POPLA appeal - PE

MistyZ

No evidence whatsoever of landowner authority?  No blurry copy of contract, nothing?  That alone should swing it with one sentence from you along the lines of: 'in their evidence P.E. assert that they 'have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site' but have provided no evidence whatsoever that any such authority exists.  My appeal must therefore be allowed.'  

And yes, blow their signage evidence out of the water too by (briefly) explaining why their images DO NOT negate the points made in your POPLA appeal.  

Re. grace periods, P.E. contradict themselves by stating that BPA guidelines say that they 'should' allow a reasonable period to leave the car park after the contract has ended and then, immediately after that, stating that the BPA say that only one grace period 'ought' to be applied.  This is incomprehensible.  If possible, dispute their extremely confusing assertion with reference to the BPA guidelines you used in your appeal.   

mazdamad

Perfect thanks for the reply MistyZ. I will work on a response with what you've said and post back here. Thanks again

Coupon-mad

And yes, blow their signage evidence out of the water too by (briefly) explaining why their images DO NOT negate the points made in your POPLA appeal.  

Signage photos from 2016 and 2018!    Really old images.

However, a lack of any witness statement from the landowner means you win.  Say so to POPLA as point #1.

mazdamad

In response to the evidence pack provided by ParkingEye I contest several of their points.

Evidence provided by ParkingEye assert that they ‘have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site’ but have provided no evidence whatsoever that any such authority exists by way of a copy of the contract or witness statement. My appeal must therefore be allowed.

Regarding signage, ParkingEye have provided images of signs which clearly show there is a mixture of font sizes which are completely illegible to any person trying to read them from the seat of a car. The photographs provided by ParkingEye are taken close-up and still have illegible font on them. To compound this, the images provided by ParkingEye are from 2016 and 2018 showing no effort has been made on their part to show evidence of current signage.

With regards to grace periods, ParkingEye are contradicting themselves in stating BPA guidelines ‘should’ allow a reasonable period to leave the car park after the contract has ended, immediately followed by stating that the BPA say that only one grace period ‘ought’ to be applied. This is incomprehensible and proves ParkingEye have not understood that an observation period applies before a parking contract may commence as stated by Kelvin Reynolds, as well as a grace period for leaving the car park once the terms and conditions are considered. These points are made clear in my appeal and ParkingEye have made no efforts in providing actual evidence to the contrary.

In addition to this, ParkingEye reference clauses 13.2 and 13.4 of the BPA code of conduct, which according to version 8, have no relevance whatsoever to my points of appeal. Clearly, ParkingEye have not assessed this appeal and just copied evidence from a previous evidence pack.

mazdamad

The post above has a first draft response to the evidence pack submitted. Please let me know if it reads OK or needs a bit of rewording. Thanks again!

MistyZ

Well I think it looks fine.  

Don't send it just yet, others may see something that could be improved.  

But as Coupon-mad says, your first point absolutely should be a winner.  Fingers crossed!

mazdamad

MistyZ said:

Well I think it looks fine.  

Don't send it just yet, others may see something that could be improved.  

But as Coupon-mad says, your first point absolutely should be a winner.  Fingers crossed!

Great, I will wait on any other comments before I send it off but must say this forum has been great and so helpful with everything relating to this!

MistyZ

Aha, my last post got a 'thanks' from the very busy Coupon-mad.  I'd take that as a sign that all is looking good!  

mazdamad

MistyZ said:

Aha, my last post got a 'thanks' from the very busy Coupon-mad.  I'd take that as a sign that all is looking good!  

That's a good sign, I'll send my response off to POPLA and will post back here with the outcome. 

mazdamad

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the valid parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided documentation supporting his appeal and the issues they have raised. They have listed the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made when reviewing this information. The appellant states that: • No grace period was provided, as they only spent 11 minutes on the site. • The signage was obscure and not visible enough, so no contract could be entered into or formed. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. • There is not no evidence of landowner authority. • The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate. The appellant has referred to various sections of the British Parking Association (BPA)’s code of practice, along with a detailed outline as to why they believe the parking terms were not breached, in support of his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the landowner agreement as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. I have to assess the appeal on the reason that the PCN was issued. The operator has issued the PCN, as the appellant did not obtain a valid pay and display ticket to park at the site. The appellant has highlighted though that as part of the appeal, that they do not believe the operator has landowner authority to issue parking charges. As the appellant has questioned that the operator has landowner authority, I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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 failed to provide me with a copy of the landowner agreement. I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the contract and clear boundaries, which have not been provided. As such, I cannot determine if this meets the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice, and if the appellant was parked on the operator’s land. As I cannot establish that the operator has sufficient authority, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.