New and inconspicuous signage, Premier Park Ltd.

Fruitcake

Checking whether the NTK was PoFA compliant or not will not help you now. It will only be of use checking in the future if you get another PCN, so don't waste any time on it for your current case.
Always default to, "Don't tell him Pike!" The Driver's identity can always be revealed later if there is any advantage to do so, such as an "own space" situation, otherwise stay quiet.

Sromeo20

I complained to Travelodge, to which they said:

We have received this and also contacted the hotel. We believe this charge is from The Radclyffe car park near to the hotel. Unfortunately we do not own or work third party with this car park, it is only a recommended space as it is close to the hotel. Unfortunately due to this we are unable waive the fine, my sincere apologies.

I replied and pushed further, haven't heard back as yet, pointed out the car park they refer to is separate to the 'pick up/drop off' car park, although I don't think it will make a difference. They must have a working relationship with the car park owner - they offer a discount for Travelodge guests, and the parking signs refer to 'Travelodge Guests/taxis' being the only users allowed. Will see what Travelodge says. 

Further to this I obtained the Land registry details, and the owner of the freehold is Salford City Council, and the land boundary covers the Travelodge, Radclyffe pick up, and Radclyffe car park. I don't know if it changes anything that the council is the owner and presumably hirer of the PPC, but I will try complaining to the council I guess.

Coupon-mad

OK so what comments are you going to put forward, bearing in mind POPLA is a failing service these days?

Sromeo20

Coupon-mad said:

OK so what comments are you going to put forward, bearing in mind POPLA is a failing service these days?

Oh dear, that's not promising... I was holding onto a little faith in their being an independent decision maker...

These are the comments I have drafted - I would be very grateful to know your thoughts, if you have any time before tomorrow night:

- The respondent mentions I took belongings up to the room: 

 

I did make several trips to the room, as hotel guests are inclined to ‘drop off’ their things – and this is a ‘drop off’ area. By definition this should be expected. On none of the signs does it explicitly say ‘you must not leave the car’. In any case I would suggest the signage is misleading, as its most prominent feature is the universal ‘P’ in a blue rectangle, which invites public parking. ‘Pick up/drop off’ does not explicitly say do not leave the car. ‘Parking commences on entry’, communicates you may park; it does not say you must stay with the car. 

  

- The respondent says they cannot be held responsible for my failing to see or ignoring signage:

 

I did not ignore, as I could not ignore signs that I had not had my attention sufficiently drawn to. The respondent is responsible for making sure the signage is conspicuous, which it is clearly not. Typically parking restrictions/signs are glaringly obvious. These signs are placed in such a fashion that they are easily missed, because they are not positioned where Travelodge Guests - the only users of the site – are most likely to see them.

 

18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: 

“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 parked next to the Travelodge, as close as one could get to the hotel steps to facilitate ease of unloading. This is where any user of the Travelodge would logically park, and any reasonable person would expect signs to be to ensure they draw the driver’s attention. There is no reason to avoid putting signs on the Travelodge side, yet the only signs are entirely on the opposite side of the area, at an increasing distance away from the parking point at which a driver needs to see them. The signs were not immediately present or obvious where I left my vehicle; therefore the signage was deficient in number, distribution (and lighting), to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

 

- The respondent provides a map showing four signs in the area: 

 

Having parked in the most logical position (nearest the hotel) no guest of the Travelodge would have a chance of having their attention drawn to these signs. As the map clearly demonstrates they are increasingly further away from the hotel entrance, and placed on the wrong side of the area. There is no indication that a driver must park anywhere in-particular within the area e.g. where the signs are - so no guest will ever park near enough to see them.

 

- The respondent states some of my photos cannot be taken as a true representation of the area:

 

The photos from my original appeal are undeniably a representation for the example I gave; they are photos of the area, showing that on previous use of the hotel Nov 2017 there were no signs. As confirmed by the respondent, they only began monitoring the area Aug 2018. I suggest it was reasonable to believe we could park based on previous experience, as there had previously been no set time limits.

            

As for photos I provided with my POPLA appeal, I can provide date/time stamped evidence upon request, that confirm they were taken in the month of December. These photos are undeniably representative of the area, as I would have seen them, and clearly show: 

 

A. The sign on entry is unlit, very small, and only on the right hand side of the road opposite to the Travelodge (where I would naturally have been keeping to the left of the road, as for all intents it still is a road). It is distinctly unobvious and easily missed on entry. 

 

B. The only vaguely visible sign within the area is on the wrong side, 30-40 feet opposite to the Travelodge side where I parked – unlit, and distinctly un-obvious. There is nothing that draws a motorist’s attention to it from that distance. 

 

C. There are no signs on the Travelodge side of the area where I parked, and anyone else would logically park. 

 

The respondent’s own night photos confirm the signs within the area are unlit and inconspicuous, being badly placed on the opposite side to the Travelodge. Photos time-stamped 21:53:50 and 21:52:03 show a dark, non-descript sign in the distance that is not obvious, and not obviously pertaining to parking next to the hotel, but instead look like they are only to do with the premises opposite.

 

- The respondent states when entering a private car park the driver must seek out terms for parking, and that I would have been alerted to restrictions on the hotel website:

 

A motorist cannot seek out the terms and conditions if not made abundantly aware that one has entered a restricted parking area. As stated previously, we had stayed at this hotel before when there had been no such restrictions in place. Upon arriving on this night, the misplaced and unlit signs were not conspicuous enough so I was not alerted to the new restrictions. 

 

Further to this, there is no definable entrance to the parking area, e.g. barrier or other parking paraphernalia, which would ordinarily cause a motorist to look for signs for terms of use. There is no definable moment where the motorist has entered a new area and would expect to be on the lookout for signs. 

 

It was a last minute, unplanned decision to move to the Travelodge, only turning up at the hotel on the night. Having not gone onto the Travelodge website, I couldn’t have seen any parking advice.

 

- In response to the respondent’s comments regarding section 13 on Grace Periods: 

 

The respondent themselves quotes from the BPA CoP: "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."

 

This is a parking location where parking is permitted, and the contract is 15 minutes, plus a “minimum” 10 minute grace period in addition; a total 25 minutes before a PCN may be issued. My vehicle was inside the area for a total of 22 minutes, which clearly still leaves 3 minutes of the Grace period remaining. The Respondent uses ANPR camera’s at the entrance/exit of the area. The cameras only record the time that a vehicle enters the car park, and when it exits; they do not record the actual parking event or the point at which the contract to park is entered into, or when it ends.

 

The BPA CoP goes on to state: “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”

 

By the respondent’s own admission, the 7 minute overstay is well within the explicitly laid out requirements of the BPA CoP that states the grace period “must be a minimum of 10 minutes”. 

By this point, if nothing else, the respondent’s claims to a correctly applied PCN, are null and void. The PCN should therefore be invalidated.

Coupon-mad

They are sort of independent but clueless an easily swayed by a PPC's evidence pack, and they are not legally trained.  Most of the general public LOSE at POPLA, and here I would say we are still mainly seeing wins but I am struggling to see what POPLA will find in your appeal that wins.  I suspect this POPLA appeal will be a lost cause but that is not telling you to pay, I am just warning you that they will see this as an overstay and will tell you that you can't add ten minutes to the 15 minutes...because the 15 mins is the 'total stay' allowed to drop off (from the way I have read your case).

The only thing I can see is a lack of landowner authority but that's assuming your appeal to POPLA actually raised that as a point?  

Personally, as a last throw of the POPLA dice, I would be sneaky and add the Land Reg page in as an attachment to your emailed comments and say that the operator has failed to show that they have landowner authority from the Council to operate Council land as if it is private, because it is not private land at all:

 I obtained the Land registry details, and the owner of the freehold is Salford City Council, and the land boundary covers the Travelodge, Radclyffe pick up, and Radclyffe car park. I don't know if it changes anything that the council is the owner and presumably hirer of the PPC, 

Who signed the landowner authority document they have provided, then??!



The operator is not a 'respondent' - that word has a specific legal meaning and I'd avoid it.

You cannot offer to provide things on request (POPLA do not come back and 'request' more evidence).  You should have included dates embedded in your photos, or a screenshot of the Metadata and you can't add it now (not allowed):

As for photos I provided with my POPLA appeal, I can provide date/time stamped evidence upon request, that confirm they were taken in the month of December. 

I would remove all this (below) as it sounds like a re-stating of your appeal and you must avoid that in the comments or the Assessor will ignore all your comments, believe me, and write it off as a 'new/second bite at an appeal' (not allowed) and we assume you already stated this in the appeal anyway:

- The respondent says they cannot be held responsible for my failing to see or ignoring signage:
 
I did not ignore, as I could not ignore signs that I had not had my attention sufficiently drawn to. The respondent is responsible for making sure the signage is conspicuous, which it is clearly not. Typically parking restrictions/signs are glaringly obvious. These signs are placed in such a fashion that they are easily missed, because they are not positioned where Travelodge Guests - the only users of the site – are most likely to see them.
 
18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: 
“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 parked next to the Travelodge, as close as one could get to the hotel steps to facilitate ease of unloading. This is where any user of the Travelodge would logically park, and any reasonable person would expect signs to be to ensure they draw the driver’s attention. There is no reason to avoid putting signs on the Travelodge side, yet the only signs are entirely on the opposite side of the area, at an increasing distance away from the parking point at which a driver needs to see them. The signs were not immediately present or obvious where I left my vehicle; therefore the signage was deficient in number, distribution (and lighting), to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

Sromeo20

Many thanks for your advice Coupon-mad. Indeed I think I have lost this one, I thought the grace period point was too a easy an own goal. It seems unlikely.

I will remove that passage re ignoring signage, as it does essentially repeat my appeal points in alternate wording. The only thing I hadn't included before was the passage from the CoP - I was trying to crowbar that in... In the appeal I included a point about signs from the 'BPA guide to members and parking management on private land'. Having found that I thought it was the sort of evidence I needed -  I came across the actual Code of practice too late. 

Will change to 'operator' - thought I may have been wrong on 'respondent'.

Didn't really think POPLA would allow me to provide time evidence re photos, again just trying to wedge things in too late..!

I did not challenge the landowner authority in my appeals - I hadn't come across this forum or given much thought to that sort of point; again my naivety told me they must naturally have the authority. That being said, it seems they do: yes the freehold is owned by Salford City Council -  I thought it was the freehold I needed to know - but if I hadn't failed to pay attention the first time I looked through the evidence pack (I was mainly paying attention to their photos/statement) - at the end of the pack is the relevant documents evidencing their authority from Radcliffe Park Management company/Savills, who presumably own the leasehold and have every right to employ Premier Park.

"We enclose a redacted copy of the agreement between Premier Park and Radclyffe Park (Ordsall) Management company c/o Savills (UK) Limited, to confirm that we have the landowner authority to enforce at this site. The names and signatures of the operators and client’s representatives have been redacted for confidentiality. We have supplied the landowner name and address."

"We can confirm that neither Radclyffe Park (Ordsall) Management company c/o Savills (UK) Limited, nor Premier Park have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place. Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that Premier Park have sufficient authority to issue Parking Charges on the land, on the day of the contravention."

I will try and complain to Radcliffe Park Management, I just don't think they will care one jot, as I'm sure they will agree everything seems to be in order. 

I knew the premise of my appeal was likely thin because they will just maintain there is signage, regardless of whether they seemed obvious or sensibly placed to me.  This was a first attempt at taking on anything like this, and it seems I am just out of my depth trying to argue when I should probably just accept they got me. I was angry, genuinely unaware of the signage, and surprised at receiving the PCN. But it seems that Premier Park do actually do things relatively properly (there seems to be never-ending threads on Parking Eye, not a lot I could see on Premier Park, which may be indicative).