ONE parking Solution

Erinon

Hi Guys,

Below is my proposed reply after receiving the stalking photos and contract.

Comments as always welcome.

rgds



Dear POPLA Team,

Thank you for sending this through. In addition to my earlier comments entered on your website I would like to add:

1. I am pleased that OPS have provided the evidence that they are not compliant with the BPA code of practice regarding a grace period – The timestamped photos show arrival at 17:03:54 and departure at 17:06:17 - a period of 2 mins 23 seconds, much less than the 10 mins inferred in BPA code of practice. I highlight the statement from Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

2. The contract they have provided which lays out the terms under which the may serve PCN’s states under their own definitions section:
“ A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is affixed to the driver/vehicle for being in breach of parking regulations that are clearly displayed on the warning notices located within the above address this requires a payment that may be reduced on paying within a fixed time limit.”

No such PCN was affixed to the driver or vehicle. Therefore they are not complying with their own contract and agreement on how they should behave by the landlord.

nosferatu1001

I woudl make it shorter.
They already have a lot to read.

Coupon-mad

I highlight the statement from Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

I would remove the above (no need).

And point out that OPS seem to be suggesting there is only one 'grey haired gentleman' in the World, and in any case they have not complied with the POFA so have no case, and their stalking online and sharing of your data and social media photos with POPLA without good reason, will be reported to the ICO.

Erinon

Thanks Both.
For completeness and in case it helps others, the reduced and amended copy is below.
Fingers crossed this is the end of it.

Dear POPLA Team,

Thank you for sending this through. In addition to my earlier comments entered on your website I would like to add:

1. I am pleased that OPS have provided the evidence that they are not compliant with the BPA code of practice regarding a grace period – The timestamped photos show arrival at 17:03:54 and departure at 17:06:17 - a period of 2 mins 23 seconds, much less than the 10 mins inferred in BPA code of practice.
2. The contract they have provided which lays out the terms under which the may serve PCN’s states under their own definitions section:
“ A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is affixed to the driver/vehicle for being in breach of parking regulations that are clearly displayed on the warning notices located within the above address this requires a payment that may be reduced on paying within a fixed time limit.”
No such PCN was affixed to the driver or vehicle. Therefore they are not complying with their own contract and agreement on how they should behave by the landlord.
3. OPS seem to be suggesting that there is only one grey haired gentleman in the world. Regardless of this they have not complied with POFA.
4. I am also disturbed by their online stalking and sharing of my personal data, charitable activities and social media photos without good reason. This will be reported to the ICO.

Erinon

Dear All,

Just like to say that my POPLA appeal was successful.

Interestingly the appeal was upheld not on any grounds I made but on a seperate issue of visibility of the parking permit...see below.

Quote from popla decision/assessor:
"While I note the appellant grounds for appeal, I do not deem it necessary to respond to the same in this instance. I must clarify that Section 20.5b of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 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”. In reviewing the evidence provided, I am not satisfied a thorough check was completed. In order to satisfy the strict guidelines set out by the BPA Code of Practice I would expect to see a full close up visual of the entire windscreen. From the evidence supplied, I can only view the windscreen at a distance; I am therefore unable to make a fair assessment of what was actually displayed on the dashboard. Without clear evidence of what the items were, I cannot be sure that a permit was not amongst them. The operators parking charge notice issue reason is stated as; “Failure to display a Valid Permit”. I’m not satisfied its evidence proves this, further the operator has failed to provide a photograph of what a valid permit looks like. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am not satisfied the operator has proven that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be allowed."

Thanks very very much guys.