Which template to use?

Coupon-mad

I'd add this:

ParkingEye (PE) did not respond to my comment that the sign was hidden under tree branch (page 3 of my appeal) - this means that PE does not dispute it and deemed to have agreed to it. My photo is the only contemporaneous one and theirs from weeks earlier, looks like they've pushed a branch up out of the way, to take the picture.

jugulator

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'd add this:

Thank you. I will add it.

Coupon-mad

It may make the Assessor look again at their photo, where they have deliberately placed a sign under a leafy tree - why?!! And it looks to me like they may have done what I said and you need to put that doubt in the Assessor's mind!

jugulator

I have added Coupon-mad's suggestion. Hope this is fine -

1. ParkingEye (PE) did not respond to my comment that the sign was hidden under tree branch (page 3 of my appeal) - this means that PE does not dispute it and deemed to have agreed to it. My photo was taken on the day of the alleged incident as you can see from the file name - 18/07/2019 (Section E. page 18-19) and theirs weeks earlier, looks like they've pushed a branch up out of the way, to take the picture

2. PE admits that there was only ONE other sign on a pole apart from the one at the entrance hidden under the tree. ParkingEye's own layout map shows, more than 2/3rd of the car park is not covered by any sign. Woefully inadequate signage (Ref: Page 38: Section F - Car Park Signage Plan - Page 4 of 6)

3. If driver enters and turn right to park in a space on the second row there is no way of spotting any signs as all the signs are behind the driver (Ref: Car Park Signage Plan - Page 4 of 6)

4. PE failed show where the car was parked. The car was parked in the second row. There is no signage anywhere close to this part of the car park, as can be seen from PE's own evidence. The closest sign is a Pay and Display sign as per my evidence provided (Fig: 7 & 8 of my appeal)

5. The in/out photos are further back within the larger site access road - nothing shows that the driver even drove or parked anywhere near the signs (Photographs page - Section D)

6. PE failed show the boundaries of the car park. As this is in continuum with another car park, and also due to the lack of signage on this side of the car park (PE's own admission - Car Park Signage Plan - Page 4 of 6) the driver could have confused this car park with the pay and display car park adjacent to it, as there is no clear boundaries marked. PE did not respond to this comment on my appeal (page 5), therefore they must accept that the boundaries of the car park was not clear.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Yep that's under 2000 characters and says all you can say really.

Actually, just checking, how can you have taken a photo on the day, you wouldn't have known to do so because the PCN won't have arrived in the post for a another week?

jugulator

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep that's under 2000 characters and says all you can say really.

Actually, just checking, how can you have taken a photo on the day, you wouldn't have known to do so because the PCN won't have arrived in the post for a another week?

I noticed the Staff only sign when I was returning to the car after the appointment. So, I immediately took pictures as I knew PCN will be on the way.

Coupon-mad

Ah well spotted! I would not mention that to POPLA; overcomplicates it.

Next time, what you do is check which way the exit camera points and cover the numberplate as you leave.

I know people who do this EVERY time they leave such a car park and some who do it when they enter as well, so that scammers never harvest their data.

Removing the chance of an exit photo scuppers their game completely and is perfectly legal.

jugulator

Lol ��. I didn't know this. Will keep in mind next time

jugulator

Hi there,

I received the POPLA decision today. Unfortunately I did not win. It would appear that the assessor did not address my arguments of sign hidden under tree branch, lack of signs on one side, boundaries not defined and dismissed my comment that the nearest sign was a pay and display, saying that it was too small on the picture so he can only assume that it was PE's sign!

I am disappointed as I was kind on optimistic. What are my options now. It was genuine mistake and I do not want to pay. Below is he full report:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided documentation supporting his appeal and the issues they have raised and lists the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made when reviewing this information. The appellant states that: • The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • The operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority, in compliance with the BPA code of practice. • The ANPR camera footage is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided photographic evidence showing inadequate signage on the site and has quoted various sections of the BPA code of practice and PoFA2012, in support of his appeal.

