Aldi, Corporation Street, Preston. Abused Patron Parking. Care Parking.
Comments
-
Find out from the council planning department what was actually approved for the site.
Do the scammers have planning permission for ANPR scameras (if installed)?
Do the scammers have advertising consent for the signs? Not having this is a breach of the Town and Country Planning Act, and a criminal offence. However, only the council can take action.
Planning permission can be granted retrospectively but advertising consent cannot.
Does the planning approval for the car park allow or prohibit motorists from leaving site to support local businesses?
Once you have established this, you can make appropriate complaints to the council planning department as well as the BPA, the DVLA and your MP.
One important thing. Do the signs on the site clearly define the site boundary either by a description or a map? If not, how would a motorist know whether they had left the site or not.
In addition, if the parking weasel thought the motorist might be about to leave the site, why didn't they mitigate their company's loss by warning the motorist?
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks1 -
ORIGINAL POSTER HERE….. I WON AT POPLA!
It has taken many months due to Covid delays, but I found out a couple of days ago that I stand victorious, my POPLA appeal was successful. I will explain below everything I’ve learnt over the course of this process to aid others in my situation.
Whether you actually left site or not is irrelevant, you should still win. It probably helped that I had an Aldi receipt, but it’s not crucial to the process because, as I shall explain in more detail below, at POPLA, the burden of proof is on the parking company to prove with physical evidence that you left the site… and if you deny it, they can’t prove it. It’s a he said / she said scenario and POPLA will rule in your favour.
Each of the stages I went through in summary:
- Windscreen PCN issued by Care Parking for ‘abuse of patron parking’ at Corporation Street Car Park near Preston town centre (comprising Aldi, Poundstretcher, Abakhan stores) they allege I left the site and went into town whilst parked. My first parking ticket.
- I appealed to Care Parking with my Aldi receipt and named myself as the driver (don’t copy me in doing this, I should not have admitted I was the driver. Crucially though, I didn’t admit I had briefly left site).
- Care Parking rejected my appeal and gave me a POPLA number.
- I tried other methods of cancelling the ticket - wrote letters to the Aldi Store Manager, emailed the CEO and tried to shame them on facebook. I emailed the person I thought was the landowner – all in vain.
- So, I determined a number of defence points and lodged an appeal with POPLA on their website.
- Care Parking defended their PCN to the fullest, even pulling some seriously underhand sh*t and fabricating evidence.
- I reviewed Care Parking’s evidence and submitted comments to POPLA.
- POPLA ruled in my favour – successful.
Now each stage in more detail:
1. Parking ticket has all the details on it and it asks you to respond which I did. You should in fact not contact them first, instead wait for Car Parking to apply to the DVLA for the registered keeper’s details because if they get this process wrong you can win at POPLA on those grounds.
2. Instead I sent them the following email: ‘Appeal Reason: I parked on the Aldi car park and shopped at Aldi for no longer than 45 minutes total before leaving. I have attached the shopping receipt as evidence. I ask that you please cancel my ticket in light of this evidence.’
3. Care Parking emailed back and rejected my appeal in a long PDF document which basically said… NO. Our operative/attendant saw you leave site; you parked next to a pedestrian exit; the signage says you can’t leave site; the receipt only shows that you were in Aldi at the time of the purchases, it does not prove that you were in the shop the whole time you were parked and we know you left site and went into town before you did your shopping… pay up or appeal to POPLA. They also had two pictures of my car with the PCN on the windscreen and a map of the car park showing that I was parked next to the pedestrian exit.
4. I joined the MSE message board – at this point I was out of my depth! I was advised to exhaust all other means of cancelling the ticket before proceeding to POPLA. I really threw everything at this stage. I wrote, emailed and used social media to contact everyone (particularly everyone at Aldi) who I thought could cancel the ticket for me. No luck what-so-ever. Same response over and over, Parking Eye we can help with, Care Parking we can’t.
5. POPLA appeal. I put together a number of lines of defence hoping that at least one of these would be successful and in the end I submitted to POPLA the following:
A parking ticket was issued to car registration **** *** on **/**/2020 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I have appealed to the parking company and they have rejected my appeal on the grounds ‘alleged contravention of Abused Patron Parking’.
• The alleged contravention did not occur and no evidence has been provided by the operator to demonstrate that it did. The photographs provided as evidence by the operator (below) show no alleged contravention and demonstrate the vehicle parked correctly.
• The appeal rejection from the operator states that the vehicle was parked on the edge of the site and that the driver would have been seen visiting the stores, yet a receipt (below - dated **/**/20) has been provided evidencing purchases made well within the 2 hour time limit provided to the driver.
• The appeal rejection from the operator also states that ‘the evidence (receipt) you have provided would only suggest you were a customer at the time of **.** it does not evident that you were a customer at the time of contravention, we would therefore assume that this was not the case.’ An ‘assumption’ the driver is elsewhere is not evidence that they are elsewhere. The driver did not leave the site and no evidence has been provided that they did leave site.
• There is nothing present in the car park or in the current signage (pictured below) that defines the site boundary or provides information as to what constitutes ‘leaving site’ (there are multiple shops bordering this car park and the immediate area.) If no such sign or evidence exists, then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of this, I deny that there was any contravention. As a result, there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in 'exchange' for going off-site; there was no consideration, offer or acceptance and no site boundary defined.
• In addition, the font size for the sentence ‘you must remain on site at all times your vehicle remains in this car park’ is much smaller than the other text on the parking sign and not obvious or clearly legible at that small size. (Parking sign below – picture taken on **/**/20).
• Furthermore, the burden of proof shifts to the operator to prove otherwise and to explain why their attendant presumably:
1. Watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary.
2. Did not attempt to stop/warn the driver nor even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises.The attendant had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 District Judge McIlwaine stated:
“you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?...there is a duty to mitigate the loss.”
In this case now under POPLA appeal, I contend that the operator has neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.• There are no signs in the sight-line of the driver in the bay where the car was parked, either straight ahead, to the left or to the right. All signage is to the rear of the car and I have provided photos, taken on **/**/20, to show this (below - car was parked where ‘red cross’ is indicated). The point is made that the signage is insufficient in enabling customers parked in that row of bays, to agree terms of parking.
• The planning permission for the development (1995/1999, previously the Loxhams Garage) states several conditions that allows customers to park and shop at this site and offsite for 2 hours. The planning documents, Section 6.1 item 2, state 'customers can combine their visit with a trip into the town centre for shopping or other purposes'. I assert that the operator has no grounds on which to issue a citation for abuse of patron parking because planning permission permits customers to leave the site. Please see extract from the planning document below and the full document is attached to this appeal. (www.preston.gov.uk and search planning applications using the application reference 06/1995/0012)
• No evidence of landowner authority. No witness statement or contract has been provided by the operator. This contract should be signed by the landowner, in-date, with a clear expiry date and unredacted. In absence of this documentation the operator has no authority to issue parking citations on this site.
Continued in next post...0 -
Continued from previous post...
6. Care Parking responded by throwing a 43 page document at me full of ‘evidence’. I suppose this is meant to freak you out and make you give up. I was pleased that I had wasted their time and resources in forcing them to write it at the very least, but not hugely optimistic of my success at this point. Not least of all because they contradicted all of my appeal points with mountains of evidence, witness statements, photos of signs, site maps, the Land owner contract and scathing commentary. In addition (and somewhat unbelievably) they decided to actually invent an additional contravention of ‘not parked wholly in bay’ at the POPLA stage and chuck that at me too. Their photos of my car showed that I had actually parked 1 cm over the line (but that was not why I was issued the PCN!) They retrospectively edited screen shots to try to prove this and included reference to this in the signed and dated ‘operative witness statement.’ I was beyond furious. They also admitted that they had accessed the DVLA data base to get Keeper’s details (even though I had given them my driver details already) so I intend to report them to the DVLA and BPA for an unauthorised breach of data protection. Some juicy extracts from this pdf are below:
- The Parking Charge Notice was issued for the contravention ‘Abused Patron Parking’, this was due to our on-site Operative observing the driver of the vehicle park and then leave the site, screen shot of the operatives notes, written at the time of issue, can be seen below, full screen shot enclosed in Section C, it states on the Contractual Warning Signage at Corporation Street ‘You must remain on site at all times your vehicle remains in this car park’, a copy of our Signage is enclosed in Section G.
- The Parking Charge Notice was also issued for an additional contravention ‘Not Parked Wholly Within Bay’, which as can be seen in the Operatives time and date stamped image below, the vehicle was not parked wholly within the marked parking bay, the Contractual Warning Signage in place at Corporation Street clearly states ‘Parking only within Marked Bays’, as previously advised a copy of the signage is enclosed within Section G.
- Although the appellant has provided a receipt for £**, showing 5 items were purchased in Aldi, 36 minutes after the PCN was issued, this does not negate them from the parking restrictions in place, nor does it justify them parking their vehicle outside of a marked bay and leaving site to go into the town centre.
- The operative witnessed the vehicle being parked on site and the female driver, exit the vehicle, and leave the site in the direction of the town centre. As can be seen in the operatives images of the appellants vehicle, and the birds-eye view of the car park below, from where the appellant was parked, shown in red, the Operative would clearly see if the appellant had gone towards Aldi on the other side of the car park or off site, as they observed.
- This is also supported by the Operatives images, which show there are very few vehicles within the car park, and the area from the appellants vehicle to the pedestrian site exit, and towards Aldi, is somewhat deserted, giving the operative a clear view of the activity within the car park, and the motorist abusing the patron parking.
- In addition to this, Care Parking have provided a copy of the operative’s serialised security notebook in Section G which includes their witness statement from the date of contravention, detailing their observation of the vehicle being parked on site and the driver leave the site in the direction of the town centre.
- The appellants claim regarding the site boundary, is clearly nothing more than an attempt to justify them abusing the patron parking at this location. Care Parking’s Contractual Warning Signage clearly states the car park is Private Land, and the parking restrictions in place, this signage is not present outside of the car park, nor in the town centre, we would therefore refute the appellants claims in their entirety. Nonetheless, for the avoidance of doubt, an image of the site boundary is below. Contractual Warning Signage is visible in the operative’s images, and additional site images showing where the signage is placed throughout site, are also enclosed within Section F.
- Care Parking’s Entrance Signage and Contractual Warning Signage is fully compliant with the ICO Code of Practice and the BPA Code of Practice, with all the relevant information displayed, therefore the appellant’s claims are unjustified and incorrect.
- Care Parking have enforced the parking restrictions at Corporation Street since January 2017, for the avoidance of doubt a redacted copy of the Contract to operate is enclosed within Section G, the Contract gives us authority to issue and pursue outstanding charges in relation to the parking activity.
- The appellants claim regarding parking restrictions from 1995/1999 are completely irrelevant to the issuing of their PCN, and the Contractual Warning Signage throughout the site stating the Terms and Conditions of the car park.
- The Entrance Sign at this location clearly states, ‘Parking for Customers Only’, as do the 22 Contractual Warning Signs in place throughout site. There are 22 Contractual Warning Signs in place at Corporation Street. Copies of the signs are enclosed within Section G and additional images showing where the signage is placed throughout site are enclosed in Section F, therefore if the appellant has failed to read or chosen to ignore the Contractual Warning Signage in place, Care Parking cannot be held responsible for this, nor is this due to it not being clear or visible.
- In this case the Registered Keeper details were applied for from the DVLA following the appellant’s appeal. We apply to the DVLA for keeper details 28 days after the date of issue in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice. The case was placed on hold on receipt of the appeal and the clock was not restarted until the appeal had been rejected, we place cases on hold whilst they are dealt with through our appeals system and again when being examined by POPLA. Screen shots below to support this.
7. POPLA then give you 2000 characters (not words, characters, ie letters, punctuation and spaces – it’s not a lot) to comment on Care Parking’s evidence. So I submitted the following:
Care Parking have introduced an additional contravention ‘not parked wholly within bay’ retrospectively at the POPLA stage. It does not exist on the windscreen PCN Ref:******** (P**) nor is there any mention of it in their rejection letter (P**). As such, this is first I have heard of it and I have not had an opportunity to consider or defend myself against this new claim (which has been made 7 months after the PCN was issued.)
