Please help - 7 days to reply to POPLA comments

robberbutton

Thank you - that will definitely be my main argument.

When the BPA says signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand” - does that mean from the car?

I accept that I needed to pay for and display a ticket, and the signs were adequate for that information. I dispute, however, that I entered into a contract to display it "within the windscreen" - I followed the much larger and more prominent instructions on the ticket to "place it on the dashboard" - no mention of a windscreen there. I won't be able to get to the car park until tomorrow to check the other signs.

robberbutton

There are also problems with the Parking Management Agreement that they've uploaded as part of their comments. The address and contact details they've provided are out of date, and no one has signed on their behalf, and there are no names underneath the signatures. This fact won a previous Popla appeal:

The operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement; however the operator has redacted the names of the people who have signed the contract. As I am unable to determine who has signed the contract, I am unable to conclude if the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal; however I do not need to look at these as I have allowed the appeal.

But this might count as new evidence?

robberbutton

This is a good previous POPLA appeal win as well:

Decision: Appeal allowed
Assessor: Esther Sargeant


Dear XXXXX XXXXXX

Your parking charge Appeal against Wing Parking

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal.

We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX, raising out of the presence of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXX XXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Allowed.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.

Reasons for the Assessor's determination:

The term and conditions of the site state: "PARKING FOR PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY...A VALID PERMIT FOR THIS ESTATE MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN FRONT WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES...By parking here you are entering into a contract of which the terms are stated above. Failure to comply with these terms may result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice of £100."

The Operator issued the PCN because the motorist failed to clearly display a valid permit.

The Operator has provided photographs of the vehicle with the parking charge affixed to the windscreen.

Upon review of the evidence it is clear there is an item affixed to the passenger side of the windscreen. The Operator has not provided clear evidence of the items in the windscreen of the appellant's vehicle or evidence of what a valid parking permit should look like. I am not therefore satisfied that the appellant did not have a permit on display as i am not to establish, with any clarity what the items in the windscreen are.

It is the duty of the Operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions.

The Operator has not sufficiently evidence a permit was not on display; as this was the reason for the issue of the PCN, I am not satisfied it was issued correctly. (Yes, there was a typo in that sentence)

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant raised several other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, it is not necessary for me to consider them.

Your sincerely

Esther Sargeant

Coupon-mad

robberbutton wrote: »

There are also problems with the Parking Management Agreement that they've uploaded as part of their comments. The address and contact details they've provided are out of date, and no one has signed on their behalf, and there are no names underneath the signatures. This fact won a previous Popla appeal:

The operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement; however the operator has redacted the names of the people who have signed the contract. As I am unable to determine who has signed the contract, I am unable to conclude if the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal; however I do not need to look at these as I have allowed the appeal.

But this might count as new evidence?

No, that's definitely a valid 'comment on their evidence' and sounds good!

robberbutton

This is what I have so far:

Reply to the Comments

The Operator said: A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to vehicle registration XXXXXX on the XXX at the location XXX for the contravention “No Ticket”.

I bought a ticket which I still have in my possession and have provided photographic evidence of said ticket. Therefore this “contravention” is false.

The Operator said: There are a number of clearly displayed signs at the entrance and throughout the location advising on the site regulations and parking restrictions in place.

The photos provided by the operator showing their signage were taken in February 2016, and what is on them cannot be read from the photo. The PDF image on page 4 has incorrect information on it, specifically the telephone number and address of the company being different from the paperwork that I received. I would therefore question how a contract can be established in the first place, if the operator are not able to be contacted if there is an issue.

The pictures of the signs taken on the day in question are also impossible to read. The photo of the sign nearest my car, timestamped XXX, demonstrates that it is high up on a wall and covered by branches. As the wording of the signage is not visible within the photographs it cannot therefore be ascertained if it would make motorists aware of the terms and conditions of parking at the site.

The operator said: It stipulates within the signage that all vehicles must display a valid ticket, permit or scratch card.

This was fully complied with.

The operator said: Tickets, permits or scratch cards must clearly be displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle… Please, see the site images and photographic evidence. There is a clearly displayed signage at the entrance and throughout the car park advising that all tickets must be displayed clearly within the windscreen. As the driver failed to display the ticket in the prescribed manner, our enforcement officer issued a PCN and I am satisfied that it was issued correctly. It is the motorist`s responsibility to display the ticket clearly and visibly so that the enforcement officer can observe it.

I have provided photographic evidence that the ticket can be seen through the front windscreen, not just the driver’s side window. Had the parking attendant taken one or two steps to the right or the left from where he was standing, he would have had my ticket in shot. The operative has taken the photos at a skewed angle, deliberately to try to paint a misleading picture that suggests the ticket ''wasn't visible’'. I drive a XXX which, as demonstrated, has a slight dip in the dashboard for things like Blue Badges, permits or PDT tickets to sit in when parked; this serves the purpose of displaying the ticket but protects it from slipping down or blowing over.

As demonstrated by my photographs, the ticket is clearly and visibly displayed and could easily be observed by the parking enforcement officer. The photograph of the car time stamped XXX and XXX are not clear as the reflections of the trees can be seen obscuring the dashboard. The photograph taken time stamped XXX cuts off the left corner of the dashboard (as facing the car) - exactly the spot where my parking ticket was placed. This seems deliberate, and evidence of a deceitful and misleading business practice to angle the photos spuriously to exclude the clear view of the PDT ticket sitting in the dashboard well, not obscured nor covered by anything; it was there for all to see when standing at a proper (fair) angle.

The operator said: Although I understand the point the appellant is making, unfortunately, I am unable to take the mitigating circumstances into account.

These are not mitigating circumstances. This is evidence that I fully complied with the terms and conditions of the car park.

The operator said: The above location is private property and is managed by the operator on behalf of the land owner.

The operator has provided a copy of their Parking Management Agreement for the site. Again the address and contact details are different to that provided in their communication with me, and the agreement is not signed or dated (see p7). Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) sets out the requirement for operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement; however the operator has not provided the names of the people who have signed the contract. As it is impossible to determine who has signed the contract, no conclusion can be reached that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Taking these points into consideration, I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

robberbutton

I haven't yet complained to the landowner which I definitely will do next. In the case of a leisure centre who is it best to contact in these cases? I have the address for head office, but no name, and an email for Customer Services.

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Email CS, I would.

And email those comments, with the POPLA code and 'comments on evidence' in the subject line.

robberbutton

I have just found this in the BPA code of practice:

20.5b In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows.

The PPC have acknowledged that I have provided evidence that the ticket can be seen through the driver's side window. They claim it cannot be seen through the windscreen as per their terms and conditions. Aside from the fact that it CAN be seen through the windscreen, surely this proves that they have not followed the above clause?

The_Deep

If this were to get to court it would be a case of "he said", "she said".

Who is a judge to believe, a fine upstanding member if the public, or a disreputable scammer in an industry known for lying and cheating.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

robberbutton

This is what I have for the POPLA comments box, aside from my full comments which will be submitted as a PDF:

In response to the evidence pack submitted by Gemini Parking Solutions, I have submitted a PDF document laying out my reply to each point. Here I would like to highlight the main ways that Gemini have shown, by their own evidence, to have contravened the BPA code of practice.

CLAUSE 9.5 states: you must not use misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. The close-up photograph of the dashboard, timestamped XXX, cuts off the left hand corner, exactly the position where the ticket was displayed. The operative has taken this photo at a skewed angle, deliberately to try to paint a misleading picture that suggests the ticket ''wasn't visible’'.

CLAUSE 20.5 states: In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows. Gemini said: “I have noted appellant`s comments that a ticket was purchased and displayed by the steering wheel… I understand the point the appellant is making.” Gemini’s parking operatives are under an obligation to do a thorough visual check, and it is reasonable to expect that a ticket “displayed by the steering wheel” would be seen by the parking operator, had this person followed the code.

I have demonstrated where I placed the ticket on the dashboard, and that I was acting under every reasonable expectation that the parking enforcement officer would be able to see the ticket. Gemini Parking Solutions are therefore in contravention of CLAUSE 2.6: “Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.”

Gemini are claiming that the terms and conditions of the car park state that the ticket must be clearly displayed through the windscreen. Please see the photographic evidence submitted as a PDF that shows how my ticket can be seen through the windscreen and not just the side windows.

Thank you for considering these points. Please cancel the PCN.