Premier Park POPLA appeal help please

Discogod

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for that advice Coupon.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here's the draft as it is so far. Any advice definitely welcome. Many many thanks for your template signage which i adapted from here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I also adapted this pdf too: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v_W_UseWdI_d_9WWMUfVecx0uDUYOwKs/view[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here it is, please let me know if i should redact some of it to hide info from public forums. It's too long to post in this thread, so here's the dropbox link to the word document.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ksc9sc3dc9jdw6/MSE%20appeal%20redacted.docx?dl=0
[/FONT]


BIG THANKS AGAIN!
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

KeithP

Embed the Beavis sign into your document - like you have pictures of the site.

Likewise the quote from UK Supreme Court. Embed that image too.

Where are your pictures of the inadequate signs that you are asking PoPLA to compare with the Beavis sign?

Discogod

Keith, thanks for the input, i'll add those in due course. The inadequate sign is the 'major sign' i posted earlier in this thread. It's more a hope than expectation....

https://i.ibb.co/Q6MDS4J/entrance-3-sign-close.jpg


I'll also add my photo showing obscured sign:
https://i.ibb.co/0yC07FB/example-sign-obscured.jpg

Discogod

[FONT=&quot]Hi again, on Monday 23rd Sept, POPLA opened Premier Park's submission for comments (I have until Monday 30th to submit comments). Below are my thoughts so far, I’ll try to continue working on this in the meantime. Please please pleeeease help me beat them if you can, i sincerely want and need any and all assistance!!



Here's the info they provided about their signage: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdswuvfxjlbbztv/NOTTINGHAM%20STREET%20SIGNAGE.pdf?dl=0[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


Here is their detailed text response, including relevant documents (such as the landowner authority). I have redacted any references to my personal/vehicle details from this: [/FONT]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebzh6wzm71r8252/PP_detailed_response%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0 [FONT=&quot]


I've done a little research into the landholder 'Homeside Property Limited' and i'm quite suspicious. On Companies House - there's a record for transfer of shareholding in 2016 from Steven Garratt and Steven Pettit to the current director, Paul Parnell. (see link here: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://www.dropbox.com/s/sbcizse9rwig0of/Homeside%20Property%20-%20companies%20house%20shareholders%20061216.pdf?dl=0[/FONT][FONT=&quot])



Garratt and Pettit are BOTH current Directors of Premier Park Ltd. I believe this means that HOMESIDE were set up by the same people who run Premier Park. Is this legit/relevant?



Homeside companies House link here: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10491124/persons-with-significant-control[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


Premier Park Companies House here:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06434377/officers[/FONT][FONT=&quot]



Looking briefly at their appeal itself - they comment that "The sign at the entrance does meet all of the BPAs guidance. The motorist would not be doing 30mph at this point as there is an approach and the motorist is not directly entering the car park from the road". - what approach road are they talking about here? to get from the road, you have to cross the turn directly in to the car parking site (Page 3, photo 18/04/2019 19:18:26.)



The landowner authority contract is signed and dated 19/02/2019. Underneath is a typed note that says Date Contract issued 19/03/2019, whilst the first page simply says 'March 2019'. Does this matter?


Does there need to be proof that Homeside actually own this land?
Does there need to be proof that the people signing the contract are legitimately authorised to do so on behalf of their companies? (since the signatures are hidden, this is not possible to verify)


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I'm a cynical person, and believe it's entirely possible that the same person has signed this contract on behalf of both companies. But i think the only way to prove this would be to have copies of other contracts signed between Premier Park & Other companies (that they may also control).[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Looking at the signage photographs - they have photo's which are supposedly date & time stamped. Are there grounds that these date/time stamps may have been added digitally, post-photo?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The photos only show what the site was like before the incident (which occurred in July). So, do not prove what it was like at the date in question.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Page 17 of their submission shows a supposed (redacted) list of registrations that have paid on the date in question. However, they have redacted all ticket purchases made outside the time that the vehicle supposedly entered & left the car park. Even though it would be entirely possible for a person to enter the site without a vehicle, pay for a ticket, then enter the site with the vehicle. Their evidence hides whether or not that has occurred. (It is equally possible that the vehicle may have entered the car park earlier in the day, purchased a ticket, and returned later to carry on using a valid ticket.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now reviewing the satellite image on page 52 edited by Premier Parking to show the positions of signs where the stars are. To simplify and ease understanding I will give a named LETTER to each star for ease of reference. Working anti-clockwise from the top left and downwards – the first star at the top left will be called ‘A’, continuing around, finishing on ‘P’ at the top right-hand side. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]See page 47, first photo dated 24/06/2019, 12:46:41. The image shows there was a sign on a lamppost quite close to the gated barrier. There is one parked car immediately after the sign and before the barrier. There is perhaps 1 more space for a car to fit between the parked car and the barrier (if it was a legitimate place to park). However, the satellite map suggests there is no sign in this position. Star ‘A’ is placed on the satellite image approximately 4 marked parking spaces below this point. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the BPA ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library%202016/Bay_Sizes_-_Jul_2016.pdf[/FONT][FONT=&quot]), “the current UK norm for parking spaces is 2.4 metres wide”. Using this as a guide, Premier Park are claiming the position of the sign is approximately 9.6 metres away from the actual site. This makes a huge difference to whether or not the sign can be seen from a nearby vehicle.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Looking at the next star down, star ‘B’ – on the satellite image provided by Premier Park. This is immediately next to the bottom end of the big building on the neighbouring site. Cross-reference this with the photograph provided by Premier Park on page 38, dated 23/05/2016 10:39:02. First of all, you can see what might be a sign on a lamppost near to the barrier at the far side (this is supposed to be star ‘A’ but is incorrectly marked on the map). To the left of this is a grey sign on the wall which I mentioned in my appeal was irrelevant to the parking charges. I note that Premier Park has not provided any evidence showing what this sign is. Then you can see the big building in the neighbouring site. According to Premier Park’s satellite image, there should be a sign directly next to closest end of this building. However, no sign can be seen at all in this location on the photograph provided. Star ‘B’ can therefore be excluded as it clearly does not exist. Yet more evidence of misleading information provided by Premier Park. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I now guide you to look at the photograph on page 34, dated 23/05/2019 10:38:04. There looks like there may be a sign on the far-left-hand side, above the Citroen car. This is fixed to the wall of a two-story building belonging to the neighbouring site. This is marked on the satellite image provided by Premier Park as the 2nd star up from the bottom on the left-hand side (next to a white vehicle), I call this star ‘D’. According to the satellite image, Premier Park are claiming that there is a sign (star ‘C’) in a position of six whole parking spaces above the star ‘D’. However, looking at the image on page 35, dated 23/05/2019 10:38:04, there is no sign six whole parking spaces beyond the sign on the wall. The sign is actually approximately 4 whole parking spaces beyond the first sign. Yet further evidence that Premier Park is trying to mislead you.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A wrongly placed, B does not exist, C wrongly placed, P does not exist, O wrongly placed, N wrongly placed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You will notice the lack of any clear photograph showing the whole distance between the actual signs on this left-hand side of the car park (signs ‘A’ and ‘C’). It is this distance that is central to part of the appeal that no sign could be seen. Judging the actual position of these signs, I can calculate that there are approximately 15 parking spaces in between the two signs on the left side of the car park. These signs are the one near the barrier (sign ‘A’) and the next sign 4 spaces above the 2nd star from the bottom on the left side of the satellite photo (sign ‘C’ as discussed above). Using the BPA’s guide, these 15 parking spaces equate to a distance of 36 metres (on average). That is 36 whole metres where there is no signage to be seen. This clearly hinders the opportunity to form a contract when a vehicle is in this vicinity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Returning to the satellite image, I implore you to try to find evidence for the existence of star ‘P’. This being the star located above ‘The melton vape’ text at the top right-hand side of the image. In all of the photographic submission by Premier Park, I cannot find a single image that clearly shows the existence of this sign, nor what this sign is alleged to say.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Page 14, shows signs ‘N’ (nearest the camera) and ‘M’ in the corner furthest away. These signs are also shown on page 12, dated 18/04/2019 19:20:08. Using these images, you can count the number of spaces between the two signs. There are 6 spaces between the two signs according to the photograph. The photograph on page 14 shows sign ‘N’ is immediately above a parking line. The photograph on page 12 shows sign ‘M’ immediately above a parking line. There are therefore 6 whole parking spaces between these signs. The satellite image suggests there are only 5 spaces between these signs. Yet more evidence that this image cannot be trusted to guide the assessor in their judgement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Page 47, image 24/06/2019 12:47:03 shows signs ‘O’ and ‘N’. However, it is quite difficult to count the parking spaces between the two signs due to the poor quality of the photograph. It is my best estimation that there are six parking spaces between these two signs. I refer you again to the satellite image. There are only approximately 4 spaces between the two marked stars. This is even disregarding the fact that star ‘N’ is known to be incorrectly positioned. Where it correctly marked, there would only be 3 spaces between the two signs. It is entirely obvious that this is not the case judging by image 24/06/2019 12:47:03.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This has not even taken into account that high sided vehicles will block these signs (there is no height restriction to this site (see Premier Park page 4, photo 18/04/2019 19:18:26). Any signs on site at the time could well have been obscured from vision by high-sided vehicles. It is pertinent to note that the existence of large-sided vehicles at the time the vehicle was on site is not disputed by Premier Park. Premier Park have also not disputed that the signs are in an inappropriate position to avoid being blocked by high-sided vehicles. Premier Park have also not disputed that the signs are at an inappropriate height to be read and understood from a reasonable distance. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]It has been clearly evidenced that the satellite photo has been incorrectly edited by Premier Park. They appear to have flippantly added stars to the map, rather than follow the BPA Code of Practice 18.3 ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/BPA_AOS_CODE_OF_PRACTICE_CURRENT.pdf[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) which states to “Keep a record of where all the signs are.” Judging by the evidence provided by Premier Park, it does not appear that they are abiding by the BPA code of practice by keeping an accurate record of the sign locations. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This leads me to believe that Premier Park are trying to mislead the assessor into believing the signs are positioned where Premier Park would like them to be - rather where they actually are. This is very dishonest and leads me to question whether they have also edited other evidence to suit their needs. Such as digitally adding date/time-stamps after photographs/ANPR images have been taken, rather than using the original stamp provided by the appropriate equipment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]things i am still working on:[/FONT]

• P33 P36 P41 P43 P46 sign pixelated, blurred, cannot be read – no evidence that this could be read when actually stood a reasonable distance in front of it.
• reveiwing whether Premier Park have clearly identified what each sign says in each location.
• review the contract (what to look for?)
• original PCN states that all payments are subject to 50p administration charge - this is not stated on the signs.

Once again, i really want your feedback please.

Discogod

Discogod wrote: »

At the moment I've no idea who actually is the landowner. I found a Marston's sign on site and something online suggesting they were the owners. However, when speaking to Marston's, they confirm they sold the site in March 2019 but were unable to tell me to whom (data protection).



I don't know when Premier Park started running this contract but i suspect if it was before March, there's every chance this will be thrown out due to lack of landowner authority.

going back to this point - the landowner contract is dated March 2019, but the signatures are from February. If this is signed prior to their ownership, does this nullify the parking contract? Is this something i can get evidence of to prove?


Is it even too late to use this evidence? I think i'm unable to show it to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

on Monday 23rd Sept, POPLA opened Premier Park's submission for comments (I have until Monday 30th to submit comments).

No, you do not, you have till Sunday.

Premier Parking

No such firm, I say this EVERY day, someone calls them that.

You do know you only have 2000 characters, not words, and only six days not seven?

MistyZ

Is there any way you can simplify this? I struggled to get to grips with it & think POPLA assessors may too (quite apart from the character limit). What are their weakest assertions about signage, in layman's terms?

It's Friday, could you phone Homeside and ask them if they are the landowners? If they are, you know who to complain to. If not, the contract is invalid.

You have to give the rebuttal your very best shot. However there are also compelling mitigating circumstances here, if only you can get through to the landowners.

Discogod

Misty, I have not been able to find their telephone number (I looked a few days ago). I will try to look again at more options. I anticipate that the landowners are linked to Premier Park.

The signage issues in layman's terms are that they are not adequately positioned throughout the site with large gaps where there are no signs.

Linked to this, their site plan showing where signs are sited is incorrect. It says there are signs in places where there are none, others are marked in wrong locations.

I'm also wondering if I can attack it on the basis that on the photos they have provided, the smaller text is blurred and cannot be read.

Furthermore, signs can be easily blocked by high sided vehicles. Their photos only show the site as it was before the incident, no photos they have provided are from after the incident.


Thanks to Coupon for pointing out the Sunday deadline. You saved my bacon there. And also for pointing out the incorrect name, I will edit. I noticed yesterday the 2000 character limit which will be a challenge but one I should be able to do.

Are the following points worth perusing?

original PCN states that all payments are subject to 50p administration charge - this is not stated on the signs.
Does it matter that their site plan is wrong?
Does there need to be proof that Homeside actually own this land?
Does there need to be proof that the people signing the contract are legitimately authorised to do so on behalf of their companies? (since the signatures are hidden, this is not possible to verify).

Thanks to all for taking the time. I'll be finishing this today because I am working all weekend. Although, i will be able to make some minor adjustments on Sunday evening.

Discogod

I have obtained from Land Registry a copy of the Title Register. Homeside Property Limited paid for ownership of this site on 07/03/2019. This is two weeks after the date of the contract for car park services was signed.



I've spoken to POPLA who have said i can email this to them at info@popla.co.uk. The assessor will then consider whether to include it as part of the evidence. Does anyone have any advice on how to best word this email to them so it is considered? When i appealed initially, i could not have known the date the contract was signed would be crucial.



Fingers crossed.

MistyZ

Although you cannot add brand new points to the rebuttal, there is no reason why you shouldn't comment on the contract. After all, you asked to see it in your POPLA appeal and were not able to critique it until PP provided the copy.

I think it'd be better to make the points about signage in the kind of language you use above but of course with relatively simple, clear reference to those parts of PP's evidence that best illustrate your points. As for their blurry photo, it's the real signs that you need to focus on .... do PP's photos reflect the issues you raised in your appeal? It wouldn't hurt to have a dig at 'PP's blurry photos' though, when referring to them.

Please keep trying with Homeside too.