PCN - NCP Rail Station - Appeal rejected

waamo

The evidence that is from other car parks is extremely important. It's not evidence.

How can you have seen signs from a different car park?

hoth0416

waamo wrote: »

The evidence that is from other car parks is extremely important. It's not evidence.

How can you have seen signs from a different car park?

Thanks for this. Is what I've written in my rebuttal about this sufficient - or would you recommend adding some more?

waamo

For a I would end at obscured. Don't mention yellow flowers. You want the word "obscured" to stand out.

For b I would change the wording slightly. I wouldn't say the other car park, instead say the photos are not of the car park you were in. It just reinforces it slightly more.

That's just me though and it should win as it is.

hoth0416

waamo wrote: »

For a I would end at obscured. Don't mention yellow flowers. You want the word "obscured" to stand out.

For b I would change the wording slightly. I wouldn't say the other car park, instead say the photos are not of the car park you were in. It just reinforces it slightly more.

That's just me though and it should win as it is.

Thanks waamo! I've amended as below.

I plan to submit this tomorrow. If anyone has any other comments in the meantime - please let me know!

---

Rebuttal

---

NCP fail to address my appeal points as follows:

1) Signs not prominent
a) NCP states signage on the entrance of the car park sites T&Cs. However, the image provided of the entrance shows the terms being completely obscured.
b) The final page of NCP's evidence explicitly states Newport Station is split into two areas. Many of the images provided as evidence by NCP are NOT of the car park I was in and therefore should be dismissed as evidence in my case.
c) No photos provided as evidence by NCP show T&C signs in view of my vehicle. Not even in the distance.
d) The terms are blurry in all images provided by NCP.
e) Only one of the images from NCP are timestamped (from Nov 18). My images used as evidence are timestamped from July 2019 and demonstrate throughout the car park how signs were not prominent. Figure 52 of my evidence shows a link with three videos from July 2019 of the entrance of the car park showing no visible signs.

To summarise - NCP fails to address the binding judgment of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' where the plaintiff did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

NCP fail to show how their signs could be read from the driver's seat and provide images from a different car park. My videos and images show they could not be.

2) No evidence of Landowner Authority
a) The contract shared by NCP is not signed therefore not a valid agreement.
b) The agreement does not show the definition of the land on which NCP may operate.
c) The agreement was made in 2013 with no evidence to show it is still in force.

3) Vehicle Images
a) NCP provide no evidence to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos
b) NCP provide no evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

---

1999 characters

---

waamo

Looks good to me.

hoth0416

Rebuttal submitted! Thanks Waamo (and to all of those that have helped so far!)

I will keep you updated. Fingers crossed!

hoth0416

Hi all

Great news - the appeal was successful! :T :beer:

Thank you all for your help with this - I've really appreciated all the time and effort that's been put in to help me (and a big thanks to all of you for the resources already available on this forum!)!

Please let me know if there's any admin I need to do with my win on the forum (e.g. making sure it's in the right places so people can easily find!).

Below is a summary of the POPLA assessment:

---

POPLA assessment and decision
30/08/2019

Assessor Name: Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid pay and display ticket or cashless payment. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £85 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that signage on site was not prominent, clear or legible nor did it give sufficient notice of the amount of the charge. He states that the vehicle images shown on the PCN were not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a lengthy document elaborating in great detail on the above grounds of appeal, including numerous photographs and videos taken on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided what appears to be an extract of either its contract with the landowner to operate on site, or a witness statement confirming that such a contract exists. The document does not specify the land to which it relates, nor is it signed. I am therefore unable to establish if the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to manage parking on the site or issue PCNs. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to manage parking on the site or issue PCNs. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal, however on the basis that his appeal has been allowed I will not consider each of the grounds raised.

Redx

Well done

Just copy and paste the above , plus the PPC name into a reply in the popla
decisions thread at the top of the forum

1505grandad

Well done.

" I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to manage parking on the site or issue PCNs. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal."

Send a copy of the decision to the DVLA and BPA asking them to investigate and sanction the ppc accordingly as POPLA are not satified that they have authority to manage the site.

The Vaticanesque DVLA and the Gentleman's Member Only Club BPA will fob you off as they seem, in my experience, to make up their own rules, irrespective of the fact they are in the same country as the motorist, and usually find in favour of the ppc.

Also complain to your MP.