Rejected: POPLA is happy with the entrance sign not being visible?

NoToRobbers

I just got the rejection of my appeal as a keeper, and its strange, none of my grounds seems to be taken seriously, while all the operator statements are taken for granted.
In other appeals seems POPLA only needs a single ground to allow an appeal. In my case I don't get it how it is ok for the entrance sign not to be seen as this is clearly a requirement by BPA in order for the operator to take my data from DVLA?
In fact the entrance sign is put on the exit lane and no any lights near by to light it up at night and the car comes from behind it.
Also the signage inside the parking have the penalty sum in a very small font, not visible from a distance, and the last thing people will do on a rainy night is walk around a big parking lot looking for signs... after they have already done that just few months earlier and they have not find any such signs at that time.
How much more paranoid people should get in order to avoid parking tickets? Should people that don't see the signs go to NHS to check what is wrong with them? The entrance evidence image stamp time is for around 16:00 and its full darkness just two front lights visible, I wanted to get the operator calibration of the cameras and POPLA says there is no good reason? I said that with my friend, we spend a good money in the shops and we where genuinely shopping, never said who was driving not sure how the parking company did draw assumptions. Also they turned out to be late with the NTK long before any appeals where submitted so they took the conclusions for no reason but POPLA trusted them. This is so frustrating in being falsely accused, neither me of my friend ever seen any signs. This is organized crime and a ripoff, its just unbelievable!
I guess the only right the vehicle keepers have is 'NONE' other than having a good rant here and hope other people will see how ridiculous that parking system is!!!

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant advises that no evidence of when or where they were parked had been provided. 
They explain that it has not shown that who it is pursing is liable for the charge. 
They advise that it has failed to establish keeper liability. 
The appellant does not believe that the operator has the relevant authority to manage the site. 
The appellant disputes that the signage is sufficient to form a contract and the sum of the PCN is not prominent. 
They question the reliability of ANPR cameras. They advise that no grace period has been allowed to give 
regular users a chance to adapt to any change in the terms and conditions. 
The appellant advises that the signage does not provide a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras 
which they believe is a breach of consumer protection law. 
The appellant has provided a document to support their appeal.



Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if 
the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the 
appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their 
liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed 
around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions: “3 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY… IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £***”. 
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver exceeded the maximum allowed period on site. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) 
images the operator has provided show that the vehicle entered the car park on ** December 2019 at **:** and left at **:**. A total stay of *** hours and *** minutes. 
These show that the vehicle exceeded the maximum allowed stay as set out in the terms and conditions. 
The appellant advises that no evidence of when or where they were parked had been provided. 
The operator has provided POPLA with ANPR images showing the driver entering and exiting the stated car park. 
These images can be used to tell how long the driver was parked. The operator is not required to show the drivers vehicle while parked within a bay. 
The appellant has not provided any evidence which casts doubt on these images. They explain that it has not shown that who it is pursing is liable for the charge. 
They advise that it has failed to establish keeper liability. The appellant has admitted that they were the driver when appealing to the operator. 
This means that the operator does not need to make use of the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms act (2012). 
The appellant does not believe that the operator has the relevant authority to manage the site. The operator has provided a witness statement, having reviewed this document 
I am satisfied that a valid contract exits. The document is signed by a representative of the landowner. 
There is no requirement for the operator to provide an unredacted copy of the contract to POPLA. The appellant disputes that the signage is sufficient to form a contract and the sum of the PCN is not prominent. 
The operator has provided photographs showing the signage at the site and a site map to show where the signage has been installed. 
The appellant has also provided photographs showing the signage at the site. Having reviewed all of this signage 
I can see that there is a clear entrance sign which fully complies with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 
I can see that there is clear signage throughout the site, which clearly and prominently states that amount of the PCN.
I can also see from this evidence that signage is lit through a mixture of direct and indirect lighting. 

I am satisfied that the entrance sign could not be seen this does not invalidate the contract as there is sufficient signage throughout the site to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver.

The signage can be seen during the hours of darkness and dusk. The signage at this site is fully complaint with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. 
They question the reliability of ANPR cameras. The appellant has not provided any evidence which casts doubt on the accuracy of the ANPR images provided by the operator. 
Parking operators are not required to provide maintenance records to POPLA. They advise that no grace period has been allowed to give regular users a chance to adapt to any change in the terms and conditions. 
The operator’s evidence shows that these terms and conditions have been in place since September 2019. This is more than long enough for a regular user to have familiarised themselves with the terms and conditions. 
The appellant advises that the signage does not provide a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras which they believe is a breach of consumer protection law. The signage has clear warnings regarding
the use of ANPR equipment on the site. The section of consumer protection law quoted by the appellant does not apply to automated contracts such as parking contracts so is not relevant to the outcome of this appeal. 
The appellant has provided a document to support their appeal. The operator’s evidence shows that the driver was parked on site for longer than the maximum allowed period, breaching the terms and conditions for the 
use of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, 
I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

beamerguy

POPLA??????  a dinosaur with assessors who are mainly useless. 
Your assessor is probably the tea lady/man who in their tea break tries to read appeals which go over their heads
The courts more often than not make POPLA look stupid   .... which of course they are 

Sit tight and come back here if you hear more ....... who is the PPC ?

NoToRobbers

Thanks, it really must have been the tea lady/man, so irresponsible. The PPC is CEL Civil Enforcement Limited

Umkomaas

The PPC is CEL Civil Enforcement Limited

Expect a Letter of Claim followed by a court claim via the Northampton CCBC. We can help with a defence, but meantime, please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post, and other CEL threads from the past few weeks. 

beamerguy

NoToRobbers said:

Thanks, it really must have been the tea lady/man, so irresponsible. The PPC is CEL Civil Enforcement Limited

CEL, we can have a lot of fun with them ....... just wait 

Redx

I fail to see what OWNERSHIP and being an OWNER has to do with this matter

CEL (and other parking companies) pursue keepers and drivers, not owners

you dont have to be paranoid but should be extremely wary and always check the parking rules etc, take pictures , keep logs , if necessary use a dashcam like Nextbase, google tracking on your smartphone , keep and parking receipts etc

mmmm , definitley seems like paranoia

Coupon-mad

Come back here when you get your claim form, and read the second post of the NEWBIES thread now, first, in advance, to be ready for what to do when.  This will be fun!

Oh, and keep CEL's evidence file they sent to POPLA and if you can no longer access that pack of photos etc., email POPLA and ask that they send you the POPLA Evidence pack to you by email (they have to as it's your data they hold).    You will need the evidence pack to look back on later this Summer at court defence stage as it will help you see everything they are relying upon, but I expect you can no longer access it in the Portal, hence asking POPLA for it by email.

MistyZ

NoToRobbers said:

I said that with my friend, we spend a good money in the shops and we where genuinely shopping, never said who was driving not sure how the parking company did draw assumptions. 

Did you perhaps inadvertently select the 'I am the driver' option when appealing?  

Anyway, it's the first bit that interests me.  POPLA couldn't care less that you were genuine customers.  But while it's a tad late for a landowner complaint, a confident approach to the landowner citing past / repeat custom, money spent, items purchased could still make the PCN go away.  

If you've not done this already, definitely give it a shot ASAP.  Who owns or manages the car park ... a store?  Or an overall landowner or land-management company?  Googling may be required.  Insist on cancellation.

D_P_Dance

Popla is happy with lots of things which do not please judges, ignore PoPLA.  The only thing that matters is what a judge says

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

NoToRobbers

Thanks all for the comments!
I have copy of all the operator evidence.
I don't remember what I selected when appealing on the operator site, but if they have asked if I am the driver,
since I am the owner it make sense that I am also driving my car so I may have not put any thoughts that keeper and driver are not the same,
but I do not think they have asked if I was the person driving on the date and at the parking site.
I may try to call the owner if I can find his contact details.
The issue happened at night, The operator provided high resolution images of the signs during the day.
As you drive on the main road you have to turn right to enter the parking or left if coming from the other direction.
It make sense that having one sign only cannot be visible at the same time for drivers coming from both directions.
If they would put the sign on the left side it will be easy to see for the entering cars.
Having the sign on the right side, which is the exit lane is hiding it from the drivers that turn from the main street to enter the parking.
When the driver is making right turn in order to enter the parking, his attention should be to look for cars coming from the opposite lane,
it will be a suicide to look over the right shoulder searching for signs while turning.
The signs inside the park are one or two per bay. They may call them BPA compliant,
but if a person park in a bay far from one, there is no chance to notice it,
and if its dark and there is other cars and the person have other things on their mind... no way.
But POPLA is happy with pretty pictures, they probably are having a percent from the tickets profits.
Good job CEL in tricking people.

The problem is parking companies have invested in teams of lawyers and fighting against each person.
How a single normal person stand a chance in all this blurry fuzzy law stuff against teams of lawyers?
They can out-knowledge people and put more time in, than a normal person have.
People are faced with the dilemma if its worth spending the time and stress, and the parking companies risk nothing by chasing people.
For any case they lose they should lose the right to operate forever!

Even if I win my case CEL will not care as they have thousands other to chase.
No matter the outcome we all will still have to get even more paranoid about parking.
Its a free country, we should feel safe driving our cars we should not have to waste our time proving we are right.
This modern day robbery and extra stress have to be stopped!

D_P_Dance

The problem is parking companies have invested in teams of lawyers

I would not use the word teams.  Most reputable firms would not touch these cases with a bargepole.  The firms that take these on use what we call roboclaims, 

Read these,.  

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/gladstones-solicitors/

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2017-19/Parking_%28Code_of_Practice%29_Bill/01-0_2018-07-19a.9.0

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

Always give little respect where little respect is due.