Premier Park PCN - Letter of claim received

Coupon-mad

I think your appeal is fine, albeit do Google 'split infinitive' as referred to by Le_Kirk.

K.I.T.T.

So, I submitted my appeal (as per v4, see post made on the 11th of Sepetember - hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rnev7ma8L9oWbnCi7apaFKE9_AHYBp_A/view) last month. Operator evidence received yesterday. The summary is below (colours added by me):

The Appellant’s vehicle entered at 07:59 and exited at 18:43.

As the Maximum Stay Period is 4 hours, the Appellant overstayed by 6 hours and 44
minutes.

We have checked the permits allocated to vehicles. This vehicle is not on the permit
system and no permit was allocated on the date of the contravention. Please see
‘Other Evidence’.

The Appellant states that the driver did not park in The Peel Centre Car Park, but
drove through to the Blackburn train station car park and purchased a parking ticket
valid for the car park the vehicle was parked in.

At this location, motorists are required to drive through the Peel Centre car park to
access the separate train station car park area. There are payment machines and
RingGo available in the train station car park.

The signage at the exit/entrance to the train station states: YOU ARE NOW
LEAVING THE PEEL CENTRE CAR PARK – YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE
PEEL CENTRE CAR PARK. Please see the Photographic Evidence within the ‘OP
Image Plan’.

The Peel Centre is only for customers of the stores on site. No payments can be
made in the Peel Centre car park via any method to extend the maximum stay
period.

There are ANPR cameras on the entrance to the car park and on the exit into the
train station car park. See the separate Images document for the site map with the
ANPR cameras and signage highlighted.

If motorists drive through the Peel Centre car park, the vehicle will be captured on 4
occasions by the ANPR cameras.

See ‘Other Evidence’ for an example of this.

Upon searching the Appellant’s vehicle on ANPR capture events, we are only able to
find 2 reads for the Appellant’s vehicle. These evidence that the Appellant did not
drive through the Peel Centre car park and park in the train station car park, but
instead remained on site within the Peel Centre car park for 10 hours and 44
minutes. See ‘Other Evidence’.

The ANPR images show the vehicle entering and exiting the main entrance.

We cannot be held liable for the driver parking in the incorrect car park and believing
they were able to park because they were using the train station.

We do not understand why the Appellant believes the driver was able to park in the
Peel Centre car park, contravening the terms and conditions. The signage clearly
states the maximum stay period.

We cannot be held liable for the driver, or Appellant’s, mistake.

There is only 1 entrance and 1 exit through the same route into and out of the train
station car park.

If the driver was in any doubt as to whether they could park on the Peel Centre car
park to use the train station, they could have telephoned Premier Park. Our number
is on the signage. We can confirm we did not receive any calls regarding the
Appellant’s vehicle registration on the date of the contravention.

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.

We have also enclosed evidence of a later visit, that the Appellant’s vehicle made to
the car park, on 4th August 2018, on this occasion, the Appellant’s vehicle entered
The Peel Centre Car Park and drove through to the train station car park, where it
remained until leaving the train station car park and driving back through The Peel
Centre Car Park and left via the main entrance/exit. This is captured as 4 reads on
our back-office system, as opposed to only 2 reads on the date of the contravention,
thus proving that, on the 10th July 2018, the Appellant’s vehicle entered and remained
in The Peel Centre Car Park for 10 hours and 44 minutes.

The appellant states that the driver was unaware of the terms and conditions. The
driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the
contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the
opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before
accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and
ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

13 Grace periods

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
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.

However, 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.

As the Appellants vehicle overstayed the maximum stay period by hours and 44
minutes, an exceeded maximum stay period 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.

"We cannot be held liable for the driver, or Appellant’s, mistake." Nowhere has it been mentioned that the appelant was the driver, so how could the appelant have made a mistake. Are they implying the appelant was driving?



"The appellant states that the driver was unaware of the terms and conditions." - No they didn't


Nor did the appelant make any specific mention to grace periods (a mention is made that a witness statement - as opposed to a contract with the landowner - would not define vital information, inlcuding grace periods).



