Abused Patron Parking - Aldi Corporation Street Preston - Care Parking

sub54bod

Having just been through the process of PCN->Care Parking Appeal->POPLA Appeal (which was successful yeah!) I thought I'd share what I did for others following after.

The PCN came from Care Parking and it alleges the driver left site (though it didn't actually say so). I followed the advice provided in this forum, particularly the NEWBIES thread and information from others in a similar situation at the same place eg:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6176734/abused-patron-parking-aldi-preston-care-parking/p1

I emailed the ALDI CEO as advised by people on this forum saying as an ALDI customer (receipt for spend on that day included in the email), I did not appreciate this kind of harrassment, but got a reply from ALDI customer services to the effect that they don't control the car park....

I appealed to Care Parking officially and was not surprised (and was told to expect it) when the appeal was rejected because of "operative testimony"...so onto a POPLA:

Here is the appeal text I sent to POPLA:

POPLA Appeal Code xxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number xxxxxxx
PCN Reference xxxxxx
Issued by Care Parking

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued against it and have it cancelled on the following grounds:

1) No proof has been provided that the driver left 'the site' and no site boundary defined
2) Non Compliance to BPA Code of Practice
3) The operator has not demonstrated they have landowner authority

4) Failure to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper

1) No proof provided that the driver left 'the site' and no site boundary defined

The notice to keeper states that the reason for the PCN is “Abused Patron Parking” . This term is vague and undefined but I understand it to mean the driver left the site. I require Care Parking to provide evidence that proves the driver of the vehicle left site. Such evidence should include photographs of the alleged contravention showing clearly the driver crossing the boundary of the site together with a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left. No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes leaving the site.

If no such sign nor 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 any evidence I deny there was any contravention. Without such evidence, breach of the terms and conditions of car parking on the site cannot be demonstrated.

Fig 1: Operator Photo of the car

Fig 2: Operator Photo of car

2) Non Compliance to BPA Code of Practice

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."
The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle. (see Fig 1 and 2 above). They show the vehicle present in the car park, however they do not present any evidence to confirm the breach for which the PCN was issued as required in the BPA Code of practice. These pictures are therefore non compliant (and therefore the PCN itself) with the BPA Code of Practice.

3) The operator has not demonstrated they have landowner authority

I question Care Parking’s authority from the landowner to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park and require them to show evidence of such a contract and that it meets the minimum requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

4) Failure to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper

To transfer the liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle, the Notice to Keeper must follow the strict requirements of PoFA 2012 and use the correct wording. In at least one case Care Parking has failed to do this.
Under section 9 (1) of PoFA 2012 it states, “A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6 (1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met”. A list is then provided. Section 2(f) states the PCN must meet the following requirement:

(f) “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given-“

However the wording of the relevant section of the PCN received from Care Parking (see paragraph 4 of Figure 3 below) states:

“You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the parking charge has not been paid….”

This is not the correct wording as laid down in the PoFA 2012 and therefore I submit that the operator has failed meet the strict requirements of the Act and therefore failed to transfer liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

In my case the parking company did not reply within the 21 day window allowed by POPLA and so the appeal was successful (probably because they can't prove the driver left site). Here is the decision text from POPLA:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

The whole thing took about 2 months from receipt of PCN to POPLA appeal decision.

Huge thanks go to all the posters on this forum for the amazing help they provide and the information provided by others who have fought these battles before.

Various other suggestions were put forward such as:

1. writing to my MP

2. Contacting the landowner

3. Trying to see if the original planning permission for the land allowed the driver off site.

I didn't do any of these and just decided in the end to follow the simpler process of appealing and then challenging Care Parking to prove the driver left site (which they couldn't!).

Good luck if you are in the same situation.

Umkomaas

Thanks for this, I've also commented on your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky. 

I've bookmarked this thread to refer others who walk this path (whether on or off the site!) to read. I'm sure it will help many for whom the second stage appeal is to POPLA. It would be unlikely to work with an IPC operator and the IAS.

sub54bod

Umkomaas said:

Thanks for this, I've also commented on your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky. 

I've bookmarked this thread to refer others who walk this path (whether on or off the site!) to read. I'm sure it will help many for whom the second stage appeal is to POPLA. It would be unlikely to work with an IPC operator and the IAS.

Hi Umkomaas,

Thanks....I was pleased, but must give credit to the forum members who helped so much.....without them I would have paid up I expect!