Premier Park PCN at Fitness First

cornilleou

Complaint to my MP:


Dear Sir, I regret that I have to trouble you, but I wish to obtain your help in seeking the cancellation of a Parking Charge Notice, aka as an invoice, issued by Premier Park at Blue Ice Plaza, Solihull on XX/XX/19.

You are no doubt familiar with The Parking (Code of Practice ) Bill which received Royal Assent on 15th March this year. The bill was enacted to regulate the excesses of Private Parking companies.

I have received an invoice as registered keeper, for the alleged damage the driver caused Premier Park by staying for 1h 44 minutes on the 5th May without authorisation by the alleged contract they claim the driver had agreed to.!

In fact the driver is a member of the Solihull branch of Fitness First gym and having to their best endeavour entered the registration number at the terminal located within the gym is entitled to free parking whilst at the gym. The driver is a regular user of the gym and as such if Premier Park glanced through their records they would see at worst this is a minor terminal handling error (which occurs frequently according to members of staff) and could not be regarded as breach of any alleged contract.

IMO, the process is not fit for purpose. Any reasonable person would surely accept that use of payment terminals on each and every visit is!bound to result in a few handling issues. One would expect a sensible appeal policy would be part of the process. If there is no such a policy one would have to conclude that the intention all along was to generate income by penalising genuine mistakes.

I am in the process of complaining to Fitness First but having received no response to date would be grateful if you could assist in whatever way you can.

Parking Charge Notice: xxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxx
Notice Issue Date: XX/XX/2019

Yours sincerely
Name & address supplied

cornilleou

My response to Premier Park's offer of £20....


I am forced to respond to this email address as no alternative has been provided!!!

To whom it may concern,

I am extremely disappointed that you insist on relying on a 'technicality' to pursue a genuine patron in this matter. Should this go any further I will be reciprocating.

I submitted my initial appeal in good faith and expected it to be taken seriously! I now draw your attention to the following quote from the POPLA Annual Report 2018:-

"The BPA recognised that this was an area of frustration for motorists. In October 2017, it sent a message to its operators reminding them to put motorists at the heart of their thinking and to focus on effective car park management, rather than mistake punishment."

Your offer is not acceptable. It clearly does not reflect additional costs incurred and as such still represents punishment. You could have checked your records at nil cost to establish the car is regularly registered at Fitness First but you chose not to do this.

I will not be paying your company any money pertaining to this charge unless and until ordered to do so by a judge. Having said that it is clearly not in either of our interests to engage in such a long and stressful process so I am prepared to offer the needlessly incurred £2.50 DVLA search fee. This offer is made without prejudice save as to costs

Should you refuse this offer, as I will be reluctantly forced to spend additional time and effort researching and preparing evidence I will charge in full for my time, out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

You now have an opportunity to close this matter before incurring POPLA costs. Please take it.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,
Name & address supplied

cornilleou

My follow up to Blue Ice:


Hello xxxx, thank you for your response but I'm afraid I would indeed like you to re-visit the 'reduced fee'.

Premier Park's response is disingenuous.

At the outset I wish to make it clear it is not accepted that this penalty has been issued correctly. The legality of this will be addressed if necessary further down the line. I also wish to state that at this stage the driver simply cannot remember whether they entered the registration incorrectly or completely forgot. This issue will also be addressed later if necessary. However for the sake of this discussion, let us assume the driver completely forgot to enter the registration details at the keypad.

I'm frustrated at Premier Park's repeated refusal to address the core point. No car parking infringement has occurred but yet Premier Park insist on pursuing genuine patrons on a technicality! After developing a relationship with Fitness First and by proxy yourselves over many years genuine patrons should not expect to have to check small print or 'legaleeze' on each visit to the car park.

When this new system was introduced it was queried why the insistence on registering each and every visit, as humans are bound to forget on occasion and the technology already exists (and is in use by other parking companies) to enter once and cross-reference gym members from then on. The response was:

a) To ensure the gym was actually being used each time as opposed to a trip to the shops
b) A responsive appeal process was in place to prevent genuine patrons from being penalised (a nominal fee was indicated)


The above was accepted in good faith but neither appears to be true!

a) Evidence has been provided and not disputed that the driver was at the gym at the time in question but has been ignored
b) The reduced fee (which is still a substantial £20 for a free car park and doesn't represent additional costs incurred) was not offered on initial appeal. It was only offered after I appealed the appeal!
c) An offer was made to reimburse the (needlessly incurred) DVLA fee but this has also been ignored


I suggest that your 'agreement' with Premier Park is reviewed as I feel I have been swept up into an unresponsive automated process which gives out standard responses without actually considering the individual point raised and then offering standard 'reduced' fees. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, it would appear the appeal process only considers cases where a parking infringement has occurred but there are extenuating circumstances where one might possibly argue £20 is justified. However no parking infringement has occurred!

Lastly, clearly I acknowledge your need as landowner to manage and prevent misuse of your car park but no misuse of the car park has taken place, at best we have a case of misuse of a keypad! This company appear to have the automated technology to check when cars come and go and issue automated parking charge notices but claim not to have the technology to cross-reference gym members.
Surely this behaviour brings all associated with it into disrepute and leads one to question the motives behind it. I certainly will be if this continues any further.

Regards Name and address supplied

Parking Charge Notice: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
Notice Issue Date: XX/XX/2019


Unfortunately, heard nothing further from Blue Ice...........

cornilleou

Interestingly Premier Park would not respond to my MP until I completed a Disclosure Authority form. They then responded to him with a polite letter which I can't be bothered to scan in but stated all the usual standard stuff.

I responded:

Dear Mr Knight, thank you for the enquiries you have made on my behalf and for the response you have forwarded. However my issues have not been addressed.

Premier Park's response is disingenuous.

At the outset I wish to make it clear it is not accepted that this penalty has been issued correctly. The legality of this will be addressed if necessary further down the line. I also wish to state that at this stage the driver simply cannot remember whether they entered the registration incorrectly or completely forgot. This issue will also be addressed later if necessary. However for the sake of this discussion, let us assume the driver completely forgot to enter the registration details at the keypad.

Having attended the Fitness First gym for many years and used the car parks' previous car park system without incident, the driver was informed by letter that a new ANPR system was to be installed. Although it stated that the car registration must be entered on each occasion there was no mention of £100 nor of the need to re-read signs put up in the car park. The driver accepted the letter in good faith and had no reason to repeatedly check signs each time they went to the gym. The issued letter was the ideal opportunity to draw onerous 'contract' terms to the attention of gym members. Premier Park chose not to take it.

Whilst not entering into any contract but in recognition of the landowners reasonable requirement to manage the use of their land, the car registration has been regularly registered by the driver on multiple previous occasions and the driver maintains (although is unable to prove) that the registration was entered on this occasion. It is unreasonable for Premier Park to attempt to use 'data gaps' in this inflexible manner when their terminals do not provide receipts that would allow drivers to prove correct entry. Had the driver been made aware of the intended use of ‘data gaps’ in this manner they would have insisted on the provision of a receipt from the terminal and again certainly do not accept they are bound by any 'contract terms' without one. Breach of contract is alleged not proven by any agreed mechanism.

The signs in this car!park are not as clear as claimed. You have been provided with a highlighted extract which focuses on the instructions to gym members. These instructions have never been in dispute. The signs!do not clearly state the intention to issue PCNs even where no parking infringement has occurred. In an attempt to fit more information into a small space the salient points are unreadable due to the small font that has been used. Even when read up close they are confusing and the whole emphasis of the sign is that the parking charge will be issued for parking misuse. It is not made sufficiently clear that even having complied with parking conditions ANY issues with the terminal inside the gym WILL lead to a £100 charge!

These 'terms' are not mentioned on the terminal in the gym either! If they were, drivers would insist on receipts which are currently not made available! Refusal to provide this clarity is misleading on the part of Premier Park.


I'm frustrated at Premier Park's repeated refusal to address the core point. No car parking infringement has occurred but yet Premier Park insist on pursuing genuine patrons on a technicality! After developing a relationship with Fitness First and by proxy the car park owners over many years genuine patrons should not expect to have to check small print or 'legaleeze' on each visit to the car park.

When this new system was introduced it was queried why the insistence on registering each and every visit, as humans (whilst still unproven in this case) are bound to forget or mis-key on occasion and the technology already exists (and is in use by Premier Park elsewhere!!!) to enter once and cross-reference gym members from then on. The response was:

a) To ensure the gym was actually being used each time as opposed to a trip to the shops
b) A responsive appeal process was in place to prevent genuine patrons from being penalised (a nominal fee was indicated)


The above was accepted in good faith but neither appears to be true!

a) Evidence has been provided and not disputed that the driver was at the gym at the time in question but has been ignored
b) The reduced fee (which is still a substantial £20 for a free car park and doesn't represent additional costs incurred) was not offered on initial appeal. It was only offered after I appealed the appeal!
c) An offer was made to reimburse the (needlessly incurred) DVLA fee but this has also been ignored


Premier Park have deployed an automated system which almost guarantees human errors and then rather than provide a means to amicably resolve these genuine errors, compounds them with an unresponsive appeal process!

I feel that I have been swept up into an automated process which gives out standard responses without actually considering the individual point raised and then offering standard 'reduced' fees. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, it would appear the appeal process only considers cases where a parking infringement has occurred but there are extenuating circumstances where one might possibly argue £20 is justified. However no parking infringement has occurred!

Clearly I acknowledge the need of the landowner to manage and prevent misuse of their car park but no misuse of the car park has taken place, at best we have a case of misuse of a keypad! This company appear to have the automated technology to check when cars come and go and issue automated parking charge notices but claim not to have the technology to cross-reference gym members!

In addition to the above!Premier!Park!are ignoring POPLA's own recommendations!

Can I draw your attention to the following quote from the POPLA Annual Report 2018:-

"The BPA recognised that this was an area of frustration for motorists. In October 2017, it sent a message to its operators reminding them to put motorists at the heart of their thinking and to focus on effective car park management, rather than mistake punishment."

Surely this behaviour brings all associated with it into disrepute and leads one to question the motives behind it. I certainly would appreciate it if you could raise these concerns on my behalf.

Regards Name & Address supplied

Parking Charge Notice: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
Notice Issue Date: XX/XX2019


Unfortunately, I have heard nothing since from my MP.....

cornilleou

Sooooooo off we went to POPLA! As warned by your good selves I wasn't expecting to win but it helped crystallize my mind on key points. My appeal was as follows:


Dear POPLA Adjudicator, POPLA Reference number: XXXXXXX
Premier Park Ref No: XXXXXXX

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from!Premier!Park!Ltd on the following points:

1. No 'contract' was formed.
2. Breach of ‘contract’ not proven.
3. Poor and inadequate signage
4. No evidence of landowner authority.

1. Having attended the Fitness First gym for many years and used the car parks' previous car park system without incident, the driver was informed by letter that a new ANPR system was to be installed. Although it stated that the car registration must be entered on each occasion there was no mention of £100 nor of the need to re-read signs put up in the car park. The driver accepted the letter in good faith and had no reason to repeatedly check signs each time they went to the gym. The issued letter was the ideal opportunity to draw onerous 'contract' terms to the attention of gym members. Premier Park chose not to take it. No contract was formed.

2. Whilst not entering into any contract but in recognition of the landowners reasonable requirement to manage the use of their land, the car registration has been regularly registered by the driver on multiple previous occasions and the driver maintains (although is unable to prove) that the registration was entered on this occasion. It does not state in any purported 'contract' that a 'data gap' in Premier's records is to be accepted by either party as proof of any breach. Their belated assertion is not accepted. As no mechanism for proof of breach in this situation appears to have been agreed the claimed breach of contract has not been proven.

Additionally, it is unreasonable for Premier Park to attempt to use 'data gaps' in this inflexible manner when their terminals do not provide receipts that would allow drivers to prove correct entry. Had the driver been made aware of the intended use of ‘data gaps’ in this manner they would have insisted on the provision of a receipt from the terminal and again certainly do not accept they are bound by any 'contract terms' without one. Breach of contract is alleged not proven by any agreed mechanism.

3. The signs in this car!park!do not clearly state the intention to issue PCNs even where no parking infringement has occurred. In an attempt to fit more information into a small space the salient points are unreadable due to the small font that has been used. Even when read up close they are confusing and the whole emphasis of the sign is that the parking charge will be issued for parking misuse. It is not made sufficiently clear that even having complied with parking conditions ANY issues with the terminal inside the gym WILL lead to a £100 charge!

These 'terms' are not mentioned on the terminal in the gym either! If they were, drivers would insist on receipts which are currently not made available! Refusal to provide this clarity is misleading on the part of Premier Park. As highlighted earlier it does not state on any signs that a 'data gap' in Premier's records is to be accepted by either party as proof of any breach. No valid contract was formed or breached.

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by!POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.!

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times and any exemption clauses. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).!

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

!In addition to the above points!Premier!Park!have ignored POPLA's own recommendations!

I draw your attention to the following quote from the POPLA Annual Report 2018:-

"The BPA recognised that this was an area of frustration for motorists. In October 2017, it sent a message to its operators reminding them to put motorists at the heart of their thinking and to focus on effective car park management, rather than mistake punishment."

I'm frustrated at Premier Park's refusal to address this point. No car parking infringement has occurred but yet Premier Park insist on pursuing genuine patrons on a technicality! After developing a relationship with Fitness First and by proxy the car park owner over many years genuine patrons should not expect to have to check small print or 'legaleeze' on each visit to the same car park.

When this new system was introduced it was queried why the insistence on registering each and every visit, as humans are (whilst still unproven in this case) bound to forget or mis-key on occasion and the technology already exists (and is in use by Premier Park elsewhere!!!) to enter once and cross-reference gym members from then on. The response was:

a. To ensure the gym was actually being used each time as opposed to a trip to the shops
b. A responsive appeal process was in place to prevent genuine patrons from being penalised (a nominal fee was indicated)


The above was accepted in good faith but neither appears to be true!

a. Evidence has been provided and not disputed that the driver was at the gym at the time in question but has been ignored
b. The reduced fee (which is still a substantial £20 for a free car park and doesn't represent additional costs incurred) was not offered on initial appeal. It was only offered after I appealed the appeal!
c. An offer was made to reimburse the (needlessly incurred) DVLA fee but this has also been ignored

The operator has deployed an automated system which almost guarantees human errors and then rather than provide a means to amicably resolve these genuine errors, compounds them with an unresponsive appeal process!

Is this the behaviour POPLA expected from BPA members after issuing their 2018 recommendation?

I therefore request POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Regards xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

cornilleou

Premier Park then responded with a rather impressive 43 page pdf Appeal document plus an additional 109 page pdf document with photos of the signage! LOL!!! I of course wouldn't burden you with the details but again it was pretty much as expected. There were a few surprises though which I addressed as follows:


The driver has never claimed not seeing the sign or not knowing the registration process! The point made about the sign is that it is a sign about parking and should be read with that in mind! The salient point any uninitiated member of Fitness First would take from that sign is register your car and do not park for more than 5 hours. It does not state you are accepting liability for issues with the terminal! If there were, drivers would want a receipt!

Please note the photos on pages 48 thru 51. Given the size of the signs requesting registration, why don’t ANY of them include an explanation of the consequence of a problem with the terminal?

It is interesting how Premier Park have provided the log of previous registrations, having refused my requests to consider it previously (as shown on page 12 of their evidence) as evidence of the drivers’ regular attendance at the gym and therefore that this was a trivial error either with the equipment or by the driver. Their attempt to use the log now as proof of acceptance of terms is absurd.

Their reference to no evidence of gym attendance is disingenuous! I now realise that although I referenced the driver’s gym attendance record in my appeal (as shown on page 12 of their evidence) I forgot to actually attach it! However, no reference to a missing attachment was made by Premier Park in their response! I think it is fair to conclude it wouldn’t have made any difference.

The statement “We have not received any contact from our client regarding this charge” on page 5 of their evidence is not true! I dare their automated process to repeat it!

The supplied landowner contract has been disingenuously redacted beyond the claimed confidentiality requirement. Particularly sections 5.2 and 5.3 which refers to appeals (they are referred to in section 7.2!) which leads one to wonder what else is missing? Additionally, in section 2.2 this contract relies on an agreed narrative approved in writing by the client which is not shown!

cornilleou

Unfortunately, as I expected I still lost. ...so it looks like we'll be going to see if the courts agree....

The formatting of the decision is awful, I've done my best to make it readable...

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Natalie Hill
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the whole period of parking not paid for.

Assessor summary of your case
In summary of the appellant’s case, she has indicated that she is the registered keeper and she has appealed the PCN on the basis that no contract was formed.

The appellant indicates that she has attended the Fitness First Gym for many years and used the car park without incident. The appellant advises that the operator had sent a letter to the driver to advise of the new ANPR system, and whilst it did mention that the car registration must be entered on each occasions there was no mention of the £100 or the need to re-read signs that had been put up into the car park. The appellant argues that the driver has accepted the letter in good faith and had no reason to repeatedly checks signage. The letter was an ideal opportunity to draw attention to the contract terms and the operator did not do this, therefore no contract was formed.

The appellant advises that the operator has not provided evidence of a breach of contract and further states that it does not state in any contract that a data gap in the operator records is to be accepted by either party as proof of any breach. The appellant argues that to use data gaps is inflexible especially the terminals does not provide receipts that would allow the driver to prove correct entry.

The appellant also argues that the signage is poor and inadequate as it does not clearly state the intention to issue PCN’s even where no parking infringements have occurred. She states that the salient points are unreadable due to the small font that has been used and even read up close they are still confusing. The appellant advises that the whole emphasis of the signage is that the parking charge will be issued for parking misuse, it is not made clear that even have complied parking conditions that any issues with the terminal in the gym will lead to a £100 charge. She states that these terms are not mentioned on the terminal in the gym either.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority in line with the section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. She argues that witness statements are not sound evidence of the above and thus the operator must produce a unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The appellant states that the operator has ignored POPLA recommendations and refers specifically to POPLA’s annual report from 2018. She argues that the operator has not addressed the points she raised in her appeal. The appellant has included a more detailed summary as part of her appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has been identified as the registered keeper, as the driver as not been identified liability has remained with the appellant as per the Protection of Freedom act (PoFA) 2012. As such I will be considering her liability for the PCN.

The operator has provided photographic images of the signage which states: “Blue Ice Plaza Car Park…Parking tariffs apply at all times…Up to 3 hours £1.00.” The signage also states: “All permit holders must have their vehicle pre-registered before using the car park.” It further states: “All Fitness First Members and Guests must enter their full correct vehicle registration at the terminal inside the gym on each visit to benefit from 5 hours free parking.” And: “If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.”

The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering the car park at 11:07, and exiting 12:52, totalling a stay of 1 hour and 44 minutes.

The operator has provided terminal data which shows that on the 5 May 2019 the appellant vehicle registration was not registered on the terminal at the Fitness First Gym during the period of 11:07 and 12:52.

In this case the appellant has that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority in line with the section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. She argues that witness statements are not sound evidence of the above and thus the operator must produce a unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

In response to the above comments, I have reviewed the operator evidence and I can see that the operator has enclosed a copy of the redacted agreement between itself and the landowner. Upon reviewing this agreement, I can see that this contract commenced on 1 August 2017 and is a rolling contract. I can also see that the Fitness First and the android terminal system is also covered in this contract. Having reviewed this document in full I am of the view that it does meet the minimum requirements set out in section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore satisfied that the operator has authority to manage and take enforcement action on this site.

The appellant has argued her appeal that she has attended the Fitness First Gym for many years and used the car park without incident. The appellant has advised that the operator had sent a letter to the driver to advise of the new ANPR system, and whilst it did mention that the car registration must be entered on each occasions there was no mention of the £100 or the need to re-read signs that had been put up into the car park. The appellant argues that the driver has accepted the letter in good faith and had no reason to repeatedly checks signage. The letter was an ideal opportunity to draw attention to the contract terms and the operator did not do this, therefore no contract was formed. 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. Whilst I appreciate the points she has raised in respect to the letter, POPLA is unable to comment on the operator’s internal process and its decision to send such letters. It is important however to note that there is no direct requirement for the operator to contact motorist directly to inform them of any changes, section 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice states that: “Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then your must make these terms on the signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance to make it clear that the new terms and conditions apply.” Therefore, whilst it is the responsibility of the operator to give sufficient notice of any changes in terms. It is also ultimately the responsibility once the motorist has been made aware of any potential changes to ensure they check and read any signage on display. I can see that the image taken of the signage are time stamped from 30 January 2018. I have already established that the contract between the operator and landowner commenced as of 1 August 2017. Therefore, I expect that by the balance of probability that any the signage in relation to this contract would have also been put into place around this time. I am therefore satisfied on this basis that the operator has fulfilled the requirements set out in section 18.10. If the driver has failed to read the read any visible signage that has been displayed, then fault lies with them.

