Multiple ANPR ParkingEye fines on residential property

rubberduck1

IamEmanresu I think they did it because lots of people used the parking for going to work rather than just those who lived there

Looks like a full set of prohibitive signs to me

Is this the case even though it says on one sign visitors please enter your reg into the terminal for 5 hours parking?

System

The timings on the PCN's would clearly be relevant here.

So it is either a work issue or an overnight issue that PE are looking for. If the timings suggest otherwise then you take that tack - and the lack of signs / lack of clarity.

rubberduck1

Because I have four PCNs they are each at different times, evening, weekend and one weekday daytime.
Do I send a separate appeal for each one, or do I make one that fits all four and mention I have multiple PCNs?

Quentin

You haven't got any "fines"!


Send separate appeals for each PCN

rubberduck1

Thanks for any replies so far. I have included the points you have advised in my POPLA letter. Below is the section with the relevant changes if anyone has any points I could change:

2. This signs in this car park prohibit parking for ‘non-residents’ thereby meaning no contract is formed.
As seen on the images below the entrance signs state; ‘Patrons only’ and ‘Resident permit holder only’. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract, i.e. primary obligation, and therefore means the driver cannot be charged with any ‘penalty’, i.e. secondary obligation.

3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden by cars parked outside parking bays (due to inadequate number of spaces for the number of permits issued), and not visible from all of the parking bays. Furthermore, as seen in the image below, on entrance to the car park and in parking in the spaces immediately in front, no signs with T&Cs or charges are visible to the driver.

In an area where there are multiple parking operators within the immediate vicinity of each other signs need to be clear and obvious as to which area they are relating to, and the terms & conditions applicable. As you can see from the image below there is an APCOA car park sign which is more prominent than the smaller ParkingEye sign, leading the driver to believe they are entering an APCOA managed carpark rather than a ParkingEye one. This is particularly important because the land on which the alleged contravention occurred is owned by Staffordshire Housing Association, whom is mentioned in the sign directly above the APCOA parking sign.


So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Moreover, the BPA CoP states “18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.

Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”
This site was known to be previously managed by another operator, and the driver had previously parked here multiple times, including the days immediately before the alleged contravention. At no point when the driver parked here; before, during or after the alleged contraventions took place, were any temporary signs placed to notify the driver of a change of operator. I therefore ask the operator to provide photo evidence of their compliance with the above BPA CoP 18.10 by placing temporary signage at the entrance notifying drivers of the change.