Premier Park POPLA appeal help please

Discogod

I cannot find any contact details for Homeside. Their registered address is the same as 50 other companies, presumably at the offices of an accountancy firm that is based there. Homeside have no facebook, no website, I feel i'm out of options.

Coupon-mad

Email it and also mention that email in your comments and say this is NOT new evidence but a rebuttal of the case file and following on from your appeal point about 'no landowner authority' where it seems the operator has tried to mislead POPLA.

Discogod

Thanks again Misty & Coupon. I will email Popla shortly.


Here's my latest comments submission which leaves 34 spare characters:


[FONT=&quot]The site plan is wholly inaccurate and misleading, cross-referencing with photos it is possible to deduce that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The top left star is incorrectly positioned on the map, it is actually located 4 car park spaces below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The next star down on the left has no sign about parking and does not exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The 3rd star down is marked as being 2 spaces above where it actually is.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The top right star has no sign about parking and does not exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The 2nd and 3rd stars down on the right side are incorrectly positioned.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signs are not prominent throughout the car park, clearly legible from within all spaces nor adequately lit to be legible at night.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Premier Park claims there is an approach road; the photos show this is false.

I have been unable to critique the landowner contract until now. The contract is signed and dated 19/02/2019. Land Registry evidence proves that Homeside were not landowners on this date. This is NOT new evidence as I have already raised this appeal point (see separate email).

The list of vehicles that bought tickets has been redacted to hide ticket purchases made outside the time that the vehicle allegedly entered & left the site. It is entirely possible for a person to enter the site on foot, pay for a ticket, then enter the site with the vehicle. The evidence hides whether this has occurred. It’s also possible that car entered the site earlier in the day, purchased a ticket, and returned later to carry on using a valid ticket. Equally, the barrier at the top of the site is not fixed and opens to provide an alternative entry/exit point
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]High sided vehicles will block the signs; there’s no height restriction to this site which is undisputed by Premier Park. It is also undisputed that the signs are at an inappropriate height to be read.[/FONT]

The image resolution is poor, smaller print cannot be read.

Images are only prior to, not post incident, and do not prove adequate signage on site on the incident day.

Discogod

and my draft email to Popla:
following our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon, please find attached document to support my appeal point regarding landowner authority. I would sincerely appreciate if you could forward this to the case assessor for consideration.

This document has been obtained from the Land Registry office and shows the date that Homeside Properties Ltd became landowners was 7th March 2019. The contract provided by Premier Park Ltd is signed and dated 19th February 2019. This is sixteen days prior to ownership and so Premier Park did not have landowner authority at the time the contract was signed.

As commented in the appeal, I have not been able to critique the parking contract provided by Premier Park Ltd until now. The contract date was unknown at the submission time. I therefore state that this is NOT new evidence as it supports an existing appeal point regarding landowner authority.

MistyZ

Discogod wrote: »

Thanks again Misty & Coupon. I will email Popla shortly.


Here's my latest comments submission which leaves 34 spare characters:


[FONT=&quot]The site plan is wholly inaccurate and misleading, cross-referencing with photos it is possible to deduce that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The top left star is incorrectly positioned on the map, it is actually located 4 car park spaces below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The next star down on the left has no sign about parking and does not exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The 3rd star down is marked as being 2 spaces above where it actually is.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The top right star has no sign about parking and does not exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The 2nd and 3rd stars down on the right side are incorrectly positioned.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signs are NOT prominent throughout the car park, clearly legible from within all spaces nor adequately lit to be legible at night.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Premier Park claims there is an approach road; the photos show this is false.

I have been unable to critique the landowner contract until now. The contract is signed and dated 19/02/2019. Land Registry evidence proves that Homeside were not landowners on this date. This is NOT new evidence as I have already raised this appeal point (see separate email).