Their full evidence pack includes this blurb before the above summary (formatting / colouring as per their submission):

[FONT=&quot]We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the BPA Auditing Team. Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorist.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]All of the signage on site was installed on 27[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th [/FONT][FONT=&quot]June 2018 and the ANPR was[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]monitored from 9[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th [/FONT][FONT=&quot]July 2018.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signage clearly states:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Welcome to The Peel Centre[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Maximum stay 4 hours. No return within 1 hour.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. A blue valid badge must[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]apply.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Park wholly within a marked bay only. Do not park causing an obstruction to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]other users of the parking area.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The Peel Centre customers only[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. No parking and leaving site. No parking[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]outside of store hours. No HGVs/Trailers or Large Goods Vehicles.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Staff & contractors must have their vehicle registered on the permit system[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Mobile patrols/ Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]used for parking enforcement purposes. Parking period commences 5[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]minutes after entry.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Peel Centre is not involved in the parking management of this car park and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]cannot intervene in any disputes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions display, you[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Signs [/FONT]– [FONT=&quot]according to British Parking Association Code of Practice[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]entrance sign and more information about their use[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

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

[FONT=&quot]18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are sufficient signs around the site. These advise the motorists of the terms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and conditions of the site clearly.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This car park is run by ANPR cameras which take a photograph using infrared[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]technology to capture vehicles as they enter and exit this site. These photographs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]are time and date stamped. All ANPR cameras are comprised of two modules. The[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]overview camera is a coloured module which takes photographs of the vehicle[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]entering and exiting in colour. The second module is black and white which takes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]photographs of the vehicle registration plates. In terms of the technology of the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]order and that the data collected is accurate.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Peel Centre is only for customers of the stores on site.[/FONT]
.

This is then followed by copies of the correspondence between the registered keeper and Premier Park, screenshots from their system showing two 'captures' on the day of the alleged contravention and four captures on a day in August (although their wording of the times for the visit to the railway station in August doesn't match their screenshots, but anyway...)


They also supply redacted copies of the agreement they have with the landowner:

We enclose a redacted copy of the agreement between Premier Park and XXXX to confirm that we have the landowner authority to enforce at this
site. The names and signatures of the operators and client’s representatives have
been redacted for confidentiality. We have supplied the landowner name and
address.
We can confirm that neither, XXXX nor Premier Park have
applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place.
We confirm both parties have opted to continue this agreement in accordance
with section 1.2.
Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that Premier Park have
sufficient authority to issue Parking Charges on the land, on the day of the
contravention.

According to a copy of the title obtained through the land registry XXXX is not the landowner (PP state they have supplied the landowner's address - they haven't).


The contract does not mention basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Indeed, as has been pointed out earlier, there is no fence/boundary dividing the two car parks, and that cars can pass and repass between the two.


Also, note that the contract only came in to play on the 9th of July, a day before the alleged contravention on the 10th of July. How does this tie in with the point below that was raised in the appeal?

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.

Also, confusing signage - old station car park signs and new (in the literal sense) PPC T&C signs hand in hand.



Could one argue that they need to show eveidence of ANPR calibration (etc ????) and provide the results of any BPA audit carried out on their newly installed equipment? An arguement would be this newly installed equipment had not be set up correctly and simply missed the entry into the railway car park. Just because their ANPR hadn't picked up this instance, doesn't prove the car remained on the location they manage. Also, the ticket machine for the station car park is located in the station car park itself, so how could the driver not have entered the station car park?



PP suggest their (entrance) signs are compliant, yet I provided evidence that shows otherwise, where an entrance sign does not state the car park is manged, nor are there any signs in the immediate vicinity of this entrance sign.


On a side note, why do they still have data relating to the RK's vehicle from August when by their own admission, a contravention did not occur? Surely there must be some information governance issue with that.


Suggestions on the best way to proceed would be welcomed, especially with the short timescales and 2000 character limit


They haven't argued the ICO CCTV CoP though, which is AFAIK, still untested.

K.I.T.T.

This is the best I can do with the 2000 character limit. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Responding to point 1 of my appeal, Premier Park (PP) state "there are payment machines and RingGo available in the train station car park". As there are no payment machines in the location PP managed, the driver had to have been in the station car park to purchase the ticket.
The points raised by PP regarding their ANPR suggests this new system was not working correctly on 10/7/18; it only operated from the day before (9/7/18). I ask PP to evidence their system was audited by the BPA.



As per point 2 in my appeal, PP's entrance sign at car park 2 does not state the car park is managed, contravening BPA CoP 18.2. This is evidenced by figure 5 in my appeal as well as by PP's own submission.
This appeal involves the Peel Centre car park 2, NOT car park 1, a separate location. The PDF file PP have submitted includes signs of both locations, which is misleading.