In her appeal the appellant has argued that the signage is poor and inadequate as it does not clearly state the intention to issue PCN’s even where no parking infringements have occurred. She states that the salient points are unreadable due to the small font that has been used and even read up close they are still confusing. The appellant advises that the whole emphasis of the signage is that the parking charge will be issued for parking misuse, it is not made clear that even have complied parking conditions that any issues with the terminal in the gym will lead to a £100 charge. She states that these terms are not mentioned on the terminal in the gym either. When considering whether the signage at this site is sufficient, 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 and their content and their location on 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 alone at the site was sufficient to bring the terms and parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

The appellant advises that the operator has not provided evidence of a breach of contract and further states that it does not state in any contract that a data gap in the operator records is to be accepted by either party as proof of any breach. The appellant argues that to use data gaps is inflexible especially the terminals does not provide receipts that would allow the driver to prove correct entry. In terms of POPLA appeals the burden of proof lies with the operator to show it had issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing terminal data 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 terminal data, 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, will often be more persuasive. In this case, I can see in her additional comments she has continued to dispute the validity of the operator evidence yet I can see that she has not provided any physical evidence to support her claim that the driver was using the gym or that the terminal was not functioning correctly on the day. However, upon examining the terminal data that the operator has provided I can see that it clearly shows that that during the time the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the car park there was numerous vehicle registrations entered with a short space of time into the terminal. I can also see there is no massive time gap in the entries recorded or discrepancies with the registrations logged. Taking this into consideration, I am therefore satisfied that the terminal was functioning correctly. I am satisfied that the operator has clearly shown that there is no record of her vehicle details being logged by the driver between the hours of 11:07 and 12:52. As there be no other evidence provided which would cast doubt on the above, I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the data is reliable. I am also satisfied that the driver by failing to ensure they validated the vehicle registration was not entitled to park for free so would have needed to pay £1.00 for the time parked. As there is no evidence of a payment it is clear that the driver was then in breach of the terms and conditions for this car park.

In respect to concerns she had raised regarding the use of the terminal on this site and their inflexibility to offer a receipt, it is not within POPLA remit to comment on facilities available on this site, it the appellant has concerns regarding the use terminals she will need to raise this issue directly with the operator.

I can see that the appellant has made reference to the operator ignoring POPLA’s recommendations in the annual report from 2018. She argues that the operator has not addressed the points she raised in her appeal. As I have already highlighted POPLA role is to establish whether a PCN has been issued correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions accepted upon parking. We are unable to investigate the operator internal process. I appreciate the appellant is unhappy with the operator responses and feels the operator has ignored any points made in POPLA annual reports, but I cannot simply allow an appeal on these grounds. I would recommend that she raised a complaint with the operator regarding the above factors.

I have examined the evidence and it is clear the driver was in breach of the terms that they had accepted upon parking. If they did not agree with these terms they should not have parked on this site. Therefore, I am satisfied for the reason noted above that the PCN was issued correctly. As such I must refuse this appeal.

NeilCr

Is this now the end of the story?

Or is there more?

I was going to post - as Redx did - but then it continued on and on.

Do you want any advice or shall we just wait to see what transpires?

cornilleou

I very much doubt it is the end. Even following the POPLA assessor comments about ignoring their recommendations I expect Premier Park will be sending in the debt collectors...

Just wanted to share my experience to date with other members in the hope it helps them in some way.

The invoice will not be paid. Even though the practices of these PPCs are scandalous they are getting away with it because they have successfully tapped into people's aversion to stress and fear of failure in court.

Which is why I want to thank again the main contributors for the time and effort they have put into this forum. I could do without the stress but am now angry and they have steeled me to go on...hopefully it will make a difference in the wider scheme of things.

Le_Kirk

If/when you receive the seemingly inevitable letter before claim and court papers and when it comes to writing your defence, I would not mention any possibility of forgetting to input registration into a terminal but would use frustration of contract due to THEIR faulty equipment and make sure that the burden of proof rests with the claimant that the terminal was working correctly.