Poor Lighting appeal

Dane1980

Hi all, I have received a response from my appeal and ECP have added their 'evdience' pack.

Ive outlined the main parts below but interested to hear others opinions on this.

Some points I already have:

Not addressed point 1 around lighting
Not addressed point 4 about signage advertising consent
Not addressed point 5 about ANPR planning permission (added on final appeal doc)

There is a crucial inaccuracy on the signage map as 8C does not exist

They have included all the standard stock photos taken in daylight but i wont include them in linked docs as theyre pointless.

The landowner agreement looks OK to me but would welcome comments on this.

Many thanks

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/sh/1b5tytt7326dbln/AADaz-AfsVUtg_2f2QD8dNBja?dl=0

Le_Kirk

Your link made live: -

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1b5tytt7326dbln/AADaz-AfsVUtg_2f2QD8dNBja?dl=0

Coupon-mad

I agree with your summary about it and the landowner authority looks OK. Mention that 8c does not exist.

Am I reading it right that the aerial image has an annotation that they positioned a sign 'on a pole behind recycling bins in bushes'?!

Point that out and ask how on earth the driver was meant to see such signs at night in darkness and the operator has proven how useless their signs are by not showing any pics at night and showing a document that openly declares that a signs was hidden behind recycling bins and in the bushes!

Add that the car park in question is a service yard which has recently had ANPR installed and as the driver parked after dusk and the car park is very poorly lit, there was no chance of seeing that sign behind a drainpipe or any other terms, given that this is a new restriction.

Dane1980

So at last I have received the POPLA appeal and im somewhat disappointed with the assessors decision. Im particularly dismayed at their statement 'The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site along with a site map showing the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, it is evident that the site is well lit and many of the signs are located in close proximity to sources of light.'

I have discredited their site map (using ECPs own evidence), provided images of poorly lit signage and ECP didnt put any arguement forward to claim signage was sufficiently lit. How the assessor can then state that the site is well lit (and infer that this must mean the signage is lit) is not backed up with any clear evidence :mad:

I guess ill be taking my chances in front of a judge so it will now be interesting to see what happens next given I believe the signage was erected without advertising consent...

Full decision:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The appellant has provided evidence to support her appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Staff parking only. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice: staff members must have registered their full and correct vehicle registration”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked without authorisation. Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 17:36 and exited at 19:45 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and nine minutes. A screenshot of its registration system has also been provided, showing that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered for a staff permit to park. In response, the appellant states that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator 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, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which advises private parking operators: “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… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Further, Appendix B states: “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.” The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site along with a site map showing the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, it is evident that the site is well lit and many of the signs are located in close proximity to sources of light. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the parking charge to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. 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”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided me with anything to suggest otherwise. The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the ANPR cameras. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning or advertising application or lack thereof. Furthermore, I do not consider that this would have affected the motorist’s ability to comply with the site’s terms and conditions. As the motorist parked without authorisation, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Please post that decision in POPLA Decisions but this time putting paragraph breaks, at least TEN of them please, into POPLA's wall of words!

and put a link back to this thread and confirm there that it's only ECP (safe to ignore!).

I guess ill be taking my chances in front of a judge

You guess wrong. It's only ECP, LOL!

I challenge you to find me a SINGLE thread where they've tried a claim...

:cool:

Dane1980

So.….. as well as fighting 'my' ticket, my mum also got one in the same car park on the same weekend at the same time. I have fought hers on her behalf using basically the same appeal points, images, rebuttals, etc, that were used for my appeal.

She got her appeal decision today and it was SUCCESSFUL

Just goes so show what a shower the appeals process is. Same appeal, two different assessors - two different outcomes.

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that no contract was formed with the driver by way of the signage on site as it is not lit at night. She states that signage on site generally is insufficient or inadequate. She states that there is no evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. She states that the operator does not have relevant planning permission for either the signs or cameras on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. All of the photographs were taken during daylight hours. Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.

This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”.

The appellant has provided photographs of signs on site taken at night and it is clear that the signs are neither directly or indirectly lit, made of retro-reflective material or in any way clearly visible at night. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage on site meets the requirements set out by the BPA.

I am not satisfied from the evidence that the signs on site are sufficiently visible during the hours of darkness and it is clear that it was dark when the vehicle was parked. I am not satisfied therefore that the driver can be considered to have breached the terms of the site detailed on the signs, nor am I satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

I note that the appellant raised additional grounds of appeal, most of which were without merit, however on the basis that her appeal has been allowed, I will not consider each of the grounds raised.

blackqueen

Hi Dane1980,

I had exactly the same issue in the very same car park and am at POPLA stage. I mistook that car park for the pub car park and got a fine on a Sunday evening. Do you mind if I use some of what you sent to help my POPLA?

Which photo of the sign did someone say you shouldn't include? I can't see any of your photos or docs. I presume the very front one that has 3 signs which I didn't see when I entered the car park from the rear road and not from Cowick Street.

It wasn't dark for me so that may be an issue for me, I just didn't notice the signs! I was a customer in the pub so wonder if I should contact them? These ANPR cameras are all new - only installed this year.

waamo

Everybody copies appeals so use whatever you need. That's what this forum is for.

Dane1980

**Update**

Ive started receiving letters from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus Ltd) stating that to avoid court action I must pay £160. However, they did make a generous offer to reduce this fee to £144 yesterday if I settle the matter in the next 7 days - Ill think about that one.... :rotfl:

One thing that got my back up was the statement "A court judgement against you could seriously affect your future creditworthiness and employability and could lead to enforcement proceeding to recover the judgement debt"

The wife wanted to report it to Citizens Advice but i said not to bother as its their standard operating procedure to try and scare people into submission and theyre entitled to put what they want in the letter as they have no scruples!

Ive retained the letters sent to me by DRP for reference but elected to ignore and not get into any dialogue with them but wanted to check this was the correct approach. Ive basically decided to wait for any correspondence from a court and not waste my time on it until that happened.

Quentin

Their threats could happen in the event a CCJ is ignored or not paid within the time frame ordered


And all ccjs are immediately registered against you and those that are not fully paid off within a month of judgement do remain on the record for 6 years which can have consequences for credit status and any employment where a clean record is a pre requisite


And enforcement proceedings (including bailiffs/attachment of earnings) can always be started by the creditor if hey win a CCJ against you


Expect more similar unpleasant letters from them