One Stop Shop, Perry Barr (Park Watch): Not Parked Wholly Within Bay

Coupon-mad

So that's alright then.  Slap on the wrist!

parking offense =  would have been 'offence' because we aren't American, but it's not an offence.

parking event.

AND - please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

mar_uk

Bad news:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Eileen Ioannou

Assessor summary of operator case

The Parking Charge Notice was issued for failing to park within the bay or space.

Assessor summary of your case

Within their appeal the appellant says that they are the keeper of the vehicle and is not liable for the charge as the driver is unknown stating that the Notice to keeper does not apply as it was not received. They say that there is no evidence of a contract with the landowner asking for prove of this. Further, they say that the signage is not prominent from all parking spaces and the charge amount is unclear. After reviewing the operator’s evidence pack the appellant has reiterated their case. To support their appeal the appellant has supplied evidence to POPLA.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The signage at the site states, “Failure to comply with the below may result in a Parking Charge, always Park within Lines”, “£100 Parking Charge”, There is a contact number on the signage for motorists to use if assistance is required. The burden of proof begins with the operator to demonstrate that it has correctly issued the parking charge. The parking charge was issued for failing to park within the bay or space. I consider that the contract offered has been breached. POPLA’s role is to assess the validity of the parking charge issued and establish whether a parking contract was formed with the motorist. I will review the appellants case to consider if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN. To support their case the appellant has supplied evidence of a full 7 page documents which details a google map image of an entrance to a car park. The parking operator’s evidence of the vehicle parked at the site clearly demonstrates that it is not parked within the marking of the bay which is a direct breach of the terms on the signage. The appellant appealed the notice to driver issued to the vehicle within a 28 day period, a notice to keeper was issued after the period of 28 days had passed. In this case as the registered keeper appealed the charge, I am satisfied that the driver and the registered keeper are the same person. There is evidence of the notice to keeper issued on 28 August addressed to the registered keeper asking for the driver to be identified. It is not possible to discuss the delivery status of a postal item to the appellant’s address; this is a third party dispute with the postal company in their area. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that a parking operator must have written authorisation from the landowner or an appointed agent prior to enforcement commencing on a private car park. The written authority must state that the landowner or its appointed agent is required to keep to the BPA Code of Practice and that authority has been granted to issue enforcement and pursue outstanding charges. However, although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. The document supplied demonstrates a rolling contract stating that there term will automatically be renewed unless either party cancels the agreement with notice. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the BPA Code of Practice and is compliant. Within their appeal the appellant has raised concern about the signage in place at this particular car park I must therefore consider whether the signage is sufficient and clear in line with their concerns. Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice advises that drivers using private land will be governed by specific terms and conditions set out in the signage and that a contract is offered. The expected standard is that the signage is clear, conspicuous and legible so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Having considered the photographic evidence I can see that the signage throughout the site is reasonable, visible and that the wording is clear. I can see from the operator’s site map that it demonstrates the signage is placed throughout the site. The charge amount is clear, the signage is sufficiently placed throughout the site and I consider that there is sufficient identify to the charge amount on the signage. I am satisfied that the signage meets the relevant standards. Upon entry to a car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure that they have reviewed the terms and conditions set out in the signage, this is the offer of a contract; if a motorist cannot comply with the contract offered they should not park and leave the site. Therefore, by parking and remaining on site, the motorist has accepted the contract but failed to comply resulting in a charge being issued. When presented with a motorist’s circumstances, even if exceptional, POPLA cannot allow an appeal when it is clear that a contract was formed but the motorist breached it. There is a human side to parking appeals and the refusal of an appeal can feel uncomfortable. However, as in this case, it is clear from the evidence presented that the appellant has gained utility from being at the site. As such, I conclude that this appeal must be refused.

Were_Doomed

It's only bad news insofar as the story hasn't ended at POPLA. It doesn't mean you have to pay anything now - the PPC would need to instigate court action to try and get anything out of you (or you receive a CCJ, if they won and you didn't pay it in the allotted time).

mar_uk

Were_Doomed said:

It's only bad news insofar as the story hasn't ended at POPLA. It doesn't mean you have to pay anything now - the PPC would need to instigate court action to try and get anything out of you (or you receive a CCJ, if they won and you didn't pay it in the allotted time).

I am not sure what to do now - need to read, lol

So what happens next - they send me a threatening letter of legal action, is there a time limit? Can they clamp me if I got to one stop shopping center?

If they win at court, do I need to pay more than £100?

BrownTrout

come back if you get a court claim
you dont do anything else you forget it, you ignore the letters from debt recovery plus / cst law /zenith, you dont need to read
no they cant clamp you

Redx

So many basic questions you should already know the answers to , you do need to read !!

Debt collector letters next

LBC after that

A court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton is possibly after that

Nobody can come round without a court order , they don't have one , so no

Clamping was banned 8 years ago when POFA arrived

A loss for one PCN in court is about £200

Do more research now , don't ask the tedious basic questions , only informed smart ones 😊😊

Coupon-mad

I am not sure what to do now - need to read, lol

Anyone who loses at POPLA obviously simply searches the forum for POPLA lost instead of wondering if this is something new.  

Nothing is new on this forum.  No-one pays scam firms unless a Judge says so.

Are we going to see this trashy, insincere phrase in every refused POPLA appeal, now?  Guess what POPLA, there is no evidence of any common sense or legal training, let alone a human side to your robotic 'computer says no' shadow of an appeals service with badly trained, usually clueless Assessors:

There is a human side to parking appeals and the refusal of an appeal can feel uncomfortable.

Le_Kirk

mar_uk said:

Were_Doomed said:

It's only bad news insofar as the story hasn't ended at POPLA. It doesn't mean you have to pay anything now - the PPC would need to instigate court action to try and get anything out of you (or you receive a CCJ, if they won and you didn't pay it in the allotted time).

I am not sure what to do now - need to read, lol

So what happens next - they send me a threatening letter of legal action, is there a time limit? Can they clamp me if I got to one stop shopping center centre?

If they win at court, do I need to pay more than £100?

You clearly haven't read the NEWBIE sticky or, if you did, it is so long ago you have forgotten the basic advice and info.