One Parking Solution - Notice to Keeper / PCN

oscard

The rest of the evidence is pics of the car pulling in and pics of the signs.

Johnersh

Thats nice. If you weren't parked on Plough Lane, then the contract is a shambles as it looks like the postcode didn't even exist when it was signed. 
https://www.ukpostcode.co.uk/SW19-8GT.htm Confirmation from the Royal Mail would be better, so get it. 

There's presumably nothing from KFH to show that they were instructed or authorised to sign and in any case, the parties contracting appear to be absent from the top of the page and the terms of parking unspecified.

Permits aren't issued on a rolling basis, but the contract is said to be rolling. In theory, that would put all residents on breach of the terms.

oscard

Thanks Johnersh, will do asap.

Coupon-mad

Kamario Ltd, is that what it says? 

How do we know if they are the landowner or who signed that document?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05741259/officers

oscard

Dear POPLA Assessor,

My response to One Parking Solutions is as follows:

Incorrect details of Location stated on PCN

My Response:

As was stated in the earlier appeal the contravention location: Plough Lane, London SW19 8GT is not a valid address and does not exist in the post office or royal mail.

The post code does not exist on either https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode or https://www.ukpostcode.co.uk/SW19-8GT.htm

The Co op which is mentioned in One Parking Solutions response to my appeal goes by the address 23 Durnsford Road, Wimbledon Park London. That is situated directly opposite where the contravention is said to have taken place.

And from the earlier appeal all surrounding buildings and their addresses none of them claim to be Plough Lane.

Bassett House, 1 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8EA
Lawrie House, 3 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8FP
Cork House, 5 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8GR
Reed House, 21 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8GU

One Parking Solution Ltd have failed to state the exact location of where they claimed the contravention took place.

 

No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

My Response:

The redacted contracted supplied by One Parking Solution Ltd appears to be absent in relation to the who the agreement is between on the top of page 2.

The contract provided has not been signed by the landowner, but rather a managing agent of the site.  No further evidence has been submitted to confirm that this managing agent have the authority to act on the behalf of the landowner,

The terms of parking are also unspecified and permits aren't issued on a rolling basis, but the contract is said to be rolling.  In theory, that would put all residents in breach of the terms.


Any input on the above will be appreciated.  

Thanks All.

Redx

Check the character count is 2000 or less including spaces and punctuation , change the full claimant details to OPS etc to reduce the count

oscard

Thanks Redx. Didn't realise there was a limitation re number of words.

Were_Doomed

oscard said:

Thanks Redx. Didn't realise there was a limitation re number of words characters.

I hope you pay more attention to the process than you do forum posts.  

oscard

Thank you 'Were_Doomed' very helpful.

oscard

Your appeal was successful (x2)

Hi All,

Just wanted to say a BIG THANK YOU to all who helped with suggestions and input on the above. I had the second POPLA decision today (the driver went there twice within days and picked up 2 tickets!!) and both were successful. Not what I was expecting…

Below is the decision hopefully it can help the next driver.

 

POPLA 1

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to vehicle not pre-authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they are the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant advises that the PCN states the wrong location.

They explain that the operator has not allowed the correct grace periods.

They advise that the signage including the entrance sign is inadequate.

They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner.

They advise that the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice.

They explain that the PCN does not state the period parking.

They advise that the images on the PCN do not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

They question the reliability and accuracy of the ANPR system.

They advise that the signage does not warn what the ANPR data will be used for.

They dispute that the operator has planning permission for its signage.

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.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was not pre-authorised.

The appellant disputes that the operator has allowed the correct grace period. Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association states: “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you.

If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract.

The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.”

The evidence shows that the driver entered the site at X:05 and left at X:07. This is far less than the consideration period the driver is permitted.

There has been no indication that the driver did anything other than enter, realise they could not park and leave.

As I am not satisfied that the operator has shown that the driver breached the terms and conditions, I am allowing the appeal. As I have allowed the appeal, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

 

POPLA 2

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to vehicle not pre-authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

He states that the PCN has incorrect location details.

He states the operator has not complied with grace periods.

He states the entry signage is inadequately positioned and the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

He states there is no evidence of landowner authority. He states the operator has failed to comply with the ICO code of Practice.

He states there is no evidence of period parked.

He states the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

He states the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

He states the signage fails to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

He states that no planning permission has been granted by Merton Borough Council. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event.

As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

The appellant explains that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the PCN has incorrect location details.

He states the operator has not complied with grace periods.

He states the entry signage is inadequately positioned and the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

He states there is no evidence of landowner authority.

He states the operator has failed to comply with the ICO code of Practice. He states there is no evidence of period parked.

He states the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. He states the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

He states the signage fails to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

He states that no planning permission has been granted by Merton Borough Council. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided to demonstrate that the area parked is not Plough Lane.

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and the PCN stipulates Plough Lane. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and must note that Plough Lane is not under the operator’s jurisdiction and as such is not covered by their terms and conditions.

The PCN needs to stipulate the area parked but as this is not covered by the operator, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the Parking Charge Notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.