Premier Park PCN

midodo

Hi All
Popla Appeal Refused. See Below

Verification Code

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a parking charge notice for failing to make a payment.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the driver of the vehicle intended to park on site in order to attend a meeting. The appellant states that the driver of the vehicle received a call shortly after entering the site advising them that the meeting had been cancelled. The appellant states that the driver did not leave the vehicle and exited the site as soon as the phone call was ended. The appellant has raised further points of appeal as follows; 1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance. 2) No entrance signage at the site. The appellant states that the signage throughout the site is not clear or prominent. Further the appellant states that the signage cannot be seen while in a vehicle. 3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) A serious BPA CoP breach. 5) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements. 6) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. 7) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate. 8) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for. 9) No Planning Permission from Manchester City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in her appeal. However, she is the registered keeper. I will therefore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle, . The terms and conditions of this site - state: “24 hour pay & display/ pay by phone car park charges apply at all times”. “Monday to Saturday, up to 1 hour £0.90”. Further, the terms state: “This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue)”. “Purchase and display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session”. The operator has issued a parking charge notice for failing to make a payment. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 17:22:10 and exiting at 17:34:21, which is a total stay of 12 minutes and 11 seconds. The operator maintains a list of payments made on the day against individual vehicle registrations. In its evidence it has demonstrated that no payment was made for the appellant’s vehicle, . Further, the operator has provided copies of its notice to keeper that it sent to the appellant. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that the driver of the vehicle intended to park on site in order to attend a meeting. The appellant states that the driver of the vehicle received a call shortly after entering the site advising them that the meeting had been cancelled. The appellant states that the driver did not leave the vehicle and exited the site as soon as the phone call was ended. The appellant has raised further points of appeal as follows; 1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance. 2) No entrance signage at the site. The appellant states that the signage throughout the site is not clear or prominent. Further the appellant states that the signage cannot be seen while in a vehicle. 3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) A serious BPA CoP breach. 5) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements. 6) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. 7) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate. 8) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for. 9) No Planning Permission from Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage. While I note the appellant’s points of appeal, I must confirm that data protection and planning permission do not have a bearing on the validity of the parking charge notice and therefore do not need to be considered. Further, the appellant says that there is no keeper liability as the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper as I have confirmed above, I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with the requirements of PoFA 2012. I will now consider the remaining points raised by the appellant. The appellant has questioned the signage at the site. As such, I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice, which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. In response, as I have confirmed above the operator has provided copies of its signage. It has also provided a site map. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states the following: “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. Furthermore, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The appellant has raised grace period as part of her appeal. On review I can conclude that in the 12 minutes and 11 seconds the driver of the appellant’s vehicle was waiting on site that they did have sufficient opportunity to read the terms and conditions and decide if they wished to remain on site or leave. The driver of the appellant’s vehicle chose to wait in the car park, therefore they chose to park. Even though the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not exit the vehicle, they were making use of the facilities provided by the operator regardless of whether they considered themselves to be parked. With the Driver of the appellants vehicle choosing to remain on site for reasons other than understanding and accepting the terms, grace periods are not applicable. The appellant has questioned the details regarding the use of ANPR cameras within the operators signage. The BPA Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras within Section 21. The parking operator states it fully complies with this. In relation to Section 21.1 the parking operator uses ANPR cameras in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. It is evident that the signage on this site contains the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site. Further the signage states; “We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit at all times including bank holidays”. “Vehicle registration plates, images of vehicles and car park users are being collected on this site by ******* Car Parks Ltd for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions as advertised on the signage within the car park “. I am satisfied with the parking operator’s signage at the site and therefore satisfied that it has complied with Section 21.1. Had the driver of the appellants vehicle have been unhappy with the terms I am satisfied that they would have been able to exit the site sooner. The appellant has also asked POPLA to consider landowner authority. In response, the operator has provided confirmation of landowner authority signed on 14 March 2017, on behalf of the landowner Andara Group and the operator ****** Car Parks. The operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement at - site. The confirmation of landowner authority includes instructions from Andara Group for the operator to pursue parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographs of its signage at the site. I am of the opinion that had the landowner ended the agreement with the operator between 14 March 2017 and the date of contravention then the operator’s signage would not remain in place. I accept on review that based on the balance of probabilities, ******** Car Parks does have authority from the landowner to operate on this site. The appellant questions the accuracy of the ANPR system, POPLA is evidence based service and I can only make an assessment on the evidence that has been provided. The operator has provided ANPR evidence in the form of time and date stamped photographs in order to demonstrate that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly. I am satisfied that the operator’s evidence proves that the appellant’s vehicle entered and remained on site for over 12 minutes. The burden of proof therefore passes to the appellant to provide some evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of the ANPR evidence. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, they have not provided any evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR. I must therefore work on the basis that it is fully accurate. I must clarify that in an ANPR camera-controlled site such as this one, there is no requirement to show the vehicle parked, only the entry and exit time. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied the parking charge notice has been issued correctly and the operator has followed POFA to transfer liability to the keeper. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

KeithP

Mimodo, are you expecting anyone to read that?

If not, why did you post it?

claxtome

midodo please can you put some formatting of your POPLA response to make it easier for the regulars to read it and help you further....

MacTheKnife

I visited Cornwall from Rep of Ireland and got a PCN at Lamorna Cove. I am pretty sure I paid for parking but might have entered the reg plate incorrectly (it was a hired car, I may have misread the plate). What follow-up does Premier Park have for a non UK driver? Can they pursue the owner of the car (Budget Car Rental)? I have already had to pay a 30 sterling charge to the car rental company for this (they passed on my name to the Parking company).

Ralph-y

hi, and welcome to the forum ........

there will be plenty for you to read up on ...

but first you need to start your own thread ....

go to the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou

first and have a general read up

then visit the start page

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163&order=desc

where you will find the 'new thread button '

Ralph:cool:

Fruitcake

MacTheKnife wrote: »

I visited Cornwall from Rep of Ireland and got a PCN at Lamorna Cove. I am pretty sure I paid for parking but might have entered the reg plate incorrectly (it was a hired car, I may have misread the plate). What follow-up does Premier Park have for a non UK driver? Can they pursue the owner of the car (Budget Car Rental)? I have already had to pay a 30 sterling charge to the car rental company for this (they passed on my name to the Parking company).

If you need help with a UK PCN you should read the sticky thread for NEWBIES then start your own thread, not post on someone else's old thread.

hbsquared

Did you take this any further or did you pay up and if you didn't what happened next?

Coupon-mad

No-one pays up unless a Judge tells them to (very rare here that court cases are lost).