One Parking Solution PCN + Gladstones - Parked for 8mins, LBC for £208!

StubbornGoat

I know - the CCTV borders on creepy!

As for the response to Gladstones.. I've tried to get the points over, how does this sound?

Dear Gladstones,

I refer to your reply, which bears all the hallmarks of a template, given that it has been seen posted on online forums on several occasions when yet another claim bites the dust.

For the avoidance of doubt, my 'version of events' is that your clients are ex-clamper chancers with a terrible local reputation, who offer no fair service to any motorists and who clearly have no cause of action against me.

As confirmed by their own 'evidence photos' your clients sadly lack the basic concept of providing 'adequate notice' of any parking charge (nor indeed of any tariff or terms at all) and thus they fail to create any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation'. In case you need a reminder, these are pre-requisites of the POFA 2012, Schedule 4. One Parking Solutions cannot hold a registered keeper liable due to this failure, regardless of their NTK.

Perhaps you should give them a lesson on signage and font size, if they are incapable of understanding their own Trade Body's Code of Practice rules. In addition, kindly ask them to explain why there was no entrance sign whatsoever before those two cash-cow bays, and also why Google Street View NOW shows 'Pay & Display' white writing on the road (earliest seen June 2018) when it was not there at the time the PCN was issued (as verified by your clients "evidence photos"):

https://goo.gl/maps/ZRnqFRY4UjP2 (2015 - Private Property sign - no "Pay & Display" white writing on the road)
https://goo.gl/maps/urocgHRMeT22 (2016 - A twisted Private Property sign - no "Pay & Display" white writing on the road)
https://goo.gl/maps/urocgHRMeT22 (2018 - "Pay & Display" white writing on the road)

So, this 2017 PCN fell within a timeline where they'd removed the sign about 'private property' and failed to replace it with anything at all at the entrance. Then sometime in 2018 they've painted the road.

So they knew their signs were failing, and they certainly knew they failed the BPA CoP, paras 18 and 30 and Appendix B, on MANDATORY entrance signs (version 6 applied in 2017):

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your
permission does so under a licence or contract with you.
If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. 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.

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.
A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the
entrance to the parking area.

30 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
30.1 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera
technology may be used for parking control and
enforcement. Operators using ANPR must do so in a
reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Signs
at the entrance must tell drivers that you are using this
technology. Your signs must make it clear what you will
use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

30.2 If you provide parking facilities to the general public for a
fee, your system must allow drivers who have not paid
the fee to leave a site within a reasonable period that
allows for the conditions and environment of that parking
site. This grace period should be long enough to allow
motorists to leave without having their vehicle registration
mark processed for a parking charge.

Consider these questions to be a formal request for information, under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

A car park where people are allowed to park - and clearly a purported PDT machine car park is such a place - must have entrance signs to communicate to drivers that the land is managed, and that terms and conditions apply. The BPA CoP format is to display a large 'P' entrance sign, not pseudo Council-style 'give way', 5mph and speed bump signage immediately before two unmarked white bays, with (quelle surprise) a covert CCTV camera trained on them.

Talking of CCTV cameras - where is the information telling a driver that CCTV is in operation and for what purpose, and how that data will be used? Have OPS heard of the BPA Code of Practice, the Data Protection Act, and the June 2013 Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, all of which they are supposedly signed up to comply with?

And talking of the BPA CoP, they also failed to consider the Grace Periods section, but then OPS are notorious for predatory ticketing within minutes by CCTV. I trust you will disabuse them of the misconception that this sort of ticketing is acceptable for fine upstanding AOS member firms...oh wait, no, you run baseless PCM claims regarding places like Heath Parade, so clearly this is normal for Gladstones.

Your conduct and that of your client already crosses the threshold of unreasonableness and I intend to claim my costs on the indemnity basis when any meritless robo-claim regarding this scam PCN, is defeated.

I am seeking debt advice so you must now take stock for 30 days, so I trust you will use that time wisely to discuss your clients' abject failures with them and review whether they can cobble together a credible case at all.

yours faithfully,

SG

Coupon-mad

Well I'd send it and I would be happy for a Judge to see it. The set up is a scam.

Others might feel it's too sarcastic but, hey, this is going to Gladstones...

StubbornGoat

Yep - Sent the email. I'm sure judges have seen worse from other irate motorists, sick of these traps.

I'll let you know what they reply with (if at all)!

Thanks again

SG

StubbornGoat

Reply received....

Thank you for your email.

Your comments regarding our previous correspondence are noted however, the same could be said for your correspondence dated 15 January 2019. We appreciate however, there is very little avenue for debtors to respond and seek advice and as such seek it from the internet. Our correspondence addresses the issue raised in yours and therefore, we do not feel you are any less prejudiced if our correspondence had been a template.

Your version of events are not applicable to the charge itself and surround our Client's alleged previous business, we set out our Client's contract with you in our previous correspondence and refer you to the same.

We have attached a copy of our Client's site map, the site of which has been audited and approved by our Client's Accredited Trade Association. Any issues with the site would have been addressed and rectified at this stage. You will note the ample signage around the site making motorists aware of the terms and conditions to park without incurring a charge.

We have also attached images taken at the site showing the exact placing of our Client's sign, here we concede the content of the sign may not wholly readable in the photograph (given the distance of the images) have been taken at but attach PDF copies of the sign.

We note your formal request, please find attached the relevant documents to be disclosed at this stage, as previously disclosed.

You will note in the attached our Client has confirmed that CCTV is in operation.

Your vehicle remained on the site for 12 minutes, the BPA code of practice says our Client should allow the motorist a 'reasonable grace period in which to decided if they are going to stay or go'. Our Client believes the time given was reasonable enough and as such a charge was issued. To note, the information can be found on Page 9 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice, 13.2.

We will hold the file for 30 days from this email, in the absence of payment in full or a substantive response to the charge itself we may be instructed to issue proceedings.

Kind Regards

These are the documents that were attached:

https://i.postimg.cc/wxSPXtYs/1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/X7dPQVn1/2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Njxzvp91/3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Xv7Djddt/4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Zq7sCnLn/5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/4ytWL5RH/6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/KzC9DWwy/7.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/QtF45D6b/8.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/7PTtZxJP/sitemap.jpg

Umkomaas

I've had a brief scan of the signage photos - did I miss something or is there no mention of what the parking charge would be in the event of a breach?

If that's the case where is there any contract formed, other than to pay your 50p. There are no consequences highlighted should you not pay.

Are there other signs around the car park that actually do contain 'consequences'?

StubbornGoat

Umkomaas wrote: »

I've had a brief scan of the signage photos - did I miss something or is there no mention of what the parking charge would be in the event of a breach?

If that's the case where is there any contract formed, other than to pay your 50p. There are no consequences highlighted should you not pay.

Are there other signs around the car park that actually do contain 'consequences'?

I personally have never parked there so I couldn't say, however nowhere in any of the photos or documents they have sent show anything about there being any fine. I also made this observation in my original post.

Not only that, but they only highlight the fact that there are a number of tiny signs dotted around on the walls, no sign anywhere on the entrance and a very hidden "CCTV in operation" sign behind a post next to the floor on a 2 foot wall.

It's actually unbelievable that they are willing to fight this.

SG

StubbornGoat

It seems to me as if they didn't even read Coupon-Mads perfectly constructed letter.

My thoughts on their reply are below...

We have attached a copy of our Client's site map, the site of which has been audited and approved by our Client's Accredited Trade Association. Any issues with the site would have been addressed and rectified at this stage.

So why does Google Street View NOW show 'Pay & Display' white writing on the road when it was not there at the time the PCN was issued. If that was not an issue, then why rectify it?

You will note the ample signage around the site making motorists aware of the terms and conditions to park without incurring a charge.

I note the small unreadable signs dotted around the site, but no mention of any tarriff or charge, or penalty or fine.

We have also attached images taken at the site showing the exact placing of our Client's sign, here we concede the content of the sign may not wholly readable in the photograph (given the distance of the images) have been taken at but attach PDF copies of the sign.

If from where they stand they can't take a photo which shows readable font, then how is a driver in a passing car able to read them?

You will note in the attached our Client has confirmed that CCTV is in operation.

Yes, on a sign so hidden that it is almost impossible to know it's even there.

Your vehicle remained on the site for 12 minutes, the BPA code of practice says our Client should allow the motorist a 'reasonable grace period in which to decided if they are going to stay or go'. Our Client believes the time given was reasonable enough and as such a charge was issued. To note, the information can be found on Page 9 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice, 13.2.

12 minutes. TWELVE. It would take a driver longer to search out and read the terms and conditions!

Also, according to their creepy CCTV images, the car was parked at 15:06:45 and the car was was returned to at 15:14:58.. that makes it 8mins 13 seconds. Not 12. If they are including the final photo which shows the car leaving the car park at 15:17:03, that makes it 10mins 18 seconds. But perhaps they are including the time the car first drove into the car park at 15:05:38? Which does match their calculations come to think of it.

Either way, there needs to be a minimum of 10mins grace period to "to read your signs and leave". You cannot do that without first getting out of the car. And they have shown that to be the case, by taking photos of the signs and still being unable to read them.

We will hold the file for 30 days from this email, in the absence of payment in full or a substantive response to the charge itself we may be instructed to issue proceedings.

Now... I just need to construct my reply.

Please help if you can.

Thanks
SG

D_P_Dance

Complain to your MP. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

StubbornGoat

I am not the best at constructing letters and don't have a way with words like Coupon-Mad... but is this any good...

Dear X

You have failed to respond to a number of issues I raised.

You state that "Any issues with the site would have been addressed and rectified at this stage.", though if thats the case, why does your clients site NOW show 'Pay & Display' white writing on the road when it was not there at the time the PCN was issued. If that was not an issue, then why rectify it?

As I said in my last letter, the BPA CoP format is to display a large 'P' entrance sign, not pseudo Council-style 'give way', 5mph and speed bump signage immediately before two unmarked white bays.

Moving on, you suggest that there is "ample signage around the site making motorists aware of the terms and conditions to park without incurring a charge.", yet what I note is small unreadable signs around the site, but not one of the signs mention any tarriff or charge, or penalty or fine. So where is the contract between the driver and your client?

You correctly point out that the BPA CoP says your Client should allow the driver a 'reasonable grace period in which to decided if they are going to stay or go', however you also concede the "content of the sign may not [be] wholly readable in the photograph". So if a picture being taken from a person outside of the car is unreadable... how is it possible for a driver in a moving car to read any of these signs? Therefore the grace period should ultimately start from the moment the driver steps out of the car. The driver in this case was outside of the car for a time of just 8 minutes. Which would fall into the grace period advised by the BPA CoP 13.4.

I am content to fight this case in court should it get there, and should your client proceed I will be claiming all costs when you lose. Is it not therefore better to just cancel this PCN in its entirety?

Yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

Looks good to me.