CUP enforcement POPLA appeal

KobeAlt

Here is my draft, appreciate any thoughts.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following comments to the evidence pack submitted by CUP enforcement in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 04/02/2020.
 
SECTION B - Case Summary
 
CUP enforcement states that:
 

• “The vehicle was observed parked on site without a valid permit on display on 19/12/2019 at r/o 151-175 Hoe Street. Photographic evidence was taken by the warden on the day”

• “As the vehicle was parked in breach of the parking terms and conditions, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle by post under PoFA”

 
The vehicle has been photographed for ONE minute only, in front of a white sign that CUP has failed to show in evidence, and thus they have failed to show that the bay is restricted or that the driver had a fair opportunity in terms of a grace period to fetch the permit from adjacent premises, as a visitor would have to. This is why grace periods exist, to prevent immediate ticketing within a minute with no observation period.  
 
Additionally, CUP enforcement are stating that the Notice to Keeper was fully compliant with POFA 2012 legislation. However, this is not the case. They have failed to comply with paragraph 8, section (2)(a) which very clearly states:
 
specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parkingto which the notice relates;
 
Only a date of issue of the ticket is seen on the NtK (as can be seen on the submitted evidence) and therefore it fails to comply with POFA 2012. Period of parking refers to the date in addition to the length of time the vehicle was observed. They have failed to follow this piece of important legislation, resulting in no keeper liability.
 
Therefore I, as registered keeper, cannot be held liable to this charge.
 
CUP enforcement does not know who the driver is, and nor is there any obligation placed upon myself (the registered keeper) to name the driver under POFA 2012. They have either misinterpreted this piece of law or have a complete lack of understanding of what is required, hence why they have failed to correctly comply with it.
 
CUP enforcement also states that:
 

• “There are terms and conditions signs at the location. These signs can be seen in vicinity of the vehicle in the photographic evidence taken by the warden. The terms and conditions signs state that vehicles not displaying a valid permit will be issued with a PCN. A copy of the signage is included in this evidence pack.”

 
A close-up image of this sign was not taken by the warden on the day of the alleged contravention. All images from the day have a time stamp on the bottom left hand corner except the close-up image of the sign that CUP has provided in section F of their evidence pack. Neither was this image submitted to me in their rejection letter (please see appendix A). Therefore, we can conclude this close-up image was not taken from the site the day that the alleged contravention occurred, and we cannot assume what the actual sign they are alluding to states/claims.
 
Finally, in this section CUP states that:
 

• “When parking on private land, the contract formed is between the motorist and the parking operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have sought out, read and complied with the parking operator’s terms and conditions, which are stated on the signage. As can be seen from the images provided in this evidence pack, the signage is clear, legible and in prominent positions. The motorist failed to fulfil their obligations in this instance.”

 
The signage is not clear and is not immediately obvious as parking terms. CUP enforcement have failed to address this point in my initial appeal so I will relay this again. 
 
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
 
The signage is unremarkable, small, not immediately obvious as parking terms, the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned.CUP enforcement have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
 
Furthermore, the BPA’s Code of Practice states:
 
“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”
 
CUP enforcement state there is no entrance sign as the car park falls into categories 2 and 3 of section 18.2, yet they have failed to provide evidence of the BPA’s approval to not have an entrance sign as the BPA requires.
 
SECTION D - CUP enforcement have failed to establish keeper liability
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record I shall repeat, CUP enforcement’s liability trail cannot be upheld as they have failed to establish keeper liability by not complying with paragraph 8, section (2)(a):
 
specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
 
SECTION F – Images and site plan
 
The bay in which the vehicle is parked does not state that it is for “permit holders only”, whereas the bay next to it “BAY 1” has a yellow sign “permit holders only”. Given what the white sign says in front of the car (as evidenced in my original appeal to POPLA and again below) in what appears to be a separate bay with separate rules and no yellow “permits only bay” sign, and given that POPLA is an “evidence-based service” and cannot and must not revert to CUP to ask them, it could be assumed that their terms and conditions do not relate to the bay in which the vehicle was parked.

 
In addition to this, the close-up of the sign with the terms and conditions that was submitted by CUP enforcement was not taken on the day that the alleged contravention occurred. For all we know, CUP could have taken an image of any random sign from any site and claimed that it was the same sign. Even if it was the sign they claim it to be, the image submitted by the operator shows that it is somewhat hidden by foliage and not immediately clear that it is a sign, considering the small font size you certainly would not be read it from where the car was parked.
 
Further to this, the site plan submitted by CUP enforcement is of no help at all as it is impossible to work out how it relates to the photographs or where the car was in relation to the site plan.
 
 
SECTION G - No Site Agreement available
 
CUP enforcement have stated that they have attached a site agreement, however, this is missing from the evidence pack and therefore as there is no clear landowner contract, it can be concluded there is no landowner authority. 
 
In addition to this, in their evidence pack CUP enforcement claim to have supplied a redacted contract between them and the car park. Even though this has not been supplied, a redacted contract is of no use as it could easily hide information that is relevant to the case. In any case, the document was not included in the evidence pack.
 
Once again, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform CUP enforcement to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
 
Yours Faithfully,
Registered Keeper

Umkomaas

That's 7,395 characters long. As you're only allowed 2,000, you're going to have to ditch almost 75% of what you've written. Prioritise what you feel are the important points, then respond in bullet point style for each. No need for leggy prose. 

Onthewall

Is the driver blind ? They parked right in front of a sign..

Coupon-mad

And what does that white sign right there, say, onthewall? 
Do you have eagle eyes, where's the £100? 

And where in the evidence has the PPC shown what THAT sign says?  I am going to hazard a guess that the sign says:

 'Visitors parking - welcome - no permits needed in this bay because no parking firm infests this one'.  My guess is as good as yours! 

Your posts on this forum are generally derogatory about honest drivers.

MistyZ

Onthewall said:

Is the driver blind ? They parked right in front of a sign..

The sign in front of the car is the 'Users of this car park do so at their own risk ....' sign which the OP shows in close-up above.  Nothing whatsoever to do with T&Cs.

KobeAlt

Sweet sweet victory. Thank you all for your help on this

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natalie Hill

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a permit only parking area without clearly displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

In summary of the appellant’s case he argues that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked. The appellant says that the Notice to keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements. The appellant argues that there are no entrance signs for the regular entry. He states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He says that there is sufficient notice of the terms and conditions or warning of the ANPR or what the data is being used for. The appellant states that the signage is of a forbidding nature. The appellant says there is no marked parking bay or boundary at the venue. The appellant advises that the operator has not considered any grace period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a more details summary with the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has been identified as the registered keeper, as such I will be considering his liability for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage, which states: “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING- TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES.” And: “THIS SIGN COVERS A MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF SPACES OR AREA, UNAUTHORISED, INCORRECT PARKED VEHICLES PARKED IN THE WRONG BAYS OR IN RESTRICTED AREA, ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES OR BLOCKING OR PARKED ON ACCESS WILL RECEIVE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…£100.” The operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle parked on the car park. The images time stamped at 13:41 on 19 December 2019. show the vehicle did not have a permit on display in the windscreen or on the dash. The appellant argues that there are no entrance signs for the regular entry. He states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He says that there is sufficient notice of the terms and conditions or warning of the ANPR or what the data is being used for. When considering signage whether signage is sufficient at a site, 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 this case, I have examined images the signage displayed at the location and at the time of the parking contravention and I am not satisfied that they were easy to see, read or understand. I can see from the images provided that one of the signs was folded over and the other sign was partially obscured. I must also note the operator has highlighted that there are no entrance notices on this site. As I cannot see any further evidence of signage in the area where the appellant parked or that there was other sufficient signage in view nearby, I am satisfied the driver would not have been able to establish the terms and requirements needed to park. As such I therefore cannot consider whether the driver had entered into a parking contract or failed to comply with the terms and conditions. For this reason, I cannot consider the PCN to have been issued correctly. I must therefore allow this appeal. As I have allowed this appeal, I will not need to consider the other points made by the appellant.

Umkomaas

Well done. 

There you go @Onthewall, further exposure of your utter lack of what you know about any of this stuff! 

Coupon-mad

Onthewall said:

Is the driver blind ? They parked right in front of a sign..

Enjoying that humble pie? 

Or are you off-forum now scrabbling to keep a failing parking charge model going, in light of the fact no-one is driving anywhere?  Directors of parking firms must be crying right now, seeing as they can't furlough themselves and there is no income flow, and won't be, for months...

We can't wait for the first BPA or IPC member to fold, and for their poor staff to learn that their job never was 'customer service'. Maybe they will actually have to do something useful for society instead, like the rest of us in real jobs and running real businesses.

Umkomaas

Enjoying that humble pie?  

Very sweet - with lashings of fresh cream!  Bleugh. 🤭

Dish it out, suck it up. 😊

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad said:

Onthewall said:

Is the driver blind ? They parked right in front of a sign..

Enjoying that humble pie? 

Or are you off-forum now scrabbling to keep a failing parking charge model going, in light of the fact no-one is driving anywhere?  Directors of parking firms must be crying right now, seeing as they can't furlough themselves and there is no income flow, and won't be, for months...

We can't wait for the first BPA or IPC member to fold, and for their poor staff to learn that their job never was 'customer service'. Maybe they will actually have to do something useful for society instead, like the rest of us in real jobs and running real businesses.

According to MSE Martin, self-employed directors of limited companies can furlough themselves, but they'll only get gov support on the PAYE part of their salaries, bonuses & commission are not included, and they can't do any work for the firm other than their statutory obligations under the Companies Act (2006).