We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Riverside Retail Park Chelmsford - PE POPLA
Chrisk90
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi All,
I received a NTK from ParkingEye for overstaying at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford. I overstayed by 15 minutes and it was after hours so all the shops were shut. I have appealed and it has been rejected, i have spoken to one of the store managers who said they cannot help and have got in touch with the real estate company who own the land and am waiting to hear back but not holding out much hope there.
I have drafted my POPLA appeal from various posts i have seen on here and would really appreciate any feedback or advice. I need to submit the appeal by 14th Jan. The car park i was parked in is the same one as was involved in the Beavis case so don't think i would get away with anything about signage? Even though i actually didn't see them. Anyway, the following is my POPLA letter, I have removed any ref numbers, dates and car reg:
POPLA Ref XXXXXXXXXXXX
ParkingEye PCN no XXXXXXXXXXXX
A notice to keeper was issued on [DATE] and received by me, the registered keeper of [CAR REG] on [DATE] for an alleged contravention of parking terms and conditions at Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
2. No Evidence of Period Parked
3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
4. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice– non-compliance
1. 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
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 authorised on the material date, 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, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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
2. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
ParkingEye’ NtK simply claims the vehicle was parked at Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford.
The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered the Riverside Retail Park at 19:58:43 and departed at 22:14:20 on [DATE]”. At no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.
By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.
3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
4. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice– non-compliance
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at
the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters
your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a
reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking
charge notice.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
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’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“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.
If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave
the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to
leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the
car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’sCode of Practice.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking
Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s 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.”
“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.”
Finally, some 4 years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
It took at least 10 minutes to find a suitable place to park, locate a sign containing the terms and conditions, read the full terms and conditions, decipher the confusing information being presented (Grace period before parking as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2), reasonably suggested to be the same 10 (ten) minute grace period as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4)).
I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
Thanks in advance for any help.
I received a NTK from ParkingEye for overstaying at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford. I overstayed by 15 minutes and it was after hours so all the shops were shut. I have appealed and it has been rejected, i have spoken to one of the store managers who said they cannot help and have got in touch with the real estate company who own the land and am waiting to hear back but not holding out much hope there.
I have drafted my POPLA appeal from various posts i have seen on here and would really appreciate any feedback or advice. I need to submit the appeal by 14th Jan. The car park i was parked in is the same one as was involved in the Beavis case so don't think i would get away with anything about signage? Even though i actually didn't see them. Anyway, the following is my POPLA letter, I have removed any ref numbers, dates and car reg:
POPLA Ref XXXXXXXXXXXX
ParkingEye PCN no XXXXXXXXXXXX
A notice to keeper was issued on [DATE] and received by me, the registered keeper of [CAR REG] on [DATE] for an alleged contravention of parking terms and conditions at Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.
1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
2. No Evidence of Period Parked
3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
4. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice– non-compliance
1. 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
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 authorised on the material date, 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, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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
2. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
ParkingEye’ NtK simply claims the vehicle was parked at Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford.
The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered the Riverside Retail Park at 19:58:43 and departed at 22:14:20 on [DATE]”. At no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.
By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.
3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
4. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice– non-compliance
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at
the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters
your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a
reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking
charge notice.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
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’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“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.
If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave
the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to
leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the
car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’sCode of Practice.
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking
Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s 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.”
“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.”
Finally, some 4 years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
It took at least 10 minutes to find a suitable place to park, locate a sign containing the terms and conditions, read the full terms and conditions, decipher the confusing information being presented (Grace period before parking as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2), reasonably suggested to be the same 10 (ten) minute grace period as per BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4)).
I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
Thanks in advance for any help.
0
Comments
-
You should include the long Inadequate signage point anyway from post 3 of the NEWBIES along with your own photos to support that point. There may be signs that are now damaged or obscured.
If you are appealing as keeper then edit your post to remove information about who did what.
The Driver overstayed …
The car park The Driver was parked in …
The retailers in the "Beavis" car park didn't want the scammers there and didn't want that case to go to court, yet Parking Lie said the charge was commercially justifiable. See if you can get statements from the store managers that support their position.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Even though it is the carpark in the Beavis case? I have read some people say that bringing up the signage for this carpark is a surefire way to lose the appeal?0
-
Even though it is the carpark in the Beavis case? I have read some people say that bringing up the signage for this carpark is a surefire way to lose the appeal?
PoPLA keep saying that each case is heard on its own merit. See my edits above.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
PoPLA keep saying that each case is heard on its own merit. See my edits above.
Great, thanks. I'll add the section to it. Apart from your points, does it look good?0 -
PE signs leave much to be desired, it is very likely that a well constructed defence attacking their signs would see them off at court, read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Not in relation to The Riverside @TD - the PE signage there was the very foundation on which the Beavis case was based and which so significantly changed the face of UK contract law!PE signs leave much to be desired, it is very likely that a well constructed defence attacking their signs would see them off at courtPlease note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
The strongest attack on ParkingLie is that their notices do not comply with POFA - they don't show a "period of parking" they only show the entrance and exit time.
Given that you have a grace period at the start to consider whether to park or not, and a 10 minute grace oeriod at the end of parking to leave, this means that any "deemed" period of parking must be at least 10 minutes shorter than the entrance-exit timing.
It's also worth checking that the "relevant land" has been defined - can the Man onthe Clapham Omnibus identify the site, just based onthe description given - and challenging PE on when their notice was actually posted. For example, PE claim that they post notices on Sundays, but even if they do (they don't), they are not actually considered in the postal system until Monday, and PE makes no allowance fo this.
Also, PE use a mailing sevice provider, so a notice "issued" on one day is not printed and sent by their fulfilment house until the following day, and it is sent on the "three day" service, so may not be received by post until 4-5 business days after the "date of issue".
All of this can be used to challange ParkingLie, and once you make a submission of that ilk at POPLA, the assessor should ask PE to prove their position against your assertions0 -
None of that will win at POPLA.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »None of that will win at POPLA.
Any advice other than that?0 -
Did you notice that the person who reeled off a load of stuff that won't win, is now barred from posting? Just saying, so you can see the difference, in case you felt it was me who was being unhelpful! In fact I was steering you away from duff advice. For example, POPLA ever, ever ask a PPC to respond to a point.
My advice would be to first try the Matalan Manager as they hate P/Eye there.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards