New and inconspicuous signage, Premier Park Ltd.

Sromeo20

Hi, new poster here. I have tried to read a lot of previous posts/newbies FAQ, but I am running out of time, and realising my argument is shallow at best. I didn’t find this forum until recently, so please forgive me if I have missed threads that relate to my situation. I will try to provide as much information as may be necessary. I will explain where I am at:

 

- I appealed to the PPC – Premier Park Ltd.

- I subsequently appealed to POPLA.

- I have until Tuesday to provide final comments on the PPC’s response.

 

The PPC posted the PCN to me as the registered keeper, but they do know I was the driver. Having read an article on parking cowboys before making my first appeal, I saw nothing to gain by denying being the driver as the PPC had as far as I could tell, followed the relevant steps compliant with the rules.

 

So this is a last ditch attempt (likely too late), to check if there’s anything useful I can add that may help my case. I’ve come this far that I hate to just give in – and I think I owe the full penalty regardless now - but now I’m at this point my argument seems increasingly shallow. I’m frustrated that I didn’t find this invaluable resource earlier; maybe I could have made a better case. At this point it I am limited only to making comments on the PPC’s response and cannot add new arguments.

 

Penalty:

 

£100 for overstaying at Radclyffe Park Pick up & Drop off, Salford, M5 3FE. Vehicle was inside the area for 22 minutes, when only 15 minutes permitted, so 7 minutes over. It is a small parking area between a Travelodge, and a building opposite (previously a Morrisons - now vacant), at the end of a quiet residential road.

 

Brief backstory:

 

Stayed at this Travelodge before in November 2017, parked out front to check in – I asked, and staff at hotel confirmed this was ok just to drop our things off - there were no parking restrictions in place at the time; no signs, no ANPR. I know now the site became managed my Premier Park from August 2018.

 

The night of offence:

 

Arrived on the night in Dec 2019. Parked up in the same spot on the same premise – you could park temporarily to check in. Frankly, I wasn’t looking for signs upon parking, because I had parked before and there hadn’t been signs/set limits/ANPR in place. We were moving from another hotel where we’d had a bad experience, so it was a last minute change and we just drove over to check in knowing this was a reliable Travelodge.

 

I drove ‘into’ the area, parked outside the hotel, checked in, took my girlfriend - who wasn’t feeling well - up to the room, then made another one or two trips to unload our things. I arranged 24 hour parking at the multi-storey car park, next to the building opposite, where hotel guests get discounted parking (run by the same Premier Park Ltd.)

 

Signage:

 

There is a small sign on the way in, which displays ‘Pick up/drop off zone’, the ‘P’ symbol, ‘Minimum stay’ and ‘further terms on additional signs’. (I will add photos if it helps). It’s raised up high on the right as you enter the area – though it is not obvious you are entering a restricted area, as there is no definable entrance.

 

Once parked inside the area, there is a sign about 30-40 feet away from where I parked, high on a lamppost but on the opposite side to the hotel. This is the one with the terms. Again I didn’t see it. It was dark, the sign is not lit, and it was on the other side of the area on a lamppost in front of the empty building. It doesn’t look like anything to do with the Travelodge.

 

Appeal argument: 

 

Essentially, that the signs are badly placed and inconspicuous to anyone using the Travelodge – but also on the basis that there had been none previously so there was no expectation that there would be any change.

 

- The initial entry sign is easily missed, because it is high, small, unlit, there’s no definable area entrance like a regular car park e.g. no barrier, nothing in the road surface changes, no markings. It doesn’t look like anything to do with the Travelodge, only to do with the vacant Morrisons.

 

- Main point: the sign inside the parking area is ill placed (I argue intentionally), because it isn’t obvious enough to see for guests using the Travelodge. The hotel is currently the only reason to park in the area, so why not have signs next to the Travelodge side? 

18.3 of the BPA CoP: You must place signs containing the parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous. 

- I pose that there is insufficient signage as to give the driver every opportunity to have read the contract, and that the sign ought to (also) be placed at the top of the steps down to the Travelodge. That is where I parked, and where anyone else would most likely park because it’s closest to the hotel.

- If someone misses the first sign, then any signs inside the area should be placed so as to be unavoidably obvious e.g. you must park by it in a clearly marked bay, or walk past it once out of the car.

 

Further points:

 

- The PPC provide an aerial map as evidence of all signs, including two other signs inside the area, but they’re even further away, and again on the opposite side of the area. The signs look like they only pertain to the building opposite - where there are some very faintly marked parking bays in the floor brickwork, but essentially invisible at night. 

- The PPC provide photos of their signs at night, but these basically show what I have shown in my own; that the signs are ill-placed, far away, unlit, and to my mind, inconspicuous. 

 

- They say I ignored the terms of the contract by admitting taking belongings up to the room on several trips – presumably because I left the car - but on no sign does it explicitly say you must not leave the car. It says parking commences on entry.

 

- GRACE PERIOD –I didn’t know this existed, and having made no mention of it in my appeals, the PPC brought up section 13 of the BPA CoP pertaining to the grace period; I don’t understand why they have, but does it not actually apply in this case?

- 13.3 says: Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted… …this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.

- I was in the area for 22 minutes - 15 minutes plus a grace period of 10 minutes would leave me clear of this would it not? Or have I misunderstood the workings of this policy? I feel entitled to add this argument considering the PPC have mentioned it themselves.

 

 

…Do I have a leg to stand on here? I’m now assuming to argue on the basis of not seeing new signage that wasn’t there before, or that it wasn't obvious I had entered a time-limited area is sketchy at best, but to be fined £100 for 7 minutes over just seems utterly ridiculous. Is the Grace period a worthwhile hope?

 

PPC’s response to my POPLA appeal:

 The Appellants vehicle entered the site at ___ and exited at ___. The vehicle was parked on site for 22 minutes, exceeding the Maximum Stay Period by 7 minutes. We have no record of a permit for the Appellant’s vehicle registration. Please see ‘Other Evidence’. The Appellant states “I disagree with the penalty most strongly on the basis that there is insufficient and obvious signage – there ought to be a sign(s) on the Travelodge side of the area, and I suggest that the lack thereof is intentional in order to catch people out.” The area in which the vehicle remained for 17 minutes is located next to the Travelodge, however, is separate to the multi-storey car park which offers parking for Hotel guests and the general public. The vehicle was parked in the ‘Drop Off / Pick Up’ area for 22 minutes, when only 15 minutes use is allowed, only for drop offs and pick-ups. 

The Appellant has not given any reason for their use of this site in their appeal to POPLA; however, we would advise there are no exceptions to the terms and conditions of parking. The Appellant stated within their original appeal “I had to make several trips to and from the car in order to take our belongings up to the room” The signage on site clearly states ‘Pick Up & Drop Off Zone’ and ’15 minutes maximum for Pick up & Drop offs for Travelodge guests/Taxis. Parking period commences on entry’. 

The Appellant has denied seeing the signage. We cannot be held liable for the Appellant failing to see, or ignoring the signage. This car park is for the use of pick ups and drop offs only. The Appellant’s vehicle remained on site for 22 minutes, and the Appellant has admitted to gaining utility from their use of the site, therefore, this PCN has been issued correctly. The only vehicles authorised to exceed the maximum stay period are added to a virtual permit system, which is monitored and maintained by our Client. We are unable to trace any record of the Appellant’s vehicle registration having been added to the permit system, to authorise any additional time spent on site. Please see ‘Other Evidence’. The Appellant has not provided any evidence that they were authorised to park on site outside of the advertised terms and conditions of parking. 

We would advise that the Appellant has provided several images with their appeal to POPLA, however, some of these were provided with their original appeal in which the Appellant did state “I have provided photos with my appeal. These are not my photos as I do not live locally and am unable to make the trip to take them myself” therefore, these photos should not be taken as a true representation of the location. Further to this, the additional images supplied are not time and date stamped so we cannot verify when they were taken, however, we would advise that they do show that there is signage on site. 

We would advise that there is no requirement for any staff to advise motorists of the terms and conditions of parking, as the onus lies solely with the driver to ensure they have sought and complied with any parking terms. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. However, we would advise that the website for the Travelodge at this location does also advise of the 15-minute maximum stay, therefore, as the Appellant has admitted to being a guest at the hotel, they have been notified of the maximum stay period prior to entering the car park. When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. 

The Appellant has appealed on the grounds of mitigating circumstances. As per POPLA FAQ’s If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful. This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this, but cannot enforce it. In the Annual report of 2018, the lead adjudicator for POPLA advised that although some decisions are tough because the motorist has presented mitigating circumstances, it is unlikely that this will provide grounds for POPLA to allow the appeal. 

