Northern Parking Services PCN

Muzzzz

Hi all,

I received a reply from Gemma at BPA today, she said as follows:

Thank you for your email and additional information.



I have reviewed the documents and the correct clause in the Code for reference is:



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.



We do not stipulate what the entry grace period should be as this will differ from car park to car park depending on its size etc. However, we do state that a 10 minute grace period should be applied where parking is permitted at the end of the parking contract. This would be applicable when someone pays for 2 hours and enforcement action cannot take place until after 2 hours and 10 minutes.



In view of the above, Northern Parking Services have not breached our Code by allowing a 5 minute grace period at the start of the parking contract. Furthermore, Operators are not required to advertise their grace period on their signage.



If you wish to contest the charge further you will need to appeal to POPLA – the independent appeals service.



I hope the above is helpful.

Not the reply I was hoping for... I didn't mention to her about the restaurant closing and thus making their signs out dated as I didn't find out about this till after. Would that be worth following up with her or should I drop that route and stick to POPLA? Just worried that POPLA will have the same outcome as above as reject my appeal

Coupon-mad

Dear Gemma,

This is not the relevant clause:

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.

This is a restaurant car park with a sign inviting drivers to park, and the sign says ''blah blah'' (see attached photo). So undoubtedly a driver is permitted to drive in and if they then find the restaurant is closed, that does not make parking 'not normally permitted' due to the invitation to treat in the entrance sign.

The proper clause that should be applied is this one, and the operator is in breach:

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.

Muzzzz

Thanks I will send a reply with that information present, I will say something along the lines of "during my own investigation into the parking site I found that the restaurant had closed down prior to this parking event taking place, the signs are all out of date and do not make note of this" before quoting the above.

I am just adding pictures to my POPLA now and I will post here the finished appeal to make sure the pictures are all relevant.

Muzzzz

My POPLA is linked here:P.1 https://imgur.com/chImDVY
P.2 https://imgur.com/SpWuu30
P.3 https://imgur.com/LrXQ1Pm
P.4 https://imgur.com/g2Y5Pgu
P.5 https://imgur.com/vQlneIG
P.6 https://imgur.com/ekKf35D
P.7 https://imgur.com/p0Resxm

Sorry Can't figure out how to add all pages to one album...

Be glad to hear any feedback or suggestions before I send it away. Thanks again everyone for your assistance.

EDIT: I have added a section to the bottom of P.6 stating how restaurant customers and non-permit holders are not the same and should not be treat the same. I have until Friday to submit to POPLA so any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Muzzzz

Hi, another reply from Gemma:

Thank you for your reply.

We do not expect our members to provide a 10 minute grace period at the start of the parking contract to read the signage. The 10 minute grace period referred to in the Code relates to the end of the parking contract.

We advise that a grace period must be issued at the start to allow drivers to read the signs and decide whether to stay or leave.

If a motorist intends to visit the restaurant, reads the signs then realises the restaurant is closed and drives off we would not expect a parking charge notice to be issued assuming the motorist does not overstay the entry grace period.

Clause 13.2 advises that a 10 minute grace period must be offered in addition to the parking event. Therefore, this does not mean 10 minutes at the start.

Kind regards
Gemma Dorans

Seems she hasn’t acknowledged the outdated signs for the closed restaurant

Muzzzz

Hi again, unfortunately emailing Gemma was pointless and the case is now closed apparently. My reply:
Hi Gemma,



I appreciate that 10 minutes is not expected at the beginning of parking, however if a parking company are inviting customers to park based on signs for a restaurant that are now out of date, I would expect that they allow enough time for unaware customers to have sufficient time to park, read signs and then see that the business has closed and therefore leave. The driver at the time was well within their right to use the car park based from the signs inviting potential customers onto the site, if the restaurant has now closed how is it then fair that a perfectly legitimate customer who was unaware of the closure is stung with a parking charge as they do not have the sufficient time to vacate the car park and have no option of inputting their registration anywhere to avoid a charge? I think 8 minutes is well within a reasonable timeline for all of the above to take place and as you have stated "If a motorist intends to visit the restaurant, reads the signs then realises the restaurant is closed and drives off we would not expect a parking charge notice to be issued" how can a driver know that the entry grace period is a ludicrously short 5 minutes?



Also as NPS stated in their rejection letter I sent to you originally "over stayed the 5 minute grace period for non-permit holders" this suggests that non-permit holders are allowed to stop for 5 minutes (maybe to drop someone off/pick them up) which seems perfectly fine however this seems to be related to a legitimate parking customer; note how the signs mentions permit holders and restaurant customers only. These two types of drivers are not the same, and 5 minutes for non-permit holders seems to be fair based from that however legitimate restaurant customers who are unaware of the closure should not be tied to "non-permit holder" drivers as they are not, they are legitimate customers who therefore have a right to park for as long as they please providing that their registration plate is inputted in the restaurant, which is now impossible meaning that 8 minutes to find all of that out is not an impossible amount of time for it to take, if the car had been on site for hours then it is obvious that they were not intending to be restaurant patrons, however in this case it seems to me like legitimate potential customers are being stung unfairly as they are not notified of the business' closure anywhere in the car park and then being tide to the "non-permit holder" brush when not making the mad dash of 5 minutes from ENTERING the car park, parking, reading signs, walking to the restaurant to find it closed, walking back to the car, getting themselves and anyone who may require assistance (children etc) into the car and then driving to the exit of the car park before the ANPR camera finally takes a photo to show they have left, how is all of that possible in 5 minutes?

Her reply:
Thank you for your reply which has been noted.



The Code of Practice does not stipulate what the entry grace period should be.



We do not believe clause 13.2 is the correct clause for this scenario. Clause 13.1 is applicable and this states that our members must provide an entry grace period, however it does not stipulate what this grace period should be. In view of this, Northern Parking Services are not in breach of our Code of Practice.



I note you do not agree that 5 minutes is long enough, however we are content with this grace period and therefore the case has been closed.

note case closed, so that's the end of that route. Hopefully POPLA aren't as shady as this.

Muzzzz

Hi all, NPS have uploaded their evidence to POPLA including screenshots from this thread, find below:
Summary:

The Parking Charge Notice was issued as the vehicle was parked in a clearly signed NPS controlled permit holders only car park, but no valid permit was displayed in the vehicle. We know this, as the car park works via an online whitelist system, meaning that no paper/physical permits exist. To confirm, the vehicle has never been on the whitelist, so the vehicle was never authorised to use the car park. The car park has a 5 minute grace period, which allows motorists to enter the car park, read the terms and conditions signs, and then leave the area, if the terms are not agreeable. The vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the grace period, without a valid permit on display, and without other authorisation.

Detail:

The motorist has made a number of comments during their PoPLA appeal:

1. "Insufficient grace period" - The appellant in this case has discussed their Parking Charge Notice online, using the MoneySavingExpert forums. The PoPLA assessor can view the discussions around this Parking Charge Notice, by visiting:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5995764/northern-parking-services-pcn

We have included "******** posts 1 to 40.pdf" and "********posts 41 to 47.pdf" which is (at time of writing) the complete thread.

After taking advice, the appellant contacted Gemma at the BPA, who confirmed that "Northern Parking Services are not in breach of our Code of Practice." As the British Parking Association have confirmed that the given grace period is within the guidelines within the Code of Practice, that shows that a sufficient grace period was given.

The appellant comments on a nearby restaurant, which we will discuss in point 4 below.

2. "Inadequate signage" - The appellant has submitted the regular online wall of text, which of course they're entitled to do. However, the location in questioned was audited by an employee of the British Parking Association in May 2019, and we have attached this as "BPA Audit 3rd May 2019.pdf". The last page of the audit notes that "This car parking site has the required entrance signage in addition to terms and conditions signage which is unobstructed and can be seen from every stand point within the car park. The signs are clear, legible and meet all of the requirements of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme. In addition to this the operator is also complying with guidance outlined by the British Parking Association as best practice." Therefore, there is no doubt that the car park does not suffer from inadequate signage.

3. "No evidence of Landowner Authority" - To confirm, the submitted BPA compliant witness statement (included in the submitted PoPLA Site Pack) shows that a contract exists between the landowner and Northern Parking Services. The witness statement does not need to show all of the items referenced in section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. Obviously, the full contract, which we are under no obligation to show to the appellant at this time, is fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The PoPLA assessor can request to see the full contract, simply by sending an e-mail to popla@npsne.co.uk. As can be seen from the supplied copy of the witness statement held with Jomast Accommodation, the agreement has a commencement date of 12th October 2016. The contract is for an initial period of 3 years, after which point it becomes an ongoing/rolling agreement with notice provisions for both parties. We can confirm that neither Jomast Accommodation or Northern Parking Services have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently we would contend that the witness statement provided does adequately prove that Northern Parking Services had sufficient authority to issue Parking Charges on the land, on the day of the contravention - 20th April 2019. Again, should the PoPLA assessor wish to see the current contract that is in place, this can be supplied by sending an e-mail to popla@npsne.co.uk. We have submitted "Contract clause 9.jpg" which is the section of the contract that is in place, with regard to the contract length.

We trust this clearly shows that we have an current live contract with the landowner. We must refer to the appeal which was submitted to Northern Parking Services, which is included within the submitted PoPLA PCN Pack. This appeal states that "I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner". Obviously, if no contract was in place between Northern Parking Services and the landowner, the appellant would have been informed of this when they made their "formal complaint". We simply refer to the appeal submitted by the appellant to PoPLA, which makes no reference to their "formal complant" to the landowner.

4. "Car park operator didn't remove the 'invitation to treat' sings [sic] despite being void" - This point is completely meaningless. Simply, the appellant has taken a photograph of a sign which states "Customer Parking Only Available After 5pm". This is also shown within the submitted PoPLA Site Pack. We simply note that the vehicle entered the area at 13:24 and departed at 13:32, which is clearly several hours before 17:00. Whether the restaurant is open or closed after 17:00 is not relevant, when the vehicle visited the car park at around 13:30.

So looking at the four points in summary:

1. The grace period given is within BPA guidelines.
2. The BPA audit shows the car park is clearly signed.
3. Northern Parking Services have an active contract in place with the landowner.
4. The vehicle entered the car park well before 5pm.

The appellant themselves has confirmed within their MoneySavingExpert thread that the Northern Parking Services Parking Charge Notice complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) Schedule 4. The Parking Charge Notice is included within the submitted PoPLA PCN Pack. As we do not know who was driving the vehicle at the time of contravention, we are using the provisions contained within the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) Schedule 4 to hold the vehicle keeper liable for this Parking Charge Notice.

As a final point, we have submitted "**** ***(REG) not on whitelist.JPG", which confirms that the motorists' vehicle was never on the whitelist of authorised vehicles. Also, as the car park operates via an ANPR camera, physical/paper permits do not exist, as noted in the summary at the start of this PoPLA submission. Therefore, we can say for certain that the vehicle did not have a permit in their vehicle.

There seems to be very little dispute regarding this parking incident, in that:

1. The vehicle entered the permit holders and authorised persons only car park at 13:24.
2. The vehicle left the car park at 13:32.
3. The Parking Charge Notice was issued, as the vehicle was not authorised to remain the car park (as the registration was not on the whitelist). Also, no valid permit was on display, and we know this, as no permits exist, making it impossible for the motorist to be in possession of a valid permit.

The vehicle was parked without a valid permit or other authorisation to use the car park. The terms and conditions are clear, in that a valid permit needs to be displayed. As no valid permit was on display (as they don't exist), and as the vehicle was not on the whitelist of authorised vehicles, the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly, and we feel that the appeal should be rejected.

They have made a point to mention that parking is only available after 5 for the restaurant, this is not the case and I have sent POPLA proof of this via screenshots from the restaurants site which they seem to have ignored completely. They can be seen in my appeal in post #45

Any advice on this? I have 7 days to comment on their points.

Cheers.

waamo

Pick apart their arguments. You only have 2000 characters (not words) so select weaknesses in their case and focus on them.

Remember you only have to win on one point to win. They have to win on every point.

Muzzzz

waamo wrote: »

Pick apart their arguments. You only have 2000 characters (not words) so select weaknesses in their case and focus on them.

Remember you only have to win on one point to win. They have to win on every point.

Thanks, I think it's fair to say that the restaurant closing down is the main point to pick at here, as I have argued time and again that the signs are out of date and that 5 minutes is an unrealistic time for drivers to do all they are required to in the car park, they also make point of how Gemma defended their side however it got to the point where she ignored my reply and BPA were arguing that CoP 13.1 was applicable not 13.2.

Not sure exactly how to stress this point anymore though as I have gone to town on it in my initial appeal as I think I am right on that point.

Jomot

Someone with more experience may be able to help you more, but I was just reading another post and wondered if perhaps your situation falls into the 'Observation Period' category?

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods