PCN Manchester Urban Exchange

beccih1892

Umkomaas wrote: »

Attach it to an email with your reference numbers shown in the email covering the .pdf file.

I think info@popla.co.uk is the address, but you might just want to call them and double check - tel:03301596126

Thank you Umkomaas, I have done this and triple checked the PDF opens both on the draft and sent message and also the original file (I read on another thread about half being cut off half way). Will keep you all posted once I receive an update, have a great New Year :beer:

Coupon-mad

And put into the Portal, a line saying:

Dear Assessor, I have several comments on the woeful evidence pack, but this POPLA box is too small, so I have emailed them at xx (time) on xx (date). Please read my comments on the evidence.

beccih1892

Hi all, just an update on my case, POPLA refused the appeal which is extremely disappointing ! However I did shoot myself in the foot with this one to begin with. Guess I'll just wait for them to send the debt collectors letters now :rotfl:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

XXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The appellant failed to gain the appropriate authorisation to park on site, or remained on site for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that the operator has failed to adhere to the two grace periods, which are set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. She says the car park is narrow and it is hard to manoeuvre around spaces furthermore, on the day in question it was black Friday sales therefore, the site was busy. The appellant advised that there are traffic lights at the start of the site which cause a delay in entering. She states the vehicle was in the site for 11 minutes longer than the free stay. The appellant says taking into account the mentioned factors she believes this is reasonable. The appellant advised that the signage on site is not clear, prominent, or legible from all parking spaces on site. Also, she states that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

The appellant says that the wording on the signage is too small. She advised that she requests to see the entrance signage on the site. The appellant states that the operator does not have the appropriate landowner authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) on the site in question. She says witness statements are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the above. The appellant advised that the operator has failed to comply with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. She states that the operator has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems, fail to comply with Section 21.2, 21.3 and 21.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Before I begin my assessment I feel it is important to state that the appellant has named herself as the driver of the vehicle, within her appeal to the operator. The terms and conditions of the site state “1 Hour Free Parking 2 Hours Maximum Stay. Customers will receive a free parking voucher in store. Customers who remain onsite over 1 hour free parking period must validate their parking on the machines provided”. The operator has issued a £95 PCN due to the appellant remaining on site without gaining the appropriate authorisation to park on site, or remaining on site for longer than permitted. The site operates ANPR, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle, MF14 WVB, entering the site at 09:30, exiting at 10:42; the period of stay was one hour and 11 minutes. The appellant states that the operator has failed to adhere to the two grace periods, which are set out in the BPA Code of Practice. She says the car park is narrow and it is hard to manoeuvre around spaces furthermore, on the day in question it was black Friday sales therefore, the site was busy.

The appellant advised that there are traffic lights at the start of the site which cause a delay in entering. She states the vehicle was in the site for 11 minutes longer than the free stay. The appellant says taking into account the mentioned factors she believes this is reasonable. I note the appellant’s comments however, the BPA Code of Practice Section 13.2 states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. Furthermore, section 13.4 of the BPA Code Practice states “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”. Grace periods allow motorists to enter a site, and decide whether to park or leave.

Furthermore, it gives motorists time to comply with the terms and conditions, such as making a payment or obtaining a parking ticket if needed. Motorists are then also given a reasonable time period to exit the site after their parking contract ends, this could be due to obstruction upon exiting, or traffic. I have reviewed the ANPR images and cannot see any traffic on the site furthermore, the appellant has not given any reasons to why it took 11 minutes to exit the site, only on issuing entering. The signage on site clearly states motorists have one hour free parking, the appellant did not have to obtain anything to qualify for the free parking therefore, I am satisfied that Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice is irrelevant. In this instance, I am not satisfied that 11 minutes is a reasonable time period for the appellant to exit the site.

As a customer of the stores on site she could have obtained an additional one hour parking time, by following the guidance on the signage. The appellant advised that the signage on site is not clear, prominent, or legible from all parking spaces on site. Also, she states that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant says that the wording on the signage is too small. She advised that she requests to see the entrance signage on the site. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.

Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The appellant states that the operator does not have the appropriate landowner authority to issue PCN on the site in question. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice makes reference to grace periods. The BPA Code of Practice states “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”. In response to this, the operator has provided a witness statement which confirms that the operator had the appropriate to issue PCN’s, on the site in question. She says witness statements are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the above. I note the appellant’s comments however, I am satisfied that all the requirements in Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice has been covered by the operator. The BPA Code of Practice states that operators can provide either a landowner contract or a witness statement.

The appellant advised that the operator has failed to comply with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant’s comments however, the signage on the site states “This car park is controlled by ANPR cameras and/or Warden patrols. If your vehicle remains on site and fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time, you agree to pay an £95 Parking Charge”. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. She states that the operator has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the ANPR systems, fail to comply with Section 21.2, 21.3 and 21.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.

Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate.

Furthermore, the appellant admitted in her grounds for appeal that she overstayed by 11 minutes therefore, confirming the reliability of the ANPR systems. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Umkomaas

What a rambling mish-mash.

