Defence Systems (Park Watch) PCN

Johno100

Advent123 wrote: »

Hi all,

its taken some time but I've eventually had a decision from POPLA. Not good news as they have declined the appeal.

The letter is attached.

hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1HaYcmxcol7CKjG-A4p4DN2-B7cLs1E-jW8vppmwjqcA/edit?usp=sharing

Any ideas what to do next or do I give in and pay the fine??

Here goes for anyone who doesn't want to mess with links (few paragraphs added for ease of reading).

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: ‘entered a no access area’.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that his car was never parked, it did not stop and Park watch are invoicing him for a parking ticket under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 which covers parking regulations.

He states that the alleged occurrence was not a parking event as the car never parked. He states that the signage was inadequate and that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA 2012 as it does not state the duration of the period of parking as the car never parked.

The appellant also says that there is no evidence of the landowner authority to permit the operator to issue these invoices and that at no time was a contract entered into. The appellant has provided a document to POPLA which explains his grounds for appeal. This information elaborates on the above. Photographs have also been provided in the document, of signs on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am satisfied that the appellant has indicated that he was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as the driver of the vehicle.

The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states: “ACCESS NOTICE, BUS ACCESS ONLY… NO UNAUTHORISED ACCESS AT ANY TIME”. Additionally, it states, “THIS LAND IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IS MANAGED BY PARK WATCH. IF YOU ENTER THIS AREA CONTRAVENING THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS YOU ARE CONTRACTUALLY AGREEING TO PAY A PARKING CHARGE TO THE SUM OF £100”. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Systems. The cameras have captured the appellant’s vehicle entering a restricted area at ****.

The appellant has been issued with a parking charge notice (PCN) for the following reasons: ‘entered a no access area’. The appellant has stated in his appeal to POPLA that his car was never parked, it did not stop and Park watch are invoicing him for a parking ticket under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 which covers parking regulations. He states that the alleged occurrence was not a parking event as the car never parked. He states that the signage was inadequate and that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA 2012 as it does not state the duration of the period of parking as the car never parked.

Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association’s code of practice states: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. The operator has responded to the appellant’s grounds for appeal with photographs of the signage at the site. A site map has also been provided.

Having assessed this evidence, I am satisfied that the signs are clear when advising of the terms and conditions. I appreciate that the appellant has provided his own evidence of the signs on site. He has said that one of the signs is located at the roundabout which I appreciate would be hard to read when driving. However, in the area where the appellant has entered, there were numerous signs advising of the terms, as well as a ‘no entry’ sign. The area was marked with yellow hatchings and I believe this to have been clear that vehicles were not permitted to enter this area.

I appreciate the appellant’s comments where he has said that he was not parked. He has said that the Notice to Keeper has not complied with PoFA 2012 as it does not show the vehicle parked. However, regardless of whether or not the vehicle has remained parked, he has still entered a bus access only area. By entering this area, he has breached the terms and conditions displayed on the signage.

The appellant has also raised issues with the Notice to Keeper and has referred to schedule 9 of PoFA 2012 where it states, “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. He states that the notice to keeper does not specify the period of parking therefore, it does not comply. I have reviewed the notice to keeper and I am satisfied that schedule 9 has been met. The notice clearly states the vehicle registration number *******, the land being ‘One Stop Shopping Centre’ and the incident date and time being ’08:39, 23/06/2018’. The notice does not need to state how long the vehicle was parked in the area. The fact remains that the vehicle entered that area.

The appellant also says that there is no evidence of the landowner authority to permit the operator to issue these invoices and that at no time was a contract entered into. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.” The operator has provided a contract. Having assessed this against section 7, I am satisfied that the operator has permission to operate on this land and issue charges where it is deemed necessary. The statement complies with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note that the appellant has also provided additional comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file. However, I have already addressed these concerns in my report.

Ultimately, the vehicle has entered an area where it was not authorised. Regardless of whether or not the appellant parked in that area, no vehicles were allowed to access the area in question as it was for buses and coaches only. The signs clearly stated this at the entrance to the area. I am satisfied that the appellant was afforded the opportunity to read the terms in place and by entering the area, a contract was then formed. As such, I can only conclude that the appellant has breached the terms of the site and so, this PCN has been issued correctly.

B789

I am satisfied that the appellant has indicated that he was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as the driver of the vehicle.

Did you state anywhere that you were the Driver? If you did, then that's an own goal. However, you should certainly not pay the "Fine" as it isn't one. I note that in your initial appeal you certainly made it clear that you were the registered keeper and were appealing as such:


Unfortunately, I don't think we got to see your POPLA appeal.

You will also note that in 2017, Defence Systems Ltd issued 28,279 tickets. They went to court only 35 times. That gives you odds that there is a 0.12% chance this will end up in court. Even if it does, as I'm sure the 'experts' on here will point out, they have very little to stand on regarding signage, especially the 'Restricted Zone' one as there is no "contract" for a forbidding sign, aside from the fact that it is almost impossible to read it when driving, or even as a passenger in a moving car.

Since when were PPC allowed to become traffic enforcement officials issuing, what is in effect masquerading as a penalty notice for a moving traffic violation? Plenty of room here for a defence, I would imagine, should it ever get to small claims court.

As others have stated and the 'experts' will tell you, you may have to wait up to 6 years for them to issue small claims court proceedings... if they are stupid enough to do so.

In the meantime, you can ignore any and all debt collectors letters. Do not respond to them. Just file them for reference, if necessary. What you are now waiting for is a LBA or LBCCA. If it ever gets to that stage, all the information you need is in the Newbies thread, post #2