Permier Parking PCN

Fruitcake

Is that within the 2000 character limit? You won't be able to submit it if it is too long.
There is a lot of waffle at the beginning that could be trimmed down if necessary.

Remember that you are rebutting the PPC's comments which is what you have received. You are not commenting on anything from PoPLA. You should amend your text to reflect this.
You are responding to PoPLA about the PPC's response to your appeal.

You quote what the PPC said about the 5 minutes before parking, and ten minutes after, then re-iterate the bit where you split the overstay into two, each element being within the PPC's own stated requirements.

v1ks

Thanks guys I shall make the necessary changes mentioned above and limit the reply to 2000 characters. I will also put the final draft here before I submit it.

I'm confused about where I need to submit my response. When I go to the popla tracking page there is no option to do this and the status is still pending.

However the email I got says below, does this I need to reply to the email or go somewhere else.

Dear Sir/Madam

The operator has uploaded its evidence via our portal. As you have not had the opportunity to view the information we have attached it to this email.

You have seven days from the date of this email to provide comments on the evidence given. The quickest way to do this is by replying directly.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Coupon-mad

Don't waste words quoting the BPA CoP again.

If the portal is not showing the comments window, you can email your comments, which should mention any issues with:

- the sign photos and aerial map (if any) - are they dated? Blurry? Small print?

- the landowner contract - is the date old? Signatory and chunks redacted?

- the fact that your appeal said: ''I can assert that it took 4 minutes before I was able to park'' and the operator has confirmed this is reasonable because they replied: ''The parking period commences 5 minutes after entry.''

- and your appeal also said this to account for the balance of minutes: ''7 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended'' and again, the operator agrees that this too is reasonable as they replied: ''As per the BPA grace period, we do allow motorists 10 minutes to exit the car park''.

Put it like that, no quoting the CoP.

v1ks

Hi Yes they have sent me photos of the sings and they all seem to be blurry apart from few which are clear as they are taken close up. Can i use this in my reply i guess? 50 page pdf with photos and probably 5 clear images...rest are just photos of the car park and distance images of sing posting.

The contract is from 2017 which is old i guess ? and yes key information has been redacted,,,this is what it says on the pdf

We enclose a redacted copy of the agreement between Premier Park and CBRE to
confirm that we have the landowner authority to enforce at this site. The names and
signatures of the operators and client’s representatives have been redacted for
confidentiality. We have supplied the landowner name and address.
We can confirm that neither, CBRE nor Premier Park have applied the notice
provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place.
Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that Premier Park have
sufficient authority to issue Parking Charges on the land, on the day of the
contravention.

they have also redacted lots of point in their "Scope and Services" section in this pdf which is moody.

any further help much appreciated in relation the sings and reacted information. I will look around other posts and see what others have said and put my wording in similar way.

Its the help from this forums and admins which has enabled me to fight these scumbags...thank you so much everyone.... i hope my post helps others like me.

Le_Kirk

photos of the sings

images of sing posting.

What are these sings of which you post? Do you mean signs? Important to get it right if it is going to POPLA and maybe later to small claims court.

v1ks

Hi sorry for Typo in my last post ...so they have sent me a PDF which has 50 pages of photos and these photos are the Signs around the car park which has the T&C of their parking. i would say around 5 of these photos are clear because they were taken by standing near the sign when taking the photo, else they are not clear to read and blurry. i was just thinking if using the blurry images to my advantage to add more weight to my appeal.

sorry does that make sense?

As for the contract they sent its from 2017 with redacted information missing, is this normal or can i use this to my advantage too?

v1ks

Hi guys, I have added some bits for Signage - found some points to fight (may not be relevant) and Land of authority - as they have only sent me agreement with lots of information redacted. Having looked online i managed find an appeal from a another user from pepipoo forums for the same parking firm so i thought i could use some pointers from his appeal onto mine. Again please let me know if i should remove anything or add? I just wanted to throw everything as this will be my last chance but not waffle too much without any decent pointers.

I had a email from POPLA stating that i can just reply back to their email with comments, so i assume my reply can be longer than 2000 character or should remove things and take it down to 2000? No mention of this in the email hence me adding the points above. Happy to go with whats best...



To: The Operator

Having gone through your response I would request that you go back to my original appeal and re-read the Grace Periods. I would appreciate if the operator can read through this thoroughly and not cherry pick the response when replying as they appeared to have done.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court case quoted in your response is irrelevant because by your own guidelines I have NOT overstayed in the Newbury Park Retail car park. As per the operators comments in the response I am allowed 5min of grace at the commencement of my visit, therefore my actual stay did NOT commence until 9.56. My 2 Hour period therefore expired at 11.56 and I exited the car park at 12.02. The 7 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended'' and again, the operator agrees that this too is reasonable as they replied: ''As per the BPA grace period, we do allow motorists 10 minutes to exit the car park.