The screen shot on (P*) looks like it has been retrospectively edited to include this additional contravention - it even says ‘EDIT PCN’ at the top. Additionally, the note book comment (P*) could have been written by anyone at any point. Neither can be used as evidence that an additional contravention of ‘not parked wholly within bay’ was recorded or issued on **/**/2020 as part of PCN ref:********
As such, I ask that POPLA disregard all reference to this additional contravention. It bears no relevance to the PCN in question which was issued due to alleged ‘abuse of patron parking’ and no other reason (as clearly printed on it at the date and time of issue).
The driver did not leave the site at any point and shopped on-site as evidenced by the Aldi receipt provided and the statement provided by the driver. Care Parking have not provided any evidence to the contrary and their Operative made no attempt to ascertain whether the person they saw leaving site was a passenger or a case of mistaken identity. The PCN was issued in error. (Based on the POPLA assessor’s feedback, this is the argument that won it for me.)
The planning permission in place for this site states ‘customers can combine their visit with a trip to the town centre for shopping and other purposes.’ Care Parking has no Landowner authority or grounds on which to issue a ticket for ‘abuse of patron parking’ as the planning permission permits customers to leave the site. They have not addressed this issue.
There is no expiry-date on the Customer License Agreement. I stand by all my evidence previously submitted. Many thanks for your consideration.
8. POPLA decision came through a couple of days later – successful and their feedback was detailed and helpful in explaining why. This is what they said:
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they do not believe the PCN has been issued correctly. They state the operator claims the driver left the site however, there is no evidence to support this. The appellant states they provided a receipt from a store on site to the operator however, they claim this was after the PCN was issued and does not prove the driver did not leave the site. The appellant states the signage does not reference any site boundaries or define what leaving the site is. The appellant states the signage also contains a lot of smaller text. The appellant states that if a warden were to see a driver leaving the site then they should warn the driver. The appellant explains the operator has no planning permission to include ‘patron abuse’ in their terms and conditions. The appellant states the operator also has no authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on this site. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued a PCN to the appellant for abusing patron parking. The operator claims the driver of the vehicle parked on the car park and then left the site. When an appeal is raised to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has confirmed they were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question when they were appealing to the operator. The appellant explains they did not leave the site as the operator claims. They state they were completing shopping and have provided a copy of a receipt obtain from a store on site to support this. The operator has also been provided with this evidence however, they state this does not support that the appellant did not leave the site. The operator has provided notes from the warden which state they saw the driver leaving the vehicle and heading towards the town centre. The appellant has denied these claims and advised they did not leave the site. There is no physical evidence to support that the appellant did leave the site on the date in question therefore, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. The operator has also stated that the appellant also failed to park within the markings of a bay. The PCN has not been issued for this reason and a PCN cannot be issued for two different reasons. As such, I will not be considering any evidence regarding this. Based on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied there is anything to prove the appellant did leave the site as the operator claims. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
Continued in next post...
1 -
continued from previous post...
CONCLUSION:
Thank God for POPLA and a fair hearing, which I felt I got. As you can see from the POPLA assessor’s comments, I was successful because I denied leaving site and argued the PCN had been issued in error. Care Parking could not prove otherwise.
I repeat, this was my winning argument: The driver did not leave the site at any point and shopped on-site as evidenced by the Aldi receipt provided and the statement provided by the driver. Care Parking have not provided any evidence to the contrary and their Operative made no attempt to ascertain whether the person they saw leaving site was a passenger or a case of mistaken identity. The PCN was issued in error.
I’m not sure if any of my other arguments / lines of defence would have been successful if I had admitted I left site, POPLA just pick your best argument. I’m not sure if, for example, the planning permission defence would have been successful by itself. Either way, it’s best to include as many different arguments as you can in the hope that at least one sticks… it also makes more work for the parking company.
OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS & INFO:
I paid the land registry charge to ascertain for certain who the land owner of this site is: It is NOT council owned. I have a pdf of the Land registry document which I can email in full – on request. However, as it is a public document, I can also publish a summary here: ‘Title Number : LA511904. Address of Property : land on the South West side of Corporation Street, Preston. Registered Owner(s) : M7 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT PARTNERS V PROPCO LIMITED (incorporated in Jersey) of 3rd Floor, 37 Esplanade, St.Helier, Jersey, JE1 1AD and care of M7 Real Estate Ltd, The Monument Building, 11 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AF. This extract shows information current on 6 SEP 2019 at 14:02:04 and so does not take account of any application made after that time even if pending in HM Land Registry when this extract was issued.’ I accessed this info in May 2020. I don’t believe that ‘M7 Real Estate Ltd’ is a good lead though… they have outsourced the management of this site to the company on the Care Parking License agreement (see below why I’m not naming which company or their contact details on this forum).
I have a copy of the Landowner / Care Parking license agreement (because Care Parking had to provide it at the POPLA stage). It is dated 18/11/16. If anyone wants it (to see if they can pick further holes in it) please send me a private message and I’ll email it to you. The only point that stood out to me was regarding it having a clear expiry date, it doesn’t, but it does say ‘the license agreement is valid for a period of 36 months from the date below (18/11/16), the term will automatically renew unless the customer serves one months’ notice.’ It has also not been redacted very well, meaning you can still see things you shouldn’t… but I’m not encouraging the use or publication of that private info *disclaimer! (which is why I’m not transcribing the whole thing here and will only email the actual pdf document, on request).
The Planning Permission documents referred to in my appeal can be found online here: website www.preston.gov.uk and search planning applications using the application reference 06/1995/0012
To avoid getting this parking ticket again, it’s helpful to know that Care Parking operatives/wardens, park in the car park in a car clearly labelled ‘ANCHOR SECURITY SERVICES LTD’. It’s silver. If you see this car in the car park, then you will know an operative is in it or close by. I have seen this car a couple of times now I know what to look for and am always wary about nipping into town if I see it! Cruise round the car park once, if it’s not there, you’re ok! You could also nip into Aldi or Poundstretcher first and then leave because they can’t keep track of people coming out of the shops, it’s only if you jump out of your car and immediately set off into town. And if you see a ticket for ‘abuse of patron parking’ on your windscreen, go and buy something from Aldi for your receipt - before you drive off, as it will sure-up your POPLA appeal!
Care Parking is part of Anchor Security Services Ltd, but most people don’t know this so wouldn’t know to be wary of the car – very sneaky. It says in the landowner / Care Parking agreement that ‘the company shall ensure its personnel wear identifiable clothing such that they are clearly visible as working for the company.’ Operatives are not allowed to sit around in an unmarked car in plain clothes waiting to catch you out so if you know what to look for, you can be forewarned and avoid getting this ‘abuse of patron parking’ PCN in the future.
With my very best wishes... I hope this is of help to people in my position and the extra info I have gathered will help with PCNs issued at this site for other reasons too. Best of luck to you all!
I will check this thread over the next few days, but I only seem to get email notifications if people send me a direct message (rather than just a reply on the thread). So if you want a response further down the line, or the agreement etc, send me a private message and I’ll get back to you.
@BrownTrout hit the nail on the head with his simple and accurate post on P8 of this thread ‘these cases are so easy to win as the driver, you just deny leaving site, put Care to proof, game over’ and it was!
7 -
Thanks yes!, they really dont need much work few lines of copy and paste of text for two appeals, 10 minutes max:)
glad its cancelled:)1 -
I’m new and currently appealing the same PCN for the same car park. What do I need to do to get this to the DVLA / Council etc.
I would say that the most important thing is a willingness to devote several hours to understanding the scam and writing persuasive well argued letters.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.1 -
Well done!
Yes, we have found that a 'left the site' allegation is impossible for a PPC to prove.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2 -
Well done on your win, and for providing such a splendidly detailed report.
Have you considered complaining to the council planning department, the DVLA, and the BPA that the parking conditions detailed in the original planning order have been breached by the scammers? A data breach has occurred as a result, and that many more motorists will have had their personal data obtained and processed without reason.
The council specifically stated that motorists are permitted to leave site in order to support local businesses. This is especially pertinent during the current health crisis.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2 -
I'm struggling to find which document on the Preston city council website contains the reference to the 3 hours, the only part i can find is the statement mentioned regarding fewer trips being generated?
Any advice gratefully received!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.4K Spending & Discounts
- 238.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.8K Life & Family
- 252.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards