Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd - Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit

HergestPhil

Coupon-mad said:

Remove #3 and #5 and the first picture of the sign.  That one is readable.  Get rid.

The rest is great as long as you were intending to admit to driving...which you have, about a dozen times... (in which case there's no point saying you are appealing 'as keeper').

Thanks.
The first picture of a sign is the example good one from another case (Parking Eye).  Assuming you mean the one after this ("Parking Notice" on a wall), this was actually in the PPC evidence (as described in the text above it).  I could replace this with my own photo, but I thought the purpose was to describe the lettering size and refute that their photo of the sign is bad.
#3 - this was mostly from the POPLA template, does it not apply anymore?  Mostly a duplicate of #5, so can remove.
#5 - was also mostly from a POPLA template, but I tried to describe in here why I feel the charge is excessive for the fee that was due.  Does this harm the case in some way, or just pointless, no longer factually significant?

Coupon-mad

Did you mean to admit to driving umpteen times or have you already blown the 'no keeper liability' option?

#3 and #5 are not going to win at POPLA.  #3 makes very little sense and POPLA don't understand #5.

 Assuming you mean the one after this ("Parking Notice" on a wall), this was actually in the PPC evidence (as described in the text above it).  I could replace this with my own photo, but I thought the purpose was to describe the lettering size and refute that their photo of the sign is bad.

Sorry yes I meant remove the first photo on the wall.  I don't think you need it and your other pics are great.

How about replacing #3 with:
The only clear entrance sign on the left tells a driver that the car park seems to be managed by another parking firm 'Park Watch' who are a different BPA AOS member.  It says that CCTV and wardens are monitoring the place for security reasons and then mentions that 'Workman' are managing the site.  Nothing there tells a driver that PPS (London) are on site or monitoring parking.  It is not clear who a driver is allegedly contracting with, and the only other large sign lists in colourful lettering all the onsite companies - again nothing about PPS (London).

HergestPhil

Coupon-mad said:

The rest is great as long as you were intending to admit to driving...which you have, about a dozen times... (in which case there's no point saying you are appealing 'as keeper').

I forgot to say that as discussed in an earlier post in this thread, I had already admitted to driving in my first appeal to PPS, before I came to this site :-(

HergestPhil

Coupon-mad said:

Sorry yes I meant remove the first photo on the wall.  I don't think you need it and your other pics are great.

Quite a few paras in the section make reference to the comparison between the example good ParkingEye sign and the PPS sign.
I've extracted a similar photo of this from their photo evidence:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tgrdvrHXgWIIaifJVHGjmQkEO93IHWQq/view?usp=sharing
I think the sign is quite cluttered, small font, and not clear.  Do you think this is still not good to include, or I should just remove, and tweak all the paras to describe it without an example of it to compare against?

HergestPhil

Coupon-mad said:

How about replacing #3 with:
The only clear entrance sign on the left tells a driver that the car park seems to be managed by another parking firm 'Park Watch' who are a different BPA AOS member.  It says that CCTV and wardens are monitoring the place for security reasons and then mentions that 'Workman' are manging the site.  Nothing there tells a driver that PPS (London) are on site or monitoring parking.  It is not clear who a driver is allegedly contracting with, and the only other large sign lists in colourful lettering all the onsite companies - again nothing about PPS (London).

I like it! Thanks.

Redx

pedant mode

should say "managing"

if you are the keeper and admitted driver , then say so in the early preamble of the appeal , something like

I am the keeper and am appealing as both keeper and as the driver ........................ blah blah

Coupon-mad

HergestPhil said:

Coupon-mad said:

Sorry yes I meant remove the first photo on the wall.  I don't think you need it and your other pics are great.

Quite a few paras in the section make reference to the comparison between the example good ParkingEye sign and the PPS sign.
I've extracted a similar photo of this from their photo evidence:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tgrdvrHXgWIIaifJVHGjmQkEO93IHWQq/view?usp=sharing
I think the sign is quite cluttered, small font, and not clear.  Do you think this is still not good to include, or I should just remove, and tweak all the paras to describe it without an example of it to compare against?

That's a better photo.  Don't crop it or zoom in.

HergestPhil

POPLA have finally started to resume the appeal.  I have received a notification that the Operator has provided "evidence" and I now have 7 days to comment on this evidence.

Dear Assessor,

When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator through the terms and conditions stipulated on signage - entrance signs, telling the drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of and warning signs, advertising the applicable terms (Visitors parking only, a valid permit must be clearly displayed at all times). As an entrance sign is only there to warn motorists of the terms and conditions, we do not expect a motorist to read a sign from a moving vehicle. As such, there are several signs located throughout the car park confirming the terms and conditions and providing motorists the opportunity to read the signage once they have stopped their vehicle: Private land, permit holders only. A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed on the windscreen. The signs are positioned at eye-level and fall within the font size recommended by the BPA code of practice, so it is clear that the signs were readable and positioned in a way that could allow the appellant to understand the terms and conditions. The signage is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. It also made clear that failure to comply with the terms offered, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a £100 PCN - pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100. This is private land and so, the appellant is to comply with the applicable terms. On this occasion, they have not, as, at the time of inspection by our attendant, there was no valid permit on display. By parking on site, the appellant became subject to the terms and conditions, which apply to all motorists that use the site. By not displaying a valid permit, they have breached these terms and have accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. As they did not have a permit, then they should not have been parked on the site for any duration. If the appellant believed they were not in a position to check and understand the terms of the site, they had ample opportunity to leave the site and seek alternative parking. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

Please, refer to the attachments.

Seems a generic cut and paste, not a response to half the things I wrote in my statement, just a repeat of their original appeal.

I'm not sure how much I can and should write in submitting comments on this evidence.

There is a photo of the signed agreement between the landowner and the operator.  It states a start date of 25/02/2019, for an initial period of 12 months.  But it says period of validity shall be automatically extended by another 12 months and shall continue thereafter, until a termination of contract is requested from any of the parties.
So is this proof that they have a contract to manage the site?

There is also the name and email address of the landowner manager that signed the contract; would it be too late to directly email this person to request cancellation of the PCN?

Le_Kirk

You have only 2,000 CHARACTERS so do not use prose but bullet points, forget punctuation.  Refute everything they say and, if they did not answer any of your original points, you take those as being accepted and you win!

nosferatu1001

Why not just try asking them, rather than asking? All we can do is say "possibly" 

JFDI

is the contract correct? The person signing it, both sides, is authorised to do so? Refers to the right companies? All the usual checks essentially