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

homi

SayNoToPCN said:

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 

thanks , will get the points done and submitted.

homi

Just had a decision back and the appeal was not granted . I have included the decision below , it seems whatever was said it would never be enough for Popla . 

In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper as they have clearly stated in their appeal; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The sign states: “Failure to comply with the following terms & conditions may result in a parking charge: A valid permit must be displayed for inspection at all times” and “£100 parking charge” The operator has provided images of the vehicle as well as a copy of the PCN.

The appellant states that the operator has not adhered to the grace periods. Although the appellant has set out reasons regarding the events that could occur while checking the signs, it is clear that a parking event has occurred as they have parked in the car park to utilise it for the purpose of loading the vehicle. They have not provided any compelling evidence to show that loading vehicles are exempt from the terms and conditions. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states: 13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. and 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. As a parking event has occurred, there is no reason for me to consider grace periods. I appreciate that the appellant has provided cases regarding loading vs parking, however, it is clear that the motorist has gained use of the car park, so has had the opportunity to read the terms of use of the car park.

They say the operator does not have landowner authority to issue a PCN. The operator has provided images of the land they are operating in as well as the boundaries and the address of the car park. They have also provided a signed document with the responsibilities and confirming the location they are authorised to issue PCNs. I am satisfied that the address on the PCN, where the motorist parked, is the area the operator is allowed to issue PCNs. They advise the operator did not use painted road marking to indicate a private car park. Although the appellant has raised this about the painted road markings, it is not a requirement for the operator to have road markings informing motorists that they are entering a private car park. They are required to have terms and conditions signs, which I can see from the images provided by the operator, they do. They say they have a letter from the store to advise they were able to park in the car park. Although the appellant has provided a copy of a letter from the store to indicate that they were using the car park to pick up an item, this does not exempt them from the terms and conditions. There are clear signs in the car park to indicate the terms and conditions and it is the responsibility of the motorist to read these before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms. The staff of the facilities around the car park are not able to override the terms set out by the authorised operator of the car park. They say the vehicles images in the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.

The appellant says that the images provided on the PCN do not show the car being loaded with the help of staff and do not show the entry and exit time of the vehicle. Although the images doe not show an entry and exit time, they do show that the vehicle was seen in the car park at 2:24pm and was still there at 2:27pm. The operator has included an additional image in their case file to show the vehicle leaving at 2:29pm. I am satisfied that these images do show that a parking event took place in the car park and they do include time stamps.

They state the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself.

The operator has provided images of the car park where the motorist parked and it shows that there are multiple signs in the car park and these are visible from all areas of the car park. The operator has also provided digital versions of the signs in the car park and I am satisfied that the parking charge is prominently displayed. The appellant has not provided any compelling evidence to show that the signs in the car park were not compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. They state that the signs indicate that the car park is warden patrolled. The appellant has provided an image of a sign, which they state is from the car park, and it includes: Warden Patrolled Premises. However, the operator’s images of the signs state: Warden & CCTV Controlled Parking Area. Although the signs on the images of the car park are small and difficult to read, the appearance of the signs has the longer string of words indicating that they are most likely the details indicated by the operator’s signs rather than the sign provided by the appellant. Therefore, I am satisfied that due to the evidence, it is most likely the operator has confirmed that the area is CCTV controlled. Regardless of whether there was ANPR or CCTV, the PCN was issued for no permit and there has been no confirmation that a valid permit was held by the motorist at the time of using the car park.

 They say the operator has not shown that the individual is the driver. I have checked the PCN using PoFA 2012 to make sure it is compliant for making the keeper liable for the PCN and it is. It indicates on the PCN that it is for the keeper to provide the details of the driver and if these have not been provided within the stipulated time period, the liability for the PCN remains with the keeper. Therefore, the operator does not have to show that the keeper was the driver, they have to show that the liability for the PCN is with the keeper that it was issued to. I note the appellant has raised further comments regarding the case file provided by the operator. They say there are no entrance signs and that the CCTV signage is not in the car park as per their image of the sign.

They state that the images of the signs show a different layout to the ones in the car park. I can see from the images provided by the operator that they do have entrance signs in the car park and they are located in the car park as per the sign layout they have provided. I have confirmed above that I am satisfied the signs do indicate that there was CCTV. The layout of the signs in the area the appