Help please - have i made a mistake?

Standupforyourself

btw, The BPA have come back on my complaint and said that the PPC require the registered keeper to sign an authorisation consent form in order to give the BPA permission to request data specific to this PCN. Is that usual practice?? Sounds deliberately complicated to me.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like GDPR nonsense but you may as well (I assume you are the keeper).

Standupforyourself

i have had a response from PPC from POPLA. Should i post it here for comment?

The_Deep

Of course.

Standupforyourself

This is the full response. They have also posted a bunch of pictures of the signage which claims to have been taken in June this year. They have also published a full list of the back and forth correspondance from first NTK to appeal to rejection. There is also a heavily redacted contract with landowner.

Reasons for issue: Whole Period Of Parking Not Paid For
Actions taken: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued as the vehicle was
parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a
parking charge
Online appeal received.
Email sent refusing the appeal. The account was held for 14
days at £60.00 then at £100.00 thereafter.

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.

Our signs are readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of
darkness or at dusk. There is no direct lighting but the parking area is lit from
surrounding businesses and street lighting. The vehicle’s headlights would have lit
up the signage and the car park also. When entering the car park, the vehicle
headlights would have lit the entrance and exit signs

Signs – according to British Parking Association Code of Practice

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and
deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers
about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of
entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers
that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be
aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a
standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of
vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow
Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an
entrance sign and more information about their use.

The sign at the entrance does meet all of the BPAs guidance. The motorist would
not be doing 30mph at this point as there is an approach and the motorist is not
directly entering the car park from the road.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are,
including your parking charges. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are.
Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that
they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and
conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm

There are sufficient signs around the site, as you can see in our photographic
evidence. These advise the motorists of the terms and conditions of the site clearly.
We enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied seeing
said signage.
3
The signage states:
Please Pay for Your Stay
• Please enter the full, correct vehicle registration details at the payment
terminal, of the vehicle you are parking.
• Summer Charges- 15th March to 31st October- evening/overnight 18:00 to
08:00
• Winter Charges 1st November to 14th March- 08:00 to 18:00
• All permit holders must have their vehicle pre-registered before using the car
park
• Park only within marked bays
• No stopping or waiting. If you cannot pay for any reason do not park
• Blue badge concessions do not apply
• Ilfracombe Town Council is not involved in the parking management of this
car park & cannot intervene in any disputes.
• Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are used for
parking enforcement purposes.
• Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry.
Motorists are required to enter the full and correct vehicle registration – validate what
has been entered – then proceed with payment.
If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions, you
are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
The Appellants vehicle entered the site at 11:21 and exited at 14:53.
We are able to trace 2 payments for the Appellants registration, totalling 3 hours of
paid for parking. We are unable to trace a record of a permit for the Appellant’s
vehicle registration. See ‘Other Evidence’.

The Appellant states “ Not relevant land – Council Owned. No Keeper Liability • The operator has
not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge • 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 • Use of ANPR technology – Operator is put to strict proof
that use of ANPR complies with ICO and BPA • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put
to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice”.

This car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras
which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry and exit,
measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on site. This is then crossreferenced
with the data from the payment services and the virtual permit system.

The main requirements for parking on site are that the full, correct vehicle registration
is entered when purchasing a permit, or registering for a virtual permit, and that the
full duration of the stay is covered by either payment or permit. The Appellant failed
to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, on this occasion.

The signage clearly states ‘Please pay for your stay’, ‘No stopping or waiting. If
you cannot pay for any reason do not park’ and ‘Parking period commences 5
minutes after entry’. The Appellant has not denied seeing the signage. We cannot
be held liable for the Appellant failing to see, or ignoring the signage.

We note the Appellant’s reasons for appeal, and their belief that the car park is not
‘relevant land’, however, we would advise that these points are irrelevant and have
4
been disproven on previous occasions through the POPLA process and other
external challenges. The car park is relevant land as, for example, it has never been
subject to statutory control, is maintained by Premier Park and operated under
contract.

The Appellant has stated that “not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in
fact the driver” however, we would advise that we have requested the driver details
from the Registered Keeper of the vehicle but these have not been provided.
Therefore, the Registered Keeper is liable for the charge.

The Appellant has failed to provide any reasons as to why the driver failed to pay for
their whole period of parking. They have also failed to provide any evidence that the
driver was authorised to remain on site for 3 hours and 31 minutes, with payment
only made for a 3-hour parking session.
The Appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 11:21, payment was made for the
vehicle registration at 11:32, valid for 2 hours, expiring at 13:31. A second payment
was made at 13:47, for a further hour, expiring at 14:46. The Appellant’s vehicle left
the car park at 14:53, totalling a 3 hour and 31 parking session, with only 3 hours
paid for.
The Appellant could have purchased further parking via the payment machines or the
pay by phone service, RingGo, which allows motorists to purchase their parking
sessions via phone, text, online or App. We are unsure why the Appellant failed to
utilise the available, payment methods to ensure they had purchased a valid parking
session, for the whole period of parking.
If unsure at any point, the driver could have phoned Premier Park. Our telephone
number is displayed on the signage. We can confirm we did not receive any calls
regarding the Appellant’s vehicle or reports of faults with the machine or RingGo
method on the date of the contravention.

The Appellant has appealed on the grounds of mitigating circumstances.
As per POPLA FAQ’s
If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason
beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the
parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful.
This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the
event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking
charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this, but
cannot enforce it.

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
5
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.

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. Ultimately, the motorist failed to keep to the conditions of the contract
formed.

The Appellant’s vehicle remained onsite for 3 hours and 31 minutes, with payment
only made for a 3-hour parking session. Therefore, the whole period of parking was
not paid for and a PCN was issued.
It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in
compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not.
We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

Coupon-mad

So your bullet point, brief comments to POPLA would be to remark that:

- they have provided a heavily redacted contract. Proves this is Council land/not relevant land.

- they admit this (below) and show no evidence that the signage terms were readable that night without the benefit of a torch:

here is no direct lighting

- this (below) is all speculative and untrue. Headlights dip downwards, not up, and local businesses do not point their lights at these scam signs:

but the parking area is lit from surrounding businesses and street lighting. The vehicle’s headlights would have lit up the signage and the car park also.

- whilst the driver saw the terms on the machine screen, and adjacent to the machine, these DID NOT include any £100 tariff at all so there was no way a driver can be held to have 'agreed' to pay a penalty not displayed.

- The operator has not evidenced anything to dispute the fact this is Council land. They merely bleat:

We note the Appellant’s reasons for appeal, and their belief that the car park is not ‘relevant land’, however, we would advise that these points are irrelevant and have been disproven on previous occasions through the POPLA process and other external challenges. The car park is relevant land as, for example, it has never been subject to statutory control, is maintained by Premier Park and operated under contract.

Council owned land is by definition 'under statutory control' (PP cannot be heard to say ''it never has been'' and again with no evidence).

- It is a fact that this is not 'relevant land' and the keeper cannot be held liable (other POPLA decisions cannot be considered, as POPLA know, and PP have not even bothered to list any other cases to support their bleating).

Standupforyourself

thanks for your feedback. Parking incident was during the day though.

Standupforyourself

although come to think of it, it was pouring with rain and pretty dark as a result of the weather.

Standupforyourself

Coupon

If it is council land, is it automatically not relevant land?

System

The car park is relevant land as, for example, it has never been subject to statutory control, is maintained by Premier Park and operated under contract.

This is correct. You might want to read the text of the letter to Councils from the then SoS, Robert Goodwill. Anticipate that PPS may produce that letter in court.

A link to it

https://docdro.id/tokWhiD