Tower Road, Newquay - POPLA Appeal rejected - Where do I go now?!

S14DMF

Hello, this is all new to me. I have ONLY just discovered the masses of info available on this forum about a battle I have just entered…. I have had a quick browse and cannot see a case similar to mine, I have just seen lots of people getting ripped off parking in Tower Road, Newquay. I have gone through the appeal process and inevitably lost it. 

So a quick run down on my story, hottest day in August, took 10 minutes to get near to a sign (COVID + social distancing) to find out how to pay, long story short I bought 4 hours and stayed for 4 hours 11 mins. My argument was that due to social distancing it took time to get near a sign and even then, the RingGo service stated an exit time of 1550 and I actually left at 1549 as proven by their ANPR pictures. So in my appeal process I did not admit to driving the vehicle, I just stated facts with receipts from Bank statements to prove the purchase time and my RingGo receipt.  

Now I can no longer appeal any further with POPLA where do I go? Do I just ignore it? Can they enforce the ‘fine’? Who can I contact to take this further and escalate, obviously I don’t just roll over and pay the £60? 

Any help will be much appreciated with this one, just wish I had seen this forum a few weeks ago!!!!!

 

This is the response from POPLA when they closed my latest appeal….

 

The appellant has identified as the driver on the date of the event. I will therefore be considering their liability for this PCN as the driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These show the vehicle entering the site at 11:36 and leaving at 15:48. A total stay of 4 hours 11 full minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signage at this site. the terms and conditions state “Parking Tariffs Apply… Up to 4 hours £6.40 Up to 5 hours £7.40”. It further states “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator keeps a record of payments made for parking against each vehicle registration at this car park. They have provided a copy of a search of their records which shows that the appellant paid for up to 4 hours of parking. On the face of the evidence, it does show a contract between the driver and the operator which has been breached. I will now turn to the appellants grounds of appeal to consider if these make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. The appellant says they waited almost 15 minutes to obtain parking due to a queue of over 15 people because of COVID and social distancing and, with it being the hottest day of the year. They say this can be confirmed with CCTV. The appellant says they used RingGo which gave them a time and they left within that time. The appellant has provided a copy of their parking receipt which shows they paid for parking at 11:49, as they paid for 4 hours parking, they were given an end time of 15:49. However, when entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, the 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. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. RingGo is a third party and it can only give an end time based on when payment was made, it still shows that only a 4 hour tariff was purchased. The contract entered into is with the parking operator and not RingGo. The terms on the sign state “Duration of stay calculated by ANPR cameras from point of entry to point of exit”. Although the appellant was delayed in making payment, the vehicle was still on site for 13 minutes prior to this and that time needed to be factored in when selecting the tariff. CCTV of the appellant queuing would not make a material difference in this case as the PCN has not been issued for a delay in payment, it was issued for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. The appellant says they were misled and at no point were they told to check the signs that the operator say were on display. The operator has provided photographs of the signage in this car park which shows it in situ. The signs containing instructions on how to make cashless payments are displayed either directly under or at the side of the terms. Further, the entrance sign to this car park states “Parking Regulations Apply… See Terms and Conditions on signage throughout the car park”. I note the appellant states that they were only 11 minutes over the ANPR time. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13.3 provides for a grace period. It states “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. Section 13.6 states “Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period”. I am satisfied that the PCN was not issued during a grace period. The fact remains, that the appellant paid for a 4 hour stay, but remained for 4 hours 11 minutes. This is a contravention of the terms and as such, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

What is the name of the PPC?
Could you break up the PoPLA decision wall of text to make it readable p[lease.
If the driver was not named, why did the assessor think they were? (That's as far as I got because the mass of text is making my eyes go funny.)

S14DMF

The company persuing me is Smart Parking - EW

Sorry I just copied and paste it from my appeal page....

The appellant has identified as the driver on the date of the event. I will therefore be considering their liability for this PCN as the driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These show the vehicle entering the site at 11:36 and leaving at 15:48. A total stay of 4 hours 11 full minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signage at this site. the terms and conditions state “Parking Tariffs Apply… Up to 4 hours £6.40 Up to 5 hours £7.40”. It further states “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator keeps a record of payments made for parking against each vehicle registration at this car park.

 They have provided a copy of a search of their records which shows that the appellant paid for up to 4 hours of parking. On the face of the evidence, it does show a contract between the driver and the operator which has been breached. I will now turn to the appellants grounds of appeal to consider if these make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. The appellant says they waited almost 15 minutes to obtain parking due to a queue of over 15 people because of COVID and social distancing and, with it being the hottest day of the year. They say this can be confirmed with CCTV. The appellant says they used RingGo which gave them a time and they left within that time. The appellant has provided a copy of their parking receipt which shows they paid for parking at 11:49, as they paid for 4 hours parking, they were given an end time of 15:49. However, when entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, the 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. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. RingGo is a third party and it can only give an end time based on when payment was made, it still shows that only a 4 hour tariff was purchased. The contract entered into is with the parking operator and not RingGo. The terms on the sign state “Duration of stay calculated by ANPR cameras from point of entry to point of exit”. Although the appellant was delayed in making payment, the vehicle was still on site for 13 minutes prior to this and that time needed to be factored in when selecting the tariff. CCTV of the appellant queuing would not make a material difference in this case as the PCN has not been issued for a delay in payment, it was issued for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. The appellant says they were misled and at no point were they told to check the signs that the operator say were on display. The operator has provided photographs of the signage in this car park which shows it in situ. The signs containing instructions on how to make cashless payments are displayed either directly under or at the side of the terms. Further, the entrance sign to this car park states “Parking Regulations Apply… See Terms and Conditions on signage throughout the car park”. I note the appellant states that they were only 11 minutes over the ANPR time.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13.3 provides for a grace period. It states “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. Section 13.6 states “Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period”.

I am satisfied that the PCN was not issued during a grace period. The fact remains, that the appellant paid for a 4 hour stay, but remained for 4 hours 11 minutes. This is a contravention of the terms and as such, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

A PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist so you are in ignore mode now unless the scammers try court. Come back to this thread if that happens after reading the second post of the NEWBIES.

We are aware of the slab of text you get from PoPLA, but it really is unradable to many of the regulars.

You still haven't explained why the assessor believes the driver was identified. Do you have any idea why? Perhaps they thought the person who bought the ticket and supplied their bank statement was the driver, or perhaps the appellant wrote, I drove or I parked. Without knowing what you put in your appeal we cannot comment on this.

D_P_Dance

If they take you to court they may very well struggle.  Covid has slowed everything down, look at the queues to shop at Tesco, the long wait to speak to your bank, the difficulty in getting an appointment with your dentist.   

have you complained to your MP?

Le_Kirk

Fruitcake said:

A PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist so you are in ignore mode now unless the scammers try court. Come back to this thread if that happens after reading the second post of the NEWBIES.
We are aware of the slab of text you get from PoPLA, but it really is unreadable to many of the regulars.
You still haven't explained why the assessor believes the driver was identified. Do you have any idea why? Perhaps they thought the person who bought the ticket and supplied their bank statement was the driver, or perhaps the appellant wrote, I drove or I parked. Without knowing what you put in your appeal we cannot comment on this.

First line of the POPLA wall of text: -

The appellant has identified as the driver on the date of the event. 

No guarantee he/she did of course, it seems to be POPLA's favourite stance.  we need to know what the OP put in his/her appeal.

S14DMF

This is the summary of my appeal.... The appellant says they were 11 minutes over their 4 hour stay. They say due to COVID-19 and social distancing and because it was the hottest day of the year There was over 15 people in the queue to see the information on the parking meter. They say they waited and then paid for 4 hours using RingGo, which told them what time they should depart and so they used this as a guide and left within that time. The appellant says that it took over 15 minutes to obtain a ticket which can be seen on CCTV. They say as they followed the instructions of RingGo, common sense should have been applied. They say they were only 11 minutes over the ANPR time and as they followed RingGo, they were misled as at no stage were they told to check for signs that the operator say were on display. In their motorist comments. the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a copy of their RingGo receipt in support of their appeal.

S14DMF

S14DMF said:

This is the summary of my appeal.... The appellant says they were 11 minutes over their 4 hour stay. They say due to COVID-19 and social distancing and because it was the hottest day of the year There was over 15 people in the queue to see the information on the parking meter. They say they waited and then paid for 4 hours using RingGo, which told them what time they should depart and so they used this as a guide and left within that time. The appellant says that it took over 15 minutes to obtain a ticket which can be seen on CCTV. They say as they followed the instructions of RingGo, common sense should have been applied. They say they were only 11 minutes over the ANPR time and as they followed RingGo, they were misled as at no stage were they told to check for signs that the operator say were on display. In their motorist comments. the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a copy of their RingGo receipt in support of their appeal.

This is from the POPLA website by the way 

Fruitcake

Yes, but we need to know what you put in your appeal, not what the assessor thought you put in it.

S14DMF

Ah ok, I can no longer track what my responses were online – Nothing technical or quoting anything listed in the forums. What they have wrote there is literally what I have told them, but in a longer winded response but not great detail that you guys are probably expecting me to go in to. I did not realise that this was as common as it is.

 

 They said throughout that there was a 10 minute grace period but I was 11 minutes so 1 minute over. I also reiterated that no common sense has been applied and COVID restrictions have not been taken into account at all.

 

Basically, what are my options now then? Do I just ignore it or can I approach someone else?

 

I have not contacted my MP, I am not from the area I was on holiday. I cannot find any contact details for the land owners either. That is actually how I came across this forum as funnily enough it is in the top 3 searches on Google!

Umkomaas

Basically, what are my options now then? Do I just ignore it or can I approach someone else?

Pay or ignore. Defend in court if necessary - unlikely given that it's Smart Parking, but never say never, they have 6 years to pursue via litigation ..... and all PPCs are feeling the Covid income drain.