13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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. 13.2 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. 13.4 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. When entering a car park, you are given a reasonable grace period to decide if you wish to park. After this time, you are liable to pay a parking charge as you are considered to be using the facilities the car park is providing. This is indicated by the terms and conditions on the signage. 

The Appellant had more than sufficient opportunity to review the terms and conditions. The Appellant was parked on site for 22 minutes, exceeding the Maximum Stay period and therefore a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

 Sorry this is a long post. If anyone happens to have time to glance over and provide any kind of guidance, I would be incredibly grateful.

 Many thanks

Fruitcake

If you want the regulars to read that wall of text you will need to edit it by hitting enter a few times and adding paragraphs.

I'm not sure why you thought it was a good idea to blab about being the driver, but that cannot now be helped.

Grace periods won't wash for a stay of 22 minutes so your strongest points without that or without PoFA failures are inadequate signage, no standing (no valid contract) to issue charges in their own name, and BPA failures, but I can't tell from your slab of writing if you have included all of those points.
If you have then you need to go through the scammers response to your appeal point by point, and knock holes in it.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?

Sromeo20

Thanks very much for your response. You're right that looks dire to look at, apologies for the wall of text! I just copied the PPC's comments from the POPLA site last minute, should have thought to break it up.

Admitted to being the driver in my naiveté, I guess... I read through: www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/ - and as everything seemed to be in order with the postal PCN, and they would be chasing me regardless of who the driver was, I saw nothing to be gained by labouring the point - but I am new to this, so I'm probably wrong!

I can see why a Grace period might not be applicable to a small parking area like this one, it's just going by the wording of the CoP it sounds like a 10 minute grace period should still apply regardless, to anywhere where parking is permitted?

I haven't complained to the landowner - as they hired the PPC to regulate the site, I figured they wouldn't be interested in my complaint. I realise I should have in the first place - I'll find out who owns the site, may as well give it a shot. 

I don't think I can mention anything like 'no standing (no valid contract) to issue charges' at this point (and I have no reason to believe they don't), having not appealed on that basis - POPLA say I cannot add new grounds of appeal; only comment on the PPC's response. So if the Grace period is a non-starter, I'll just have to stick to inadequate signage, which I still maintain that it is, I'm just losing faith that POPLA will see it that way!

Many thanks

D_P_Dance

Have you written bad stuff on Travelodge's TripAdviser page, it sometimes gets these tickets cancelled

Re signage read this, PE have lost a couple of court  claims recently because of the verbose signs

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Fruitcake

Sromeo20 said:

Thanks very much for your response. You're right that looks dire to look at, apologies for the wall of text! I just copied the PPC's comments from the POPLA site last minute, should have thought to break it up.

Admitted to being the driver in my naiveté, I guess... I read through: www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/ - and as everything seemed to be in order with the postal PCN, and they would be chasing me regardless of who the driver was, I saw nothing to be gained by labouring the point - but I am new to this, so I'm probably wrong!

I can see why a Grace period might not be applicable to a small parking area like this one, it's just going by the wording of the CoP it sounds like a 10 minute grace period should still apply regardless, to anywhere where parking is permitted?

I haven't complained to the landowner - as they hired the PPC to regulate the site, I figured they wouldn't be interested in my complaint. I realise I should have in the first place - I'll find out who owns the site, may as well give it a shot. 

I don't think I can mention anything like 'no standing (no valid contract) to issue charges' at this point (and I have no reason to believe they don't), having not appealed on that basis - POPLA say I cannot add new grounds of appeal; only comment on the PPC's response. So if the Grace period is a non-starter, I'll just have to stick to inadequate signage, which I still maintain that it is, I'm just losing faith that POPLA will see it that way!

Many thanks

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that you are dealing with a responsible respectable company. You are not. You are dealing with a bunch of unregulated scammers.

I haven't gone back through your original post yet, but the idea is to throw as many points at the scammers as possible. 

Are you absolutely sure the NTK met the strict requirements in every way with regard to timings and wordings? I don't know about Premier Park Ltd, but many scammers are incapable of getting it right. If it failed then you have naively thrown away a winning appeal point. It can't be helped now, but tell everyone you know where to come and what to do/what not to do if they ever fall foul of this scamdustry.

Always, always complain to the landowner/Travelodge manager/CEO. Leave negative feedback on social media/their website to warn other potential customers.
The hotel chain should be horrified that genuine customers are being scammed; something which will drive custom away from their business.

You can't add anything new to your appeal, so all you can do is hit each of their points one by one with counter arguments.

Do complain to your MP as well. Last year 9 million parking charges were issued. If everyone who had received one had complained to their MP, parliament would have been swamped and Brexit would still be on hold.
Copy in the MP where the alleged event happened pointing out it will reduce trade in her/his area if this sort of thing isn't stopped. Include the comments in red from the first post of the NEWBIES to show what other MPs think and are trying to do about these cowboys.

Fruitcake

Right, to the rebuttal. As I said, you can't introduce new evidence but you can legitimately challenge everything the scammers say.

They are saying the images you provided are not contemporary with the alleged event, so you need to rubbish their own images of the signs. Say something like, the scammer's own signs show that the signage is misplaced and unlit so that a driver's attention would not be drawn to them.
Quote Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule where he says a sign must be so obvious it could not possibly be missed. (Search this forum or use an internet search engine of your choice to find his comments).
Point out that there are no signs anywhere near the drop off point, which is where a reasonable person would expect them to be to ensure they are drawn to a motorist's attention.

Also have a go at their comment where they say no member of staff is required to warn customers about a virtual permit system (entering a VRM into a keypad?)  This is a hidden contract term and also unfair. It's also a point that should be raised in your landowner/hotel manager/CEO complaint if the hotel staff didn't warn you about it. 
Did they say anything whilst checking in/unloading? If not they have been negligent in their duties.

With regard to grace periods, they have quoted the BPA CoP themselves.

"13.2 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."

They have referred to the car being on site for 22 minutes where only 15 are allowed, so say by their own admission the 7 minute overstay is well within the BPA CoP requirements of " ...MUST be a minimum of 10 minutes."
Make sure you quote the CoP that was in use at the time of the alleged event as it changed last month

They also mention you carrying luggage up several times, which is the definition of loading/unloading, so emphasise that, but don't expect the assessor to agree. 
The idea is to hit them with as many points as possible. You only need one to stick whereas they need to win every point.

Whilst it won't help you now, ask the local council if the scammers have planning permission for ANPR scameras, if used, and advertising consent for the signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence, although I believe only the council can persue this.
Also ask the council who pays the non domestic business rates. This will give you an idea who owns the land. If it goes to court then get a definitive answer by obtaining a copy of the Land Registry entry which only costs a few quid.

If a breach pf planning control has occurred then a complaint to the council and landowner/hotel chain CEO should be made that the scammers they have employed are operating illegally. 
Include this in your social media comments if it is true, and the complaint to your/the local MP.

Half_way

[quote]I haven't complained to the landowner - as they hired the PPC to regulate the site, I figured they wouldn't be interested in my complaint. I realise I should have in the first place - I'll find out who owns the site, may as well give it a shot. [/quote]

The landowner is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents, if they hired they PPC they are liable for their actions.

 please keep a timesheet on how much time you are spending in dealign with this, while you may have mixed results in trying to claim it in a court, it will be a stick you can use to hit the travelodge with

D_P_Dance

I haven't complained to the landowner - as they hired the PPC to regulate the site, I figured they wouldn't be interested in my complaint. 

Have you not read the stickies?  This is often the most effective way of dealing with these scammers., 

Sromeo20

Chaps thank you all so much for your advice, particularly Fruitcake for those points -  it's given me a lot food for thought, and some confidence.

I did go through it, and was sure the NTK was fully compliant, but I will triple check tomorrow - I do have a tendency to err on the side of trusting they've probably done everything by the book.

I'd never heard about Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, which is basically part of what I have been arguing; that it should be unavoidably obvious. I can't deny there were signs but there is no doubt they can be positioned so much better i.e. where the 'dropping off' actually takes place. Their own photos show the signs all down one side and look nothing to do with the Travelodge.

Amongst the other points I will definitely get some negative stuff written on the Travelodge TripAdvisor page, again massive oversight I should have done this all along!

I will go through it all point by point tomorrow, make some complaints and and add to my comments.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

 I have until Tuesday to provide final comments on the PPC’s response.

 You don't.  You have till Monday if the email arrived last Tuesday, as THAT was 'day one'.  Effectively, you get six days and then the POPLA comment portal closes.

Sromeo20

Thanks for the warning, Coupon-mad - I had wondered about this when I received it, so I did ask POPLA for clarification on a couple of things, to which they said:

We can confirm that you have up until 25 February to provide any comments you may have in response to the operator's evidence. By providing your comments via email, there is no character limit.

Any comments received after the end of 25 February 2020 will not be considered. We trust this provides clarification.