Britannia - Chelmsford - 30 min free parking

Bimmerman

Hello all,

At the POPLA appeal stage, preparing mentally to draft an appeal letter and looking for some advice on how I should structure the appeal given the circumstances.
(I recognise that in most cases the legal arguments are pretty much the same for all PCNs but some advice on what is/is not suitable in my case would be most useful in making the appeal tailored and specific).

The registered keeper has received a ticket from Britannia parking as the driver of the vehicle has "failed to obtain a valid 30 minute Free ticket or purchase a Valid ticket".

I am neither the driver nor the registered keeper.

The parking site, Army and navy in Chelmsford, provides parking services to the patrons of the businesses in the area. It is operated using ANPR combined with a pay machine and the vehicle was in and out of the car park in a little under 20mins. The alleged contravention was in early October, late in the evening roughly half-hour before sunset.

NTK was sent well within the 14 days so missed that opportunity.
No admission of who was driving was provided in the Britannia appeal. Blue text template was used as suggested in the newbies thread.

We believe the lack of and poor signage, mainly at the entrance and possibly around the car park, is insufficient and failed to properly inform the driver that the car registration was to be entered into the machine and a free parking ticket was to be obtained which needed to be displayed on the vehicle.

We have pictures of signs from Britannia sent in the appeal rejection and can post them here if it helps? Not visited the parking site for our own pictures but feel we should do this maybe to confirm the pictures provided?

The PCN did not show pictures of the parked car windscreen with missing ticket. Just images of the vehicle going in and out of the car park, which begs the question as to why a vehicle needs to be registered in the machine and ticket displayed, if ANPR is being used by the parking company already to keep a record of vehicular activity. I recognise an argument based on fairness or common sense doesn't really work in this arena and needs to be legal arguments but this point in itself highlights the absurdity of all this and fundamentally, among other reasons, why I am contesting this PCN.

The NTK seems to be in accordance with POFA 2012 although I would appreciate an expert eye to give me some feedback as to whether this is a “golden ticket”.
Full extract from NTK:

"The signage displayed at the entrance of the car park and throughout states that the site is private land operated by Britannia Parking (the creditor). The conditions detailed on the signage must be complied to or a parking charge notice will be incurred. Motorists who choose to park their vehicle in the car park are thereby agreeing to be bound by these terms.
As the motorist has contravened the terms and conditions detailed on the signage, a parking charge notice has been issued and is now payable to Britannia parking.
Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph:
You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, please inform us of the name and postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them.
You are advised that is , after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the date issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you as the vehicle’s registered keeper. This notice is given to you under paragraph 9 (2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and is subject to our compliance with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of the act.
Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid.
Failure to pay the full amount of this notice within 29 days may result in the proceeding of debt recovery action and/or issuing court proceedings against you. Additional costs will be incurred.”

So the possible arguments revolve around:
1) Poor and ambiguous Signage – In the box of times and tariffs the signage states first that 30 mins parking is free, followed beneath with a line in very small font about obtaining a ticket. In some locations, according to the images from Britannia, there is a large yellow sign with black bold writing requesting the need for a 30 min free ticket. This was not noticed by the driver due to its sparse use around the site. (The £sum of the fine has been enlarged prior to a sentence in smaller font to state the fine, as though Britannia have learned from the mistakes of others to ensure fine values are in suitably large font)
Signage at the entrance to the car park states “pay at meter, Camera controlled car park” only, nothing about obtaining a free ticket for 30mins (unless it is in smaller font illegible to a diver in the middle of a manoeuvre)

2) BPA - Grace period – I believe this reasonable period is twelve minutes in the case for MSE user AJRawlins , so not sure our 20 mins will satisfy this argument? Planning to cite British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 anyway as the basis of argument.

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss - by obtaining a ticket as required there was no monetary value the operator would have gained anyway. Driver did not park beyond the 30min free parking period when the car park becomes chargeable as well. ANPR should be sufficient in ascertaining whether or not driver has overstayed the 30min free parking allowed.
In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately; there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in this case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 (or £60 if paid promptly) fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for an authorised member to visit one of the businesses as a patron.

4) No Breach of Contract - The signs do not state that the parking contract begins and ends based on the time you enter and leave the car park. Not sure if this can be used in this instance where a ticket was not obtained to show a valid start and finish time for parking?

5) The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate - The photos of the car entering and leaving show a date/time stamp in the corner. Not sure this can be used either in a case where a ticket was not obtained? Possibly to argue the credibility of the timestamp in relation to the proper maintenance and effectiveness of the ANPR.

6) No Authority – Britannia Parking do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, Britannia Parking have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.
Emailed visiting business to get PCN cancelled no luck, struggling to find the actual landowner to do the same.
Nonetheless, Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance.

Any help with correcting or adding to my statements would be most appreciated.
Advance thanks

References used:
POPLA stage - Britannia Parking PCN – by YJ68
Should I pay PCN – by AJRawlins
Britannia Parking PCN – by Metrobot

Coupon-mad

I am neither the driver nor the registered keeper.

But are you the named appellant with the POPLA code? How come you appealed?

This goes straight in the bin due to the Beavis case!

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss - by obtaining a ticket as required there was no monetary value the operator would have gained anyway. Driver did not park beyond the 30min free parking period when the car park becomes chargeable as well. ANPR should be sufficient in ascertaining whether or not driver has overstayed the 30min free parking allowed.
In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately; there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in this case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 (or £60 if paid promptly) fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for an authorised member to visit one of the businesses as a patron.

Bimmerman

Hi Coupon-mad,
I am here asking for advice from MSE users on behalf of the Registered keeper who has made the formal appeal to the the PPC and will subsequently appeal to POPLA as well.
Apologies for the use of "I" when it is the registered keeper who is actually appealing.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future.

Bimmerman

Thank you for that definitely worth publicising do people are fully aware.

With regards to my appeal , are there any furthe suggestions or changes to the original post , so I can finalise the submission.

Also , on the POPLA submission , so I file this under 5) OTHER and then other again.
None of the other options seem to match my grounds for appeal.

Advance thanks

Caustic70

Check the post by YKJ if you Google Army and Navy it comes up. Interesting stuff re signage in there for that car park. Especially the fact the wrong company number was on the signs back in 2016!

GebbyUK

Any update would be appreciated as I have a similar case ongoing

Bimmerman

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay.

The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “ Pay at meter”,”Welcome to Army & Navy Car Park”,”For Free 30 mins enter reg then press green button twice one free 30 min ticket per vehicle per day”,”£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which :Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”.
Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 18:25 and exiting at 18:45 on the day of the incident. The operator maintains a list of vehicles which have paid on the day against individual vehicle registration details . In this evidence it has demonstrated that no payment had been made for the vehicle on the date in question.

On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the motorist and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached.

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’s case is that they were not the driver and therefore not liable and the Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act ( PoFA) 2012 requirements 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.

They state that there are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site.
From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location.
Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “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.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “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.

Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “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.”
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 appellants states that they were not allowed a Grace Period which is non- compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA), Code of Practice states ““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”. In this instance the appellant remained on the site for 20 minutes thereby indicating that they were accepting the terms offered by the operator.

I note the appellant’s comments however, ANPR systems are used to take images of vehicles entering a site and exiting. The operator then uses the times of these ANPR images to calculate the total duration of stay on site. As the site permits motorists to four hours free parking time, I am satisfied that the free parking period would begin from the time the vehicle enters the site. This is because motorists do not need to obtain the free parking period; all they do is park their vehicle on site and agree to comply with the terms and conditions.

They state that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
The appellant says that they have seen no evidence that the operator has written authorisation from the landowner (or their appointed representative) to operate on this site. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice states, “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) before you can start operating on the land in question.
The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for.
In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” Further to this, section 7.3 states, “The written authorisation must also set out:
a - the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b - any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c - any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d - who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e - the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.”
The operator has provided a witness statement and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site.
The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked and the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign.
Furthermore, the signage states “By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems”. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

The appellant states that the operator has failed 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). When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment.
Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the ICO .

Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The motorist chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused.

KeithP

So helpful Bimmerman. Are you expecting anyone to read that slab of text you have thrown at us?

Some paragraph breaks would be good.