Parking Ticket - First Point of Contact - Mention permission of the shop ?

homi

The company has just uploaded their evidence to the Popla site , I have been given 7 days to comment on the evidence before it is submitted to Popla to decide the outcome .

The points they raise are :

If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is “reasonable” for the 

purposes of Section 13.2, we would consider this parking also. As the Driver 

remained on site for 5 minutes, we would consider this more than reasonable and 

class it as parking.

If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is “reasonable” for the 

purposes of Section 13.2, we would consider this parking also. As the Driver 

remained on site for 5 minutes, we would consider this more than reasonable and 

class it as parking. 

When entering on to a managed car park, motorists are given a reasonable grace 

period to check the terms and conditions and to leave the site before a PCN is 

issued. If this time is used for anything other than checking and complying with the 

terms and conditions, the motorist is considered to have accepted the contract, as 

they are making use of the facilities the operator is providing. 

As can be seen in the images provided, the vehicle remained parked on-site whilst 

the Driver exited to collect their delivery. Therefore, a parking event took place and a 

contract was formed and accepted by the Driver. 

The signage clearly states: ‘A valid permit must be displayed for inspection at all 

times’. Therefore, this is not a location where parking is normally permitted, outside 

of the advertised terms and conditions of parking. Nowhere on the signage does it 

state if collecting from xxxxxx xxxxx , is parking authorised without a permit.

The Driver failing to see or ignoring the signage. 

It is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to ensure that they have located, 

read and fully comply with the advertised terms and conditions of parking at all times. 

On this occasion, the Appellant did not. 

The PCN was purely issued because the vehicle remained on site with no permit on 

display and not for which bay it was parked. 

Park Watch can confirm that a legal contract does exist between us and the 

Landowner. See below under ‘Other Evidence’. Please be advised that the contract 

has been redacted in-line with GDPR. 

We would further advise that the  ( shop) is not the Landowner, therefore has 

no authority to offer motorists consent to park on this land in contravention of the 

clearly displayed terms and conditions of parking.

 

If unsure, the Driver could have contacted Park Watch to query if they were 

authorised to remain parked on-site. Our number is detailed on the signage. 

This is a private car park. The Driver would have driven past an entrance sign with a 

large ‘P’ on it, stating: ‘Parking Conditions Apply. See notice within the service 

area for further details’. It is then the Drivers responsibility to ensure that they have 

located, read and can fully comply with the terms and conditions before agreeing to park on site .

Therefore, Park Watch have offered the Registered Keeper the opportunity to name 

the Driver at the time of the conravention. 

The vehicle was observed with no permit. Therefore, the vehicle was not authorised 

to remain on-site and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. 

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in 

compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. 

We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused. 

So they are confirming that the car was on "site " for 5 minutes , was given permission by the shop , was not parked in a bay ( The PCN was purely issued because the vehicle remained on site with no permit on 

display and not for which bay it was parked. ) , and  loading  and they still want to issue a fine .

Also there is no signage on entrance of the carpark  but on the back walls of the building . 


I have been given a box to comment on their evidence but it seems that they are going purely on 

The PCN was purely issued because the vehicle remained on site with no permit on 

display and not for which bay it was parked. 

SayNoToPCN

Never a fine. 

If there asre no signs on trhe way in, then state the operator has lied! 

Coupon-mad

Just do some bullet points for POPLA, rebutting the things you have noticed and want to point out, to focus the Assessor.

Fruitcake

If the scammers have failed to address any of the points you made in your appeal, point this out stating that failure to rebut any point means the scammers must accept that specific point, therefore your appeal must be allowed.

homi

 

Is it worth mention that the 5 minutes the car was in the area included walking to the door and the returning to the car turning the engine on and leaving the car park safely

so in reality it would alot less than 5 minutes more like 3 minutes and totally unreasonable to be charged £100 ?

 Few other things I noticed 

The signs they shown in their evidence is not the same as the ones on the wall ,the one which they provided says CCTV and Warden patrolled but the ones on the wall simply say  Warden Patrolled Premises .

 

They also include an image showing the area of camera coverage but it  does not actually include the area where I was parked.

Is it ok to add links to photographs on this forum through IMBB as it will be alot easier to explain?

Le_Kirk

It is worth mentioning anything and everything that the PPC has failed to address but you cannot add new information to your original appeal.  You can of course, having made the point, expand on it in order to explain to the assessor what you meant!

SayNoToPCN

You can state the claimant has misled popla. The signs they supplied images of (ref xxxxyyy) are not the signs in place, as proven by - your pics?

if the time on site is 5 min that's within the grace period required , which is a min of 5 min. By def that cannot start until after the driver has stopped, as they cannot read any terms until,then. 

homi

SayNoToPCN said:

You can state the claimant has misled popla. The signs they supplied images of (ref xxxxyyy) are not the signs in place, as proven by - your pics?

if the time on site is 5 min that's within the grace period required , which is a min of 5 min. By def that cannot start until after the driver has stopped, as they cannot read any terms until,then.

Their wording on the appeal is 

"The vehicle has been captured by our CCTV cameras within the car park from 14:24 to 14:29. The vehicle remained parked on-site for 5 minutes and was not authorised to do so. "

Would this be enough ?

Coupon-mad

Like we said, this is obvious stuff and is for you to write into sentences; it's easy and needs no advice from us.  

SayNoToPCN

homi said:

SayNoToPCN said:

You can state the claimant has misled popla. The signs they supplied images of (ref xxxxyyy) are not the signs in place, as proven by - your pics?

if the time on site is 5 min that's within the grace period required , which is a min of 5 min. By def that cannot start until after the driver has stopped, as they cannot read any terms until,then.

Their wording on the appeal is 

"The vehicle has been captured by our CCTV cameras within the car park from 14:24 to 14:29. The vehicle remained parked on-site for 5 minutes and was not authorised to do so. "

Would this be enough ?

What do you mean?

I covered two topics, you've said ine

get this written. It's obvious what to do - highlight what they've failed to address from your appeal, as that means they agree with you.  Point out that the signs they state are there are not, and what proves this fact.  And then state the vehicle may have been on site fir 5 min, but by definition it could not have been parked for 5. That is another lie by the operator, but it doesn't matter as the grace period is AT LEAST 5 MINUTES