Britannia Parking POPLA Draft [Now Successful]

KeithP

Unfortunately lack of Planning Permission is not something PoPLA will be concerned with.

Indeed, even a County Court Judge will probably take the line "if the local council aren't bothered why should I be bothered?"

Even if the council do follow it up, retrospective permission can be granted.

Maybe your best use of that information is to get Poole Borough Council to enforce their planning controls. At least give the PPC some more work to deal with.

NewUser0815

I have taken above suggestions into account and updated my Draft here:


docdro.id/hnKVhmn


I have left the points with genuine pre-estimate of losses in, as well as planning permission.
I believe it cannot hurt, even if they might reject it straight away.
Any last comments before I will send it off on the coming weekend?



The pictures I have inserted from the pay machine and the car park are from the internet. That car park is a few hours away from where I live.
Do you reckon that might be a problem?

NewUser0815

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case
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.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: They state that: • The operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence on the alleged contravention. • The Grace Period is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. • There is no evidence of the period parked – the Notice to Keeper does not meet The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Requirements. • The vehicle images contained in the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for. • The PCN is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • There is no planning permission from Poole Borough Council for the carpark in question, ANPR cameras or advertisement signage. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant has made the following comments: The operator has submitted a transaction report, showing that a transaction for the vehicle of £1.50 was made on the day in question. It however failed to provide evidence, demonstrating for which parking duration the payment was made and at which time this period ended. The operator has stated in its response letter that the payment relates to a 1 hour parking period (for which there is no evidence) and if this was correct, this would result in the parking period ending at 17:22. The operator claims that the vehicle in question left the car park at 17:37 and this leaves, subtracting the minimum statutory 10 minute grace period, an alleged overstay of a maximum of five minutes. The operator’s photographs demonstrate, that the car park is poorly lit up, as no light sources are present in the entire car park. The signs are sparsely placed, and they are not clearly legible from all parking spaces. Especially the extremely small font in some of the signs is not legible at the poor lighting conditions present during the time in question. A contract could therefore not be established. The operator has failed to provide evidence of the period in which the car was parked, as opposed to entered or left the car park. This is extremely crucial for an alleged overstay of maximum five minutes. The operator has failed to provide evidence to show that its system is reliable, accurate or maintained and a mere statement claiming the timings are synchronised cannot be considered evidence. This is crucial due to the little alleged overstay. The operator has failed to provide evidence with regards to the non-compliance of the images used, as well as the fact that they are partially illegible. The document presented as “evidence for landowner’s authority” is highly redacted. The parties of this contract are unclear. As the landowner cannot be identified, the authenticity of this document cannot be confirmed. Furthermore, the contract fails to show an expiry date, and fails to accurately define the boundaries of the land.


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. 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 on arrival”,” £100 Parking Charge Notice will be issued to all vehicles which :Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator has provided evidence to show the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 16:16 and exiting the site at 17:37 on the day of the incident. Further the operator has provided evidence that a payment of £1.50 had been recorded for the vehicle on the day in question. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant 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 states that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice which states :“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”. Although I have reviewed the evidence of the signage provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies with the BPA Code of Practice, the date stamps on the operator’s evidence is 22 March 2019 which is after the parking incident took place. Therefore, I am unable to determine whether the signage would have been visible to motorists on the day of the parking incident. Therefore, although the motorist appears to have breached the terms of the site, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly as I cannot determine that the motorists was made aware of the terms of the site. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

NewUser0815

I would like to thank everyone on this Forum for the help you have provided!
Without especially the well written Newbie-Threads, which provided excellent advice on how to write an appeal, I would probably have gone to court with Britannia Parking


Concluding my experience with Parking-Scammers I have learned one thing:
Never pay a Parking Charge issued by one of these scammers! You can beat them on technicalities, as proven above :beer:

Coupon-mad

NewUser0815 wrote: »

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case
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.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: They state that:
• The operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence on the alleged contravention.
• The Grace Period is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
• The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
• There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
• There is no evidence of the period parked – the Notice to Keeper does not meet The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Requirements.
• The vehicle images contained in the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate.
• The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.
• There is no planning permission from Poole Borough Council for the carpark in question, ANPR cameras or advertisement signage.

In response to the operator’s case file the appellant has made the following comments:

- The operator has submitted a transaction report, showing that a transaction for the vehicle of £1.50 was made on the day in question. It however failed to provide evidence, demonstrating for which parking duration the payment was made and at which time this period ended.

- The operator has stated in its response letter that the payment relates to a 1 hour parking period (for which there is no evidence) and if this was correct, this would result in the parking period ending at 17:22. The operator claims that the vehicle in question left the car park at 17:37 and this leaves, subtracting the minimum statutory 10 minute grace period, an alleged overstay of a maximum of five minutes.

- The operator’s photographs demonstrate, that the car park is poorly lit up, as no light sources are present in the entire car park. The signs are sparsely placed, and they are not clearly legible from all parking spaces. Especially the extremely small font in some of the signs is not legible at the poor lighting conditions present during the time in question. A contract could therefore not be established.

- The operator has failed to provide evidence of the period in which the car was parked, as opposed to entered or left the car park. This is extremely crucial for an alleged overstay of maximum five minutes.

- The operator has failed to provide evidence to show that its system is reliable, accurate or maintained and a mere statement claiming the timings are synchronised cannot be considered evidence.

- This is crucial due to the little alleged overstay. The operator has failed to provide evidence with regards to the non-compliance of the images used, as well as the fact that they are partially illegible.

- The document presented as “evidence for landowner’s authority” is highly redacted. The parties of this contract are unclear. As the landowner cannot be identified, the authenticity of this document cannot be confirmed. Furthermore, the contract fails to show an expiry date, and fails to accurately define the boundaries of the land.


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.

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 on arrival”,” £100 Parking Charge Notice will be issued to all vehicles which :Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”.

The operator has provided evidence to show the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 16:16 and exiting the site at 17:37 on the day of the incident. Further the operator has provided evidence that a payment of £1.50 had been recorded for the vehicle on the day in question.

On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant 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 states that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice which states :“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”.

Although I have reviewed the evidence of the signage provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies with the BPA Code of Practice, the date stamps on the operator’s evidence is 22 March 2019 which is after the parking incident took place. Therefore, I am unable to determine whether the signage would have been visible to motorists on the day of the parking incident.

Therefore, although the motorist appears to have breached the terms of the site, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly as I cannot determine that the motorists was made aware of the terms of the site.

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

:T

Nice decision. I have added a load of paragraphs to POPLA's wall of words.

Can you post that decision (with the paragraph breaks) in POPLA DECISIONS at the top of the forum, for posterity, with a link to this thread if you can post links, and stating which PPC you beat.

PS: I removed your point abut not a GPEOL as we don't want newbies to think it's a thing. It isn't and had no place in a POPLA appeal and can harm your chances as POPA home in on it sometimes - but you got lucky with another point so well done for throwing the kitchen sink at it!