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 provided photographic evidence of the signage, which states: “Staff Permit Holders Only…To obtain a staff permit please contact the medical Centre reception…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100…” The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 16:45, and exiting at 17:07, totalling a stay of 21 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence of its machine data, showing that no permit was obtained against vehicle registration GF18EKZ on the date of breach. The operator has provided evidence of a witness statement from the landowner, Harborne Medical Practice, dated 17h October 2017 authorising the operator to manage to car park on its behalf. The operator has provided evidence of a site map, showing four signs are situated across the site. The appellant has referred to the signage being inadequate on the site, as it is not prominent. The appellant says that the signage was blocked by tree branches, making it difficult to check the parking terms and that the entrance sign is not sufficient to notice the terms. The appellant has provided photographic images from the site and the signage to support their points. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the driver has parked the site with the intention to use. By the appellant remaining on the site, he has entered into a contract and has therefore accepted the terms and conditions included. After considering the evidence provided; I can see that the appellant was responsible for ensuring they submitted their vehicle details to the department stated, in order to obtain a valid permit to park on the site. According the machine data log provided by the operator, there is no record of the appellant’s vehicle details registered at the site on the date in question. As such, the appellant’s stay period has not been authorised. I have reviewed the signage and can see that the signs are positioned at eye-level and fall within the font size recommended by the BPA code of practice, so it is clear that the signs were readable and positioned in a way that could allow the appellant to understand the terms and conditions. In particular, I can see that the entrance sign does state that parking is for staff only and refers the motorists to check the signs provided, when parking on the site. The appellant has also referred to there being a pay and display sign situated amongst the car park, which I have reviewed as part of their evidence however, due to the distance of this image, there is no evidence to suggest that this sign states anything different to the parking terms set out. Furthermore, the site map evidence shows me that there were at least four signs situated across the site, which I would deem as acceptance considering the size of the site. If the appellant believes that they could not see the signage from where they were parked, then there were other signs provided within close range to each other or alternatively, the appellant would have had ample opportunity to leave the site and sought alternative parking arrangements. Based on the evidence provided above, I am satisfied that there was sufficient signage provided on the site, highlighting the appellant of the terms and conditions. The appellant has referred to the accuracy of the ANPR camera footage, as they say that the operator has not provided evidence to show it is a reliable system and the ANPR signs do not comply with BPA guidelines. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, POPLA will on occasion, receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, POPLA must consider if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence or explanation as to why he feels the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. The appellant has referred to the operator not having landowner authority to issue PCNs on the site., in accordance with the BPA code of practice. Before considering this for grounds for appeal; I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BP1A) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In respect of landowner authority, the definition of the land in question and the witness statement provided by the operator I have reviewed this and note that it does convey that the site in question is Harbourne Medical Practice and that it is signed by Natalie Hatfield, on behalf of the landowner. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated. In accordance with my role I will base my decision on the principle of assessing if the PCN was issued correctly, against the advertised terms and conditions of the site. I have considered the appellant’s evidence and whilst I appreciate the images and additional details that has been provided, this evidence does not support that the driver fully complied with the parking terms stated. I would also like to highlight to the appellant that whilst I acknowledge that they have quoted various sections of the BPA, PoFA 2012 and legal cases, this also does not apply as it does not fully support why the driver could not comply with the parking terms. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant says that the operator has seemingly agreed with their point regarding the signage being blocked, the photographic images provided are not a true reflection of the date in question as the branches have seemingly been moved, emphasising that the signage is inadequate. The appellant says that the signs are not positioned clearly, with only the closest sign is a pay and display one. The appellant has reiterated the lack of prominent signage as part of the appeal. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these points as part of my decision, I have no further comment to make about them at this stage. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they have adhered to the terms and conditions of the car park. In this case, by failing to obtain a valid permit to cover the duration of stay, the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of receiving a PCN. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

It would appear that the assessor did not address my arguments of sign hidden under tree branch, lack of signs on one side, boundaries not defined and dismissed my comment that the nearest sign was a pay and display, saying that it was too small on the picture so he can only assume that it was PE's sign!

Typical of POPLA now. They have no eye for detail most of the time.

I am disappointed as I was kind on optimistic. What are my options now

As always, a complaint to the Medical Practice again.

Then defending a court case where a Judge would look at all your evidence. Can you get a close up now of that misleading PDT machine sign (unless it was one on street from the Council which clearly can never apply within an adjacent car park).