The appellant states that the operator does not have the appropriate landowner authority to issue PCN on the site in question. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice makes reference to grace periods.

Section 7 has nothing to do with grace periods!

In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.

If you’re feeling arsey, you could write to the BPA and ask how they audit the camera systems, when the last audit of this PPC took place and what their findings were.

Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate

Really? Not according to the latest Surveillance Camera Commission - 1.2 million mis-readings per day!

http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=31211

Anyway - mini rant over. As you say, see what comes next and tackle it whenever it comes. The good news is tha Highview are totally benign, so not a PPC to concern yourself about!

Sorry you didn’t quite make it with POPLA.

beccih1892

Umkomaas wrote: »

What a rambling mish-mash.


Section 7 has nothing to do with grace periods!


If you’re feeling arsey, you could write to the BPA and ask how they audit the camera systems, when the last audit of this PPC took place and what their findings were.


Really? Not according to the latest Surveillance Camera Commission - 1.2 million mis-readings per day!

http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=31211

Anyway - mini rant over. As you say, see what comes next and tackle it whenever it comes. The good news is tha Highview are totally benign, so not a PPC to concern yourself about!

Sorry you didn’t quite make it with POPLA.

Hi Umkomaas, thanks for the response it's made me feel a bit more at ease with the entire situation (as POPLA took their time responding I stopped thinking about it). I done some research into the threads on here about Highview and their stats on court cases which has helped, I know they don't seem to go beyond the debt collecting stage from what I've seen!

I might just be arsey about the cameras, considering I have nothing else to lose at this point!

Your rants are welcome on my thread anytime! :rotfl:

Umkomaas

I might just be arsey about the cameras, considering I have nothing else to lose at this point!

Ask the BPA what expert resource they are utilising to conduct the audits and what technical specifications they are working to. Tell them that as POPLA (their contracted ADR provider) are officially quoting them as having conducted such audits, and one of the reasons they have turned down your appeal, you feel you have the right to ask and to know the answers to the legitimate queries you are raising. Should you not receive a satisfactory answer, you will be escalating this via your Member of Parliament.

Why not flash up a draft and we’ll try to help to refine/add to it. It’s about time these gratuitous throwaway fob-off lines are properly challenged and robustly put to bed. Sick of seeing them!

Coupon-mad

That's a truly DAFT decision, POPLA. The BPA CoP insists on a minimum allowance of at least ten minutes to leave, so POPLA are saying it's unreasonable to take ONE MINUTE FLAT to zoom in & park!

Next time, just send the forum template and Highview will cancel the next day.

beccih1892

Hi again guys, I had a bit of spare time so have drafted a response to send to the BPA. Would you please have a look through it and send come CC my way so I can amend it if needs be TIA

(Not sure who I need to address this too so just left it blank for now)

I have recently received an unsuccessful POPLA appeal against Highview Parking. Whilst I appreciate there is nothing you can do about this decision, I do feel I am well within my rights to request information from you relating to one of!the points brought up, as this was one of the reasons my appeal was turned down.

Due to the fact POPLA have claimed and I quote, "In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working!order and that the data collected is accurate".

I would like to query this and ask if I could please be provided with information on this matter, considering POPLA have officially quoted yourselves as having conducted such audits. I would like to know the following:

1.) How do you monitor your camera systems, and what technical specifications are you working towards?

2.) When the last audit of this private parking company took place?

3.) What were the findings from this audit?

I look forward to your response, please note if I do not receive a satisfactory answer to my query I will be escalating this further to my MP.

XXXX

Umkomaas

I would like to raise a number of questions [STRIKE]query[/STRIKE] emanating from the definitive POPLA statement [STRIKE]this[/STRIKE] and ask [STRIKE]if I could please be provided [/STRIKE]you provide me with the following information [STRIKE]on this matter,[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]considering[/STRIKE] as POPLA have officially quoted yourselves as having conducted such audits. [STRIKE]I would like to know the following[/STRIKE]The following information is required:

From my perspective, a bit of adjustment to make this more assertive and direct.

1.) How do you monitor [STRIKE]your[/STRIKE] the camera systems of your parking operators, and against what technical [STRIKE]specifications[/STRIKE] criteria are you [STRIKE]working towards[/STRIKE]making assessments?

2.) When did the last audit of this private parking company COLOR="Blue"]make sure you put in the name of the PPC here[/COLOR take place?

Hope the above helps - but I don’t have the monopoly of ideas on this, so wait to see if others wish to contribute. It needs to be rapier-like to put POPLA on the spot via the BPA, and the BPA painted into a corner as a result of loose phrasing by POPLA.

beccih1892

Umkomaas wrote: »

From my perspective, a bit of adjustment to make this more assertive and direct.





Hope the above helps - but I don’t have the monopoly of ideas on this, so wait to see if others wish to contribute. It needs to be rapier-like to put POPLA on the spot via the BPA, and the BPA painted into a corner as a result of loose phrasing by POPLA.

Thank you for the feedback Umkomaas, it's greatly appreciated. Sounds good to me, I'll check back in a few hours/tomorrow to see if there are any other contributions.