UKPC POPLA Appeal

Lgaaa

Here is UKPC response.

They also attached the signs in the car park and there contract with the retail park.

"On the 12th May 2019, a parking event occurred relating to vehicle registration *******. The event was
recorded by our ANPR cameras at ****** Road Retail Park because the vehicle was on site for longer the
maximum period permitted. There is a maximum permitted stay of XXX at this site.
The parking charge rate was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within fourteen days.
Following the parking event, UKPC had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper so that
a parking charge notice could be issued by post. A copy of this notice is included in this case summary, dated
the 17th May 2019. Issued 5 days after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver was not served),
the parking charge notice complies fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay this unpaid parking charge.
An appeal was received from the DVLA registered keeper of the vehicle Mr **** **** on the 29th May
2019, which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject.
The basis of the appeal began with the keeper requesting a copy of all images taken of his vehicle on the date
in question. It is stated on the notice to keeper that all photographic evidence pertaining to this parking charge
may be viewed online at https://www.ukpcappeals.co.uk.
This parking charge does not concern a pay and display ticket (PDT) machine and as such this statement is
irrelevant to the parking charge notice.
The keeper states a grace period is required to be given to any overstay. Section 13.2 of the British Parking
Association Code of Practice requires parking operators to provide a grace period of at least ten minutes in
addition to the permitted timed parking event. In this instance, the keeper's vehicle was recorded as entering
site at 15:33:34, and exiting site at 17:46:02. As such, the vehicle was given a grace period of a full ten minutes
beyond the 2 hour period permitted. Please see all parking charge photographic evidence for your perusal.
Due to this reason UKPC are confident that this parking charge has been issued correctly and upheld
accordingly.
The keeper requests proof that signage was in place on site on the date in question. Please see enclosed time
and date stamped evidence that there was UKPC signage on site on the date of this parking event. UK Parking
Control signage complies fully with section 18 and appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of
Practice and we reject the suggestion that it is vague or misleading. Entrance signage advises motorists that
terms of parking apply, and that notices within the car park should be checked to identify the full terms and
conditions. These notices are placed throughout the car park. It is ultimately the responsibility of the motorist to
ensure they identify the terms of parking, and then decide whether to park their vehicle, or leave the site if they
are unable to meet those terms.
The keeper alleges that UKPC have not made it clear who is the creditor in regards to this parking charge
notice. We have made it clear on our parking charge notice, and all subsequent correspondence, that we are
seeking payment of an outstanding parking charge, thereby clearly identifying ourselves as the creditor.
The keeper claims UKPC have no landowner authority to issue parking charges on site. UKPC have been
managing parking on this site since the 1st December 2018 and we enclose a redacted contract to confirm this.
The contract between UK Parking Control Ltd and the landowner (or their managing agent) authorising UKPC to
provide parking management, and therefore issue parking charges to vehicles breaching the terms of parking,
is confidential and we are unable to provide a copy for reasons of commercial sensitivity. We have however
provided a redacted copy, with sensitive information covered. The redacted contract confirms our authority
dating from 1st December 2018 in an ongoing agreement, based on the termination clause in the attached
terms and conditions. If neither party terminates the contract, as in this case, the contract will continue on a
rolling basis.
UKPC ensure that all of our ANPR equipment is regularly tested to maintain a high standard of operation and
reliability. We therefore reject the notion that ANPR equipment on site is not reliable, and can categorically
confirm that it is compliant with the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.
There are sufficient signs advising drivers that a maximum stay period applies, and that failure to adhere to this
may result in a parking charge being issued. Mr ****** *******s vehicle exceeded the maximum permitted
period; consequently, the parking charge was issued correctly.
A letter was sent to Mr ***** ***** informing him of our decision on the 28th June 2019."

Any help with my response please guys?

Lgaaa

Hi Guys,

Any help with the above please?

I have to reply by today.

Thanks

Redx

cant even read it

I suggest you look at recent popla rebuttals from the last 12 months and construct your own , after checking the contract and signage and BPA CoP, look for anything that supports your version of events and look for anything they omitted that you claimed

check what they state about the grace periods and compare BOTH OF THEM to their statements

if an incorrect VRM was used , check what popla said about this and apply de minimis


you only have 2000 characters to rebut their evidence , so keep it concise , then post your rebuttal below , for critique

Lgaaa

How does this look?

Also, its 5335 characters!

Is there anything irrelevant that i can remove?

thanks in advance


1. The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end and a separate 'observation period' at the start. For the avoidance of doubt this is NOT a single period with a ceiling of just ten minutes, and the authority for this view is in this BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs where he states on behalf of the BPA that there is a difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

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

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

BPA (18.5) states ''if a driver is parking with your permission they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you''.

