Newbie questions

doubled1989

Johnersh wrote: »

Repost the above with paragraphs?:rotfl:

That is not very helpful. All that is above is their standard letter rubbish POPLA reply that is fine to me. One bit I do not get is (talking in regards to the contract)
" The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that the appellant’s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. "

Also I asked the gym to cancel it and they said no.
The contract they supplied is attached here, It is not really legible and to me makes no sense

Thanks

doubled1989

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sycqgxdh3v272id/agreements%20twyford%20house%202018%281%29.pdf?dl=0
(contract)

doubled1989

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict guidelines set out in section 9 of the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to.

From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012, therefore the liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signage at the site states !!!8220;Maximum Stay 20 Minutes!!!8221;.

The operator offers a facility to pay additional time prior to leaving the site. The operator offers a facility to pay for parking using the paybyphone system, failing this there is a helpline number to call for assistance. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant!!!8217;s vehicle registration, YY54 MVD, was captured entering the site at 11:02 and exiting at 11:40. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 37 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant for exceeding the maximum stay. The appellant has stated that they are the registered keep of the vehicle. They state that the parking operator has not shown that the individual it is pursing is the driver who may have been liable for the charge. They state that no presumption can be made about liability in this case and the appellant reserves the right not to name the driver.

They state that the signage is not prominent and is obscured; therefore inappropriate, illegible and confusing. They state that the charge amount is not clear and the text is too small. In addition the appellant states that there is no contract with the landowner. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The appellant has highlighted that they feel that the charge amount is not sufficient on the signage or that the signage itself is prominent causing an excess of charge. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are!!!8221;. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: !!!8220;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!!!8230;Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. 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 !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. POFA 2012 defines !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows: !!!8220;(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; 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!!!8221;.

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. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states !!!8220;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!!!8221;.

Within the contract supplied I can see that the contract with the landowner commenced on 28 February, 2017. It further states that the agreement is in place until terminated in accordance with the provisions given. For the purposes of this contract the termination provision is three months in writing by either party. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. The photographic evidence provided by the appellant supports that given by the parking operator. Overall, I am satisfied that there is sufficient signage to alert motorists to seek out terms prior to parking. If a motorist is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or feels that the terms and conditions cannot be complied with, there would be sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator.

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal

Quentin

What happens after popla rejection is covered in the Newbies FAQ thread

You now ignore everything except a lbcca or Court correspondence

They have 6 years to start legal action against you

If that turns up then come back for advice on how to defend this at the time

Coupon-mad

Ages ago, when asked who the PPC was because we knew it wasn't ParkingEye, you said:

FuriousD1989 wrote: »

...my bad. Was highview (went to check again).

But the landowner contract and later posts you made, tells us it's only Britannia?!

Neither Highview now Britannia are firms who sue people, so ignore them now, unless you get a claim. You will already know how vanishingly unlikely being sued by either firm is, when you were reading the NEWBIES thread and (we hope) you noticed and did the suggested Google search for the BMPA Insight page, as the sticky tells you in post #2.

Yes, I am telling you they do not sue...so please no reply asking if a claim is likely. Not sure what you are worrying about, POPLA is only an option along the way. What do you think we all did before POPLA existed in late 2012?

Just search the forum for 'POPLA lost' and see how many other people lose then sit on their hands laughing at debt collector letters till the 'bloodsuckers' (Hansard 2.2.18) give up.

doubled1989

Quentin wrote: »

What happens after popla rejection is covered in the Newbies FAQ thread

You now ignore everything except a lbcca or Court correspondence

They have 6 years to start legal action against you

If that turns up then come back for advice on how to defend this at the time

6 years and potentially going to court. you are having a laugh. no thank you that is not something I want to be dealing with or be bothered about when i have more important things to do. it was stupid, made a mistake that was dumb and i have to own up to it. I am just going to pay, 100 quid is nothing and i cannot be bothered too deal with this anymore, the writing and waiting is just ridiculous, and having to ignore letters and let my family see these and have no idea. you are having a laugh., i should have just listened to my instinct and my wife and paid it in the first place and saved myself time, money and hassle. i thought that every case is a winner? thanks for your help anyway. it is not worth it for such a small amount, this is a losing battle unfortunately. i am however going to pay BP offices a nice "visit" and have a friendly "conversation" with them. rip off merchant loser cowboys

[Deleted User]

6 years and potentially going to court. you are having a laugh. no thank you that is not something I want to be dealing with

Have you been living under a rock? Court is always an option - it's non payment of an alleged contract. That is clear from the Newbies thread and Beavis, a Court case which i'm sure the parking company will have mentioned (they generally like to). There's no magic bullet if you're not in it for the long game.

I am just going to pay, 100 quid is nothing

Fair enough. it's your cash

i should have just listened to my instinct and my wife and paid it in the first place and saved myself time, money and hassle.

Well, listened to someone, anyway. You're now in the invidious position of paying more for the ticket and yet giving up the fight, so the option of not paying at all will be lost. You makes your choice...

i thought that every case is a winner?

Nobody said that. It's litigation - there's always risk.

it is not worth it for such a small amount, this is a losing battle unfortunately.

Time has a value, I see that. I'm not sure it's a losing battle, but their approach/business model does rely on the time- poor/confused/intimidated (whichever applies to the relevant ticket recipient) just paying the cash - and you're about to sanction that business model by paying into it.

Quentin

doubled1989 wrote: »

6 years and potentially going to court. you are having a laugh. no thank you ........you are having a laugh., .......

Not having a laugh.

Just answering the question you posed in your #70.

Don't shoot the messenger and all that

The FAQ does spell out the long haul you can expect if you cannot get the landowner/retailer etc to get you a cancellation

Coupon-mad

Oh.come.on.it's BRITANNIA!!! NO-ONE PAYS THEM OR GETS SUED BY THEM.

Only a complete mug would pay them just because you lost at POPLA. Why on earth did your wife want to pay them too, what is the matter with people? This is why these firms exist.

SO WHAT. Nothing has changed, it's only Britannia, get a grip. I've ignored them myself.

What do you think we all did before POPLA existed?

You appear to be surprised that any firm can sue you within six years...it's not something specific to parking firms you know. Your utility supplier, mail order, any serviced provider, your neighbour, indeed even I could sue you over an alleged 'debt' and that window ALWAYS remains open for six years because that's the standard limitation period in this Country.

No-one is telling you that Britannia are suddenly going to sue you.

They are NOT. LOL, it's only Britannia!

Did you even bother to search POPLA lost and see all the other people ignoring stupid PPCs?

waamo

Britannia do not do court. They huff and puff but don't blow your house down. All they do is send paperwork that isn't soft, strong or very, very long.