Need help with POPLA appeal for Premier Park Ltd (PPL)

Coupon-mad

Remove the eBay and Signazon links and the words about those, as they no longer work.

Twig182

Sorry, should have told in advance:
The Signazon link still works for me and has the same wording as in previous appeals. The eBay Link I swapped out with another link over at thesignchef.com/sizing_guide.php - it basically has the same info I think.

Coupon-mad

Oooh, that's useful to know - I keep meaning to find an alternative link to replace the one in the template, maybe you've answered that for me!

Twig182

Aaaaand here I am again
PPL really needs some money apparently (which I'm not gonna give them anyway, but they don't know... ) - so I am happy to take some time of their clock.

I'd like to use the comment function in the POPLA process - but I want to do it right and concentrate on the important points. So I'd appreciate some help again :beer:

They sent in their evidence today together with the following overview:

We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by the BPA Auditing Team. Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorist.

We enclose copies of the signage at this site.

The signage at the site states:

Camera enforcement in operation
(This car park is run by ANPR cameras which take a photograph using infrared technology to capture vehicles as they enter and exit this site. These photographs are time and date stamped. To complete a successful paid parking session the driver must follow the correct process in order to pay for their stay, whether from the machine or via RingGo.)

WE DO NOT HAVE CCTV.

This is a Pay & Stay Car Park

Motorists can pay at the terminal or by phone using the RingGo service.

Motorists are required to enter the full and correct vehicle registration, validate what has been entered before inserting coins into the machine.

If the driver does not follow the above instructions, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued as the cameras cannot deem payment has been made.

Pay on arrival, top up before exiting car park for any additional time required.

• All permit holders must have their vehicle pre-registered before using the car park.
• Park only within marked bays
• Blue Badge holders only in marked bays. No concessions.
• No motorcycles, No camper vans, No lorries

If you enter or park on this land, contravening the terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice.

PCN will be issued manually or by post to you or the registered keeper via Premier Park making a DVLA request. If any charge remains unpaid additional costs may be incurred. PCN reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days of issue. Terms & conditions in place at all times unless stated. Any images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes only. An administration charge may apply for card payments. Premier Park operate a space maximisation scheme only.

There is no entry barrier in use on this car park. Nor do Premier Park have CCTV at this location.

The Appellants vehicle entered the site at 14:59 and exited at 15:24.

We are unable to trace a payment for the Appellant’s vehicle. See other evidence.

When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park.

13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice
13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.
13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
13.4 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.

If the Driver felt, for any reason, that they were not able to adhere to the terms and conditions, then they would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site.

The Appellant’s vehicle remained on site for 25 minutes with no payment made. Therefore, an unpaid parking session occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued.

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the site. On this occasion, the Appellant did not.

We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

With regards to the appellant’s remarks regarding POFA, Europcar provided the name and address of the driver. No other driver details were provided and therefore, no other driver would have been insured to drive this vehicle. The Notice to Keeper was issued to the driver of the vehicle.

If, as the Appellant states, he was not the driver, then the Appellant would have allowed an unauthorised person to be in control of the vehicle, and therefore, the Appellant would have been in breach of his agreement with Europcar. The Appellant not Europcar have not provide any evidence that a further driver was named on the hire agreement.

The letter from Europcar clearly states “At the time of the alleged offence the vehicle was on hire to a customer who, under the provisions of the rental agreement arising out of the hire, was responsible for payment of all tolls and fees whilst the vehicle was under his or her care custody and control.”

As the Appellant was the only driver named by Europcar, he is therefore liable for payment of this charge.

They also attached a "EVIDENCE CHECKLIST" (over 30 pages :eek: , containing a lot of NtKs/mails/POFA extracts) and photos of the signage (nearly 30 pages).
But actually, to me they did not go into detail of even one of my appeal reasons.

Now.
These were my appeal reasons originally for POPLA (I crossed the ones out, where I think they're evidence seems valid):

1. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
5. No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable
6. [STRIKE]No evidence of Landowner Authority[/STRIKE]

Does it make sense to structure my comment based on my original POPLA appeal?
Or should I just focus on the fact, that they're falsely insisting, that I can only be the driver - which is just a blunt lie since they have no idea of my contract with Europcar.
Do I point out again that there's missing evidence regarding the APNR system reliability?
How do I use the 'Notice to Hirer' point to my advantage?[/I]

Their signage on site is (based on the provided pictures) ridiculous by the way - no way any tourist is actually able to see the 100£ charge notice if he doesn't know, where to look. Still, PPL is claiming that the signage has "been approved by the BPA Auditing Team". What the hell?!

I'm by no means a top priority here - but maybe my case will help someone else as guidance in the future.

Thanks !

KeithP

You seem to be doing the right thing and have identified everything in your PoPLA appeal that they have not challenged. You also need to point out to PoPLA all the things in their evidence that are simply wrong.

The challenge you now have is to include all that in PoPLA's response portal where you are limited to 2000 characters.

Also remember you only have seven days to do that.

Twig182

Phew, 2000 characters exactly. :whistle:

Just as documentation, my comments below:

Premier Park (PP) has chosen not to show (valid) evidence in multiple appeal points:
- Notice to Hirer: PP failed to show evidence that they sent the necessary documents as outlined in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Sched. 4 of POFA (esp.: copy of the hire agreement / copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agr. / the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company).
- Notice to Keeper (NtK): As proven by the evidence given by both parties I uphold my statement that PP has failed to deliver a NtK in accordance with the requirements of Sched. 4 of the POFA 2012. E.g. the NtK did not state that PP does not know both the name of & a current address for service for the driver.
- Also, PP claims, that I am the only eligible person to DRIVE the hired vehicle – apparently without having seen the hire agreement with Europcar (at least one other person was mentioned as eligible driver). PP should have provided me with that hire contract and I am under no obligation to provide it. Furthermore, Europcar never named me as the DRIVER – only as the HIRER (see PP evidence).
- I also uphold my argument that the signage is not prominent and the evidence does not reflect the situation on the day of the alleged parking violation. Page 2 of the signage evidence by PP shows that both initial signs and the terminal can be easily blocked out by a larger vehicle parking in front, esp. when sitting in a small car (VW Polo). As I do not recall seeing any signs while entering the car park, I have to assume the signs/machine were blocked out. By stopping in the middle of the car park, I am also not able to read the other signs (small font size!) without coming close to them. Also, the “Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 100£” lettering is too small as outlined in my appeal. PP failed to provide evidence for their claim that the signage is “approved by the BPA Auditing Team”.
- Finally, PP failed to provide evidence to show their APNR system is reliable/ accurate/maintained.

I'll keep you posted.

Coupon-mad

As I do not recall seeing any signs while entering the car park, I have to assume the signs/machine were blocked out. By stopping in the middle of the car park, I am also not able to read the other signs (small font size!) without coming close to them.

Eeekk!!

If POPLA are on the ball, you have just shot down the winning POFA para 13/14 'NTH' argument...

Twig182

Damnit.
Well, I’m only doing this to annoy PP anyway...

Should have posted the thing beforehand. :wall:

Twig182

I also posted in the Popla decision thread a second ago, but to conclude this thread, here is once again the assessor's supporting rational for the decision to allow the appeal:

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle in this instance. If a parking operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. I can see that the initial PCN was sent to Eurocar Group Ltd., who appears to be a rental company. A second PCN was then sent to [hirer] who appears to be the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator are chasing the appellant as the hirer they will need to comply with Section 13 of PoFA 2012 which states, !!!8220;A notice to hirer can be issued; If within 29 days of the date of the notice to keeper (starting 2 working days after the date on the notice to keeper, if sent by post) the vehicle hire company provides the operator with · a statement signed by a representative of the vehicle hire company stating that the vehicle was hired out at the time · a copy of the hire agreement · a copy of a statement of liability signed by the person who hired the vehicle stating that the hirer will be responsible for any parking charges incurred while it is hired (it doesn!!!8217;t matter if it refers to any other charges, it must refer to parking charges) The operator has failed to provide me with evidence that they have received the above documentation within the relevant timescale. If the operator has not been provided with the correct documentation then the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012, as a notice to hirer can only be issued if the documentation is provided within the correct timescales. Therefore, I cannot confirm that the notice to hirer was compliant with PoFA 2012 and cannot conclude if the PCN was issued correctly. As such, I must allow the appeal. I acknowledge the appellant has provided further evidence to support their appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal for the reason explained I have no requirement to address additional evidence or grounds provided.

Thanks again for all the help!
Hopefully, this cost PPL at least some time - and I'm curious to see, how this industry has changed next time I visit the GB again.

Gemwill

Twig182.
How are you getting on with thus?
Looking to help a friend in a similar position and wondering if you still have the sign evidence they sent you please?
Thsnks