(a) On arrival - the 'observation period':
There was traffic build up on entering the car park, beyond the AMPR cameras, as there is multiple shops and a gym hosted within the car park causing build up to park. There is also a fairly restricted width of the car park spaces, causing difficulties in waiting for cars to manoeuvre to park or leave spaces, then difficulties for the driver in then parking their own car.

I am a witness to this as I was an occupant of the car as well as its keeper. I can assert that it took 5 - 6 minutes before we were able to park, and at no time did we read any term that told us that the 'observation' time had actually started when we were in the queue and not even past the entrance threshold.

Even if it had said that, observation and grace periods must still be factored in, given the facts relating to each site, and 5 - 6 minutes is a reasonable grace/observation period to enter this car park, then queue behind te traffic and give way to exiting cars before reaching one of the small spaces, then carefully park, then finally seek out one of the signs and read it, which is the only point at which any contractual parking licence may have started (only when the driver has had a fair opportunity to read the terms and decide whether to stay, as Kelvin Reynolds stated).
Notwithstanding the BPA rules, relevant contract law also dictates that consumers must be given an opportunity to consider terms and conditions before entering into a consumer contract, especially where one of the terms is unexpected (new terms for this site) and onerous. POPLA Assessors have stated in recent decisions that a reasonable time period for this would be up to about 10 minutes. In this case, therefore, the 5 - 6 minutes taken before being able to park and read the new signs at this particular site is a reasonable period.



On leaving - the 'grace period'
BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) states: ''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.''

BPA (13.4) reiterates this fact: ''You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.''

Given the timings shown by the images (and subtracting the reasonable time explained above, on arrival) the operator is alleging that the driver exceeded the parking time after the end of the parking event, by 6 - 7 minutes. This is explained by the traffic entering the car park and spaces/maneuvering, meaning that even when a driver gets back to their car on time, they are prevented from leaving immediately due to the queues and restricted space in this site. As I was an occupant of the car I can attest that this was the case on the material date and that the driver did not actually park in a space for more than 120 minutes, thus there was no parking contravention at all.

The Operator has displayed on their PCN only the entry and exit times from the car park. These are not the 'period of parking' although the law requires this to be stated, and to any right-thinking person the only reason for this is to engineer an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18 - the views of MPs during the Parking CoP Bill reading) by misleading POPLA. Taking into account the travel time to a parking space and travelling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory observation and grace periods as outlined above.

As such, 7 -8 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended. The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice incorrectly. Accordingly, POPLA must allow this appeal.

Lgaaa

Any ideas where i can lose 210 characters from please?

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end and a separate 'observation period' at the start. For the avoidance of doubt this is NOT a single period with a ceiling of just ten minutes, and the authority for this view is in this BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs where he states on behalf of the BPA that there is a difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods
On arrival - the 'observation period':
There was traffic build up on entering the car park, beyond the AMPR cameras, as there is multiple shops and a gym hosted within the car park causing build up to park. There is also a fairly restricted width of the car park spaces, causing difficulties in waiting for cars to manoeuvre to park or leave spaces, then difficulties for the driver in then parking their own car. POPLA Assessors have stated in recent decisions that a reasonable time period for this would be up to about 10 minutes. In this case, therefore, the 5 - 6 minutes taken before being able to park and read the new signs at this particular site is a reasonable period.
On leaving - the 'grace period'
BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) states: ''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.''
The Operator has displayed on their PCN only the entry and exit times from the car park. These are not the 'period of parking' although the law requires this to be stated. Taking into account the travel time to a parking space and travelling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory observation and grace periods as outlined above.

As such, 7 -8 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended. The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice incorrectly. Accordingly, POPLA must allow this appeal.

Redx

Get rid of full stops etc, it's ANPR , not what you wrote, condense some words to acronyms , say K Reynolds , remove any spurious words, make it staccato , bullet points, no need to tell a story, keep it concise

You are commenting on their defence pack, not introducing new arguments, which will be disregarded

You don't need to quote the BPA Cop, they already have it

They state that the contract is redacted, check the redactions in case they allow you to rebut landowner authority due to the redactions

Umkomaas

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods:

= 72 characters.

BPACoP (13) - 2 grace periods:

= 30 characters. Follow that pattern throughout. Get rid of as many punctuation marks as possible (short of making the entire rebuttal one mahoosive sentence!).

If there are any new appeal points being introduced, POPLA will not accept them, if so, ditch and save on characters.

Redx

You can rebut

Landowner authority due to redacted contract

Poor and inadequate signage

Grace periods using what you said

Keep under 2000 characters, so no full stops etc