In response to point 3 of my appeal, PP have supplied an agreement between themselves and [Redacted] and state "we have supplied the landowner name and address". [Redacted] is NOT the landowner, nor is the landowner's address [Redacted].
The landowner's address is [Redacted]. I would be happy to supply a copy of information obtained from the Land Registry to POPLA, which will confirm any agreement PP have with [Redacted] is of no relevance to this case.
Not only is PP's agreement irrelevant, it came into place on 9/7/18 a day before the alleged contravention. As per point 3 in my appeal, PP's operation on this site is also in contravention with BPA CoP 18.10



As per point 4 in my appeal PP is in contravention of BPA CoP 21.4. Not only has PP not undertaken a privacy impact assessment, they are still in possession of information relating to my vehicle from 4/8/18 where no contravention occurred. This does not "keep to the Data Protection Act" (BPA CoP 21.4). I shall raise this separately to the Information Commissioner's Office and commence legal proceedings against PP.

Fruitcake

Do you still have the parking ticket purchased in the station car park, or a credit/debit card receipt or statement? This would be your smoking gun.

K.I.T.T.

Fruitcake wrote: »

Do you still have the parking ticket purchased in the station car park, or a credit/debit card receipt or statement? This would be your smoking gun.

I do indeed, Fruitcake.


A copy of the parking ticket was submitted in to both PP, at the informal stage as well as to POPLA


The original is still in my possession.

K.I.T.T.

Slightly amended. Needed a few more characters and ICO / empty threats of legal proceedings irrelevant at this stage (and may be considered "hot air").



Still, is there any way the last point could be taken up with the ICO?

Responding to point 1 of my appeal, Premier Park (PP) state "there are payment machines and RingGo available in the train station car park". As there are no payment machines in the location PP manage, the driver had to have been in the station car park at 0802 to purchase the ticket.
The points raised by PP regarding their ANPR system suggest it was not working correctly on 10/7/18. This ANPR system only operated from the day before (9/7/18) - I ask PP to evidence the data it collected is accurate (BPA CoP 21.3) and confirm this system was audited by the BPA prior to 10/7/18.


As per point 2 in my appeal, PP's entrance sign does not state the car park is managed, contravening BPA CoP 18.2. This is evidenced by figure 5 in my appeal as well as by PP's own submission.
This appeal relates to the Peel Centre car park 2, NOT car park 1, a separate location. The PDF file PP have submitted includes signs of both locations, which is misleading.


In response to point 3 of my appeal, PP have supplied an agreement between themselves and XXXX and state "we have supplied the landowner name and address". XXXX is NOT the landowner, nor is the landowner's address XXXX.
The landowner's address is XXXX. I would be happy to supply POPLA a copy of the title of the relevant land, which will confirm any agreement PP has with XXXX is of no relevance to this case.
Not only is PP's agreement irrelevant, it came into place on 9/7/18, a day before the alleged contravention. As per point 3 in my appeal, PP's operation on this site is also in contravention with BPA CoP 18.10



As per point 4 in my appeal, PP is in contravention of BPA CoP 21.4. PP has not undertaken a privacy impact assessment, supported by the fact they still hold information relating to my vehicle from 4/8/18 where no contravention occurred. This does not "keep to the Data Protection Act" (BPA CoP 21.4).

K.I.T.T.

Unless there's anything obviously wrong with the above (?), these comments shall be submitted this evening.

K.I.T.T.

So, unsuccessful at POPLA.

I wonder if they even looked at what I said? Or whether they're just blind - they don't even refer to the ticket for the station car park.

What next?

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: • No evidence that the vehicle war parked in the location. • Entrance sign in contravention of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Failure to comply with the data protection under ICO code of practice. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Maximum stay 4 hours. The Peel Centre is not involved in the parking management of this car park and cannot intervene in any disputes. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: parking charge notice £100.” The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 07:59am and exited the site at 18:43pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of six hours and 44 minutes. I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. I acknowledge the evidence provided by the appellant. In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the 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.” Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. 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 evidence of the contract which provides written confirmation that it has the authority to carry out all aspects of the car park management for the site. The appellant has raised data protection under the ICO code of practice, POPLA only look at the BPA Code of Practice when assessing appeals. This would need to be addressed with the ICO directly. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

KeithP

K.I.T.T. wrote: »

- they don't even refer to the ticket for the station car park.

I'll take your word for it.

Are you expecting anyone to read that slab of text you have thrown at us?

nosferatu1001

If appeal points such as the landowner contract were not properly considered, and there is no evidnece of them doing so, then a complaint to POPLA could be in order
But first, rather obviously, give us paragraphs to work with. Noone will bother reading that wall of text.