The list of vehicles that bought tickets has been redacted to hide ticket purchases made outside the time that the vehicle allegedly entered & left the site. It is entirely possible for a person to enter the site on foot, pay for a ticket, then enter the site with the vehicle. The evidence hides whether this has occurred. It’s also possible that car entered the site earlier in the day, purchased a ticket, and returned later to carry on using a valid ticket. Equally, the barrier at the top of the site is not fixed and opens to provide an alternative entry/exit point
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]High sided vehicles will block the signs; there’s no height restriction to this site which is undisputed by Premier Park. It is also undisputed that the signs are at an inappropriate height to be read.[/FONT]

The image resolution is poor, smaller print cannot be read.

Images are only prior to, not post incident, and do not prove adequate signage on site on the incident day.

If you've not submitted already: I'd leave out the first bit I've coloured red - you're not possibly deducing, you're asserting. I'd just put a colon there.

I'd also put the red 'not' in capitals for emphasis.

If the incident did occur after dark, I'd put 'not legible after dark as was the case when the car was parked'.

I expect I'm too late so just nitpicking and I hope you win. If not, there must be some way of getting through to Homeside. Might be worth writing to them straight away, before POPLA's response. Seems to me that an address in Northumberland comes up most often, though also one in Devon .... personally I'd send a letter to every address.

Discogod

Thanks Misty, anything that helps my case is appreciated so nitpick away! You're not too late - i'll have time to submit on Sunday evening.

MistyZ

Haha, okay .... which of PP's photos shows there's no approach road? Give a reference to it / them. And how about changing the bit about signage height to 'PP do NOT dispute the fact that the signs are far too high to be read easily'.

Discogod

It's OK to abbreviate to PP if I reference it on the first occasion?

Will do the changes you've just mentioned too

MistyZ

Discogod wrote: »

It's OK to abbreviate to PP if I reference it on the first occasion?

Definitely. The character limit makes abbreviations and other ways of shortening text acceptable.

Discogod

I've had the result, it was rejected


Before I begin my assessment, I note the appellant has advised that the driver of the vehicle was grieving due to a recent family bereavement I would like to convey my sincere condolences to the driver and their family at this difficult time.



After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012.



The terms and conditions of the site are, “Monday-Saturday 07:30-17:00 Up to 20 min £0.30, Up to 1 hour £0.80… No stopping or waiting. If you cannot pay for any reason do not park. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The site is managed by ANPR cameras the appellant’s vehicle was captured entering the site at xx:xx and exiting at xx:xx, totalling a stay of 24 minutes. The appellant has advised that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high-profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices”.



As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site.



In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows, 3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.



Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site 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”. The operator has provided a copy of a contract, after reviewing this I am satisfied the operator had landowner authority.



The appellant has advised that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) as there is no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate. Any queries relating to this would need to be addressed directly with the ICO.



The appellant has advised there is no evidence of Period Parked and the PCN does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has provided evidence of the full camera’s images taken on the date of the parking event; I note the appellant has advised that the images on the PCN are cropped there is no requirement for the operator to provide full images on the PCN. The appellant has advised that the Vehicle Images contained in the PCN are not complaint with the BPA Code of Practice. While I note the appellant has advised that the PCN does not state the period of time parked, in this instance the breach does not require a period of time parked as the motorist could have gained permission to park at any time, therefore the time the operator could determine there was a breach was on exit of the site.



The appellant has advised that the ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate. While I acknowledge the appellants comments to support why they do not believe the ANPR system to be reliable, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR images captured on the date of the parking event I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate.


The appellant has advised that the Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for. In response to this, the operator has provided evidence of signage which advises motorists how it manages ANPR data and what it is used for. As such, I am satisfied the signage shows is fully compliant with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.



The appellant has advised that there is no Planning Permission from Melton Borough Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage. The remit of POPLA is to assess if the PCN has been issued correctly or not, any complaint the appellant wishes to make regarding planning permission would need to be addressed with the relevant authorities.



Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining within the site, the motorist accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by not making a payment for the duration of stay, the motorist has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.