA use their template response commenting on the level (£100) of a PPC’s claim, they pray in aid the Supreme Court Beavis judgment and say that as £100 is ‘in the region of £85’ it (POPLA determines) is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. They can’t have their cake and eat it on ‘in the region of’, because 10m 48secs very definitely meets that POPLA criterion.

MikeHammer

Latest draft here.

I’m suggesting you emphasise that entry/exit times are not the ‘period of parking’. The law requires the ‘period of parking’. It is not in the gift of either the PPC or POPLA to substitute ‘entry/exit’ in its place and hold the keeper liable.

Thank you - section 5 now amended to strengthen this point.

Yes, get that in somewhere as it is a minor time difference.

As an aside on this theme, when POPLA use their template response commenting on the level (£100) of a PPC’s claim, they pray in aid the Supreme Court Beavis judgment and say that as £100 is ‘in the region of £85’ it (POPLA determines) is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. They can’t have their cake and eat it on ‘in the region of’, because 10m 48secs very definitely meets that POPLA criterion.

The above was in relation to mentioning the length of stay being +48 seconds (10mins 48secs). I'm not sure on this as in section 1 (grace period) I've argued that 10mins 48 seconds is not an unreasonable grace period. If I go on to say the vehicle was only 48 seconds over I'm concerned it almost contradicts that argument and suggests I'm now claiming admits the driver knew they were there longer than the generally accepted grace period.. maybe I'm overthinking it again..

I could emphasise it in the section (8) where I talk about reliability of ANPR and state something like "any calibration issues with the ANPR timestamp could be key in this case given the length of time between entry and exit is claimed to be 10mins 48secs".. I don't really want to say "the driver was only 48 seconds over" if you see where I'm coming from as this gives the assessor grounds to dismiss my whole grace period argument in section 1 (which I feel, along with signage, is my strongest point).

MikeHammer

Morning everyone, just giving this a quick 'bump' to see if anyone other than Umkomaas (who has been incredibly helpful - thank you once more) has any feedback on the document.

Thanks

MikeHammer

Ok one last question before I put the final draft together and submit the appeal to POPLA:

Having read on this forum Parking Company responses to some POPLA appeals, I've seen their evidence pack dispute the signage points (where the appellant has claimed signs are not visible in the dark) by claiming the photographs provided in the appellants original evidence were taken on foot, not in a vehicle and if they were taken in a vehicle the headlights would've illuminated the entrance signage.

I am tempted to go and measure the height of the entrance signs in my case as the headlights absolutely did not illuminate them - they're probably 8-10ft at least from the ground - way too high for the headlights to shine on them. Also, there are two signs at the entrance (one either side of the road, both with differing info). The car park entrance is on a one-way street and the angle at which you enter the car park means your headlights are never ever going to point at the entrance sign on the left, regardless of how high it is positioned.

As I say, I'm tempted to include this, together with accurate measurements and a diagram indicating positioning/height of signs in relation to the direction a car would take upon entry in my appeal. The thing that's stopping me is am I giving the Parking Company something to pick up on that they otherwise probably wouldn't have mentioned?

Any thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Yes throw the entire kitchen sink, and all appliances, at a POPLA appeal!

Do you suggest adding in the bit about +48 seconds somewhere?

Yes, state that it was the intention of the BPA as far back as 2015, to change the BPA CoP to clarify that anything under 11 minutes is acceptable, to fall in line with the wording used elsewhere in parking bylaws.

This is proved here, where some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum, a minimum requirement) certainly means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are not taken into account and certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes is perfectly reasonable, especially given the fact that terms take longer to read in the dark than they would in broad daylight.

Mere seconds are not mentioned in the BPA CoP, for the blindingly obvious reasons that:

(i) firstly, it would be wholly unreasonable to hold a human being to a matter of a few seconds and also expect their own watch to be spot-on to the second, and/or to exactly match the unknown time behind the camera, and

(ii) in addition, even an ANPR system used by the Police or other agencies never claim to be exact to the second, in terms of the actual timers running at the 'in' and 'out' cameras, which are not 'new technology' at all and run using digital clocks like any other, subject to server buffering and human error when they are adjusted twice a year when the clocks go back/forward.

(iii) The positioning of the 'out' camera invariably means that in fact most cars (in most locations seen in the public domain in such cases) are photographed several seconds/a minute after they actually crossed back over the entrance threshold. ANPR operators often produce misleading 'out' images taken at the end of the not insignificant time spent waiting on the pavement/entrance roadway, until it is safe to rejoin the main road, having actually left the car park boundary already.

(iv) Given that the images show the number-plates in the dark and that the operator has enhanced the images, there is no evidence that the exit camera photo actually shows the car still within the confines of the car park (where is the site boundary? no evidence of it - just darkness and road markings).

(v) It is argued that the operator has selected the 'OUT' image showing the very last second before the vehicle disappeared as it joined the public highway, in a desperate an unfair attempt to paint a false picture time spent within the actual car park boundary as if it was in excess in ten minutes, when that was never the case.

MikeHammer

Thank you Coupon-mad - you've certainly given me lots more food for thought. I may well reword some of your numbered points at the end of your post and use them appropriately within my appeal.

Through reading lots of threads on this forum I was aware of the BPA minutes to which you refer. The reason I've not included reference to them is because they're speaking specifically about 13.4 which is the time permitted to leave the site at the end of the parking period. My appeal is based on there being no contract ever established, therefore no period of parking existed.

Were you highlighting this particular point and suggesting I could still use this as a cross reference for my appeal? For example, say it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the period that should be allowed for someone to enter a car park, locate terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave again?

Coupon-mad

MikeHammer wrote: »

Through reading lots of threads on this forum I was aware of the BPA minutes to which you refer. The reason I've not included reference to them is because they're speaking specifically about 13.4 which is the time permitted to leave the site at the end of the parking period. My appeal is based on there being no contract ever established, therefore no period of parking existed.

Were you highlighting this particular point and suggesting I could still use this as a cross reference for my appeal?

For example, say it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the period that should be allowed for someone to enter a car park, locate terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave again?

Yes, and this has been used in cases that were won in 2017. Search for 'Aire Street' to find one.

MikeHammer

Brilliant - thank you. I will search as you suggest and amend the appeal document accordingly.

MikeHammer

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, and this has been used in cases that were won in 2017. Search for 'Aire Street' to find one.

Hi Coupon-mad. I'm just finalising my latest draft. Upon searching for "Aire Street" (as you suggest), the only successful cases I can find that relate to mine (grace periods) seem to relate to how faded the T&C's were on the machines (not applicable in my case) and also overstays where people had paid for a period of parking but been ,say, 14 mins over. The latter case(s) were won on the grounds that 6 minutes to enter and pay took the person below the stated 10mins grace period (BPA 13.4).

Did you have a particular case in mind that you thought could apply to my appeal? If so, I'd be grateful for the details of the case and how you think I could apply it.