I am yet to receive a response from Premier Park in relation to all images taken of my vehicle entering the car park on the day of alleged overstay. As clearly explained in my appeal (On arrival - the 'observation period') that it’s imperative for me to have a copy of these images, as on this day there was many cars waiting to enter the car park and I was waiting in a queue to enter. Therefore, you have cherry picked the very first image of my vehicle approaching the car park but the actual time I entered the car park was a later than what has been reordered in the image. Hence, I requested Premier Park to send me all images taken on this day for my vehicle but I’m still waiting for a response. I have attached a copy of the email sent as a proof.

In view of the mitigating circumstances already outlined I don’t think it was necessary to call Premier Park as the parking did not exceed the 2 hour limit had the grace periods been correctly taken into account when issuing the PCN.

Happy to add the below

---

Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have the reason to believe that the signs at this car park were inadequate including that:

• Contrary to BPA code of practice 21.1, There are no signs at the car park which gave warning that ANPR is in use, they only state, “Camera enforcement in operation” and does not mention ANPR.
• Another problem with the sign is that the information regarding any contravention leading to a fine is too small and illegible from a vehicle
• The sign also offers a premium rate telephone number to contact Premier Park Ltd. BPA code of practice 18.6 states that The Company (Premier Park Ltd) should offer a basic rate number. In the case of PP this is not the case.
• The signs does not show who the owner of the land is.
• The signs did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that Premier would reserve the right under PoFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver.

I require from Premier Park contemporaneous photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.

In relation point number 3 in my previous appeal I would request Premier Park to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for PP merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed.

Coupon-mad

I had a email from POPLA stating that i can just reply back to their email with comments, so i assume my reply can be longer than 2000 character or should remove things and take it down to 2000? No mention of this in the email hence me adding the points above.

No. Your planned comments are not comments, it now looks like a new appeal and the operator doesn't even get to see this stage, so why is it addressed to them?

POPLA will IGNORE YOU if you write what looks like throwing the kitchen sink at it again.

When I gave you bullet points, that's what I suggest you sent to POPLA. I spelt it out exactly what you should be saying to POPLA to focus them.

Haven't you now run out of time to comment or did POPLA extend the 7 days?

v1ks

Hi Coupon-mad

I now understand what you mean, sorry its taken me long to get my head around this appeal, i just wanted to put everything but now looking at my draft yes it come across as new appeal.

I still have 2 more days to reply my comments. Popla emailed me back yesterday confirming I can send my comments via the email they sent originally with the pdf response from PPC.

I will change the draft as per your points, I added the extra bit as I thought it would help making the reply stronger to the original appeal point 2 and 3 but in doing so its making this into a new appeal so will amend it all.

- the sign photos and aerial map (if any) - are they dated? Blurry? Small print?

Yes they are dated but blurry.

the landowner contract - is the date old? Signatory and chunks redacted?

Yes lots of stuff redacted despite asking for non redacted in my original appeal.

for the signage and landowner can i just put simply that the photos sent are very blurry and not clear. The contract sent to me has been redacted despite asking for a non redacted contract in my original appeal and merely been sent an agreement not a contract (or am i wrong)...would that be enough?

Link to the landowner agreement

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1waIlHQzTxDkoYLsmWJ1mVWpQ2D216NrE/view?usp=sharing


link to the photos/signage

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vYmya8vabZvUXwFTJTrVntu-zo9Tgo9n/view?usp=sharing

ill amend the reply so its just comments with 2000 character limit.

i was confused about who i was replying to despite so many posts but i think i've got that cleared in my head now, initially i thought popla will fwd these comments i send them to PPC hence i was addressing to them. however going back and reading the previous post i can see you did mention "You are responding to PoPLA about the PPC's response to your appeal"

sorry for so many posts and questions.

many thanks

MistyZ

The landowner agreement looks okay to me, well nothing jumps out. Someone will find something wrong with it I hope!

As for the PPC's photos of the signs, I wouldn't say they were blurry but there's a lot wrong with them.

The majority (all?) affixed to poles are very high, considerably higher than the cars next to them. Reading them would present a challenge to most people. The majority of signs affixed to walls look unusually small, is that the case? I would suspect that the font on those definitely fails the font size mentioned in the standard POPLA appeal section.

As for the initial close ups, I doubt they are the actual signs in the car park but just examples of signage. Without showing how and where they are placed, their clarity in situ is impossible to gauge and these images are therefore extremely misleading.

Critique the signage photos in line with the points you made in the original appeal. Do not be daunted by the sheer quantity of photos they have sent, quantity is not quality. To keep to the character limit use bullet points, well-known abbreviations and note-form while keeping the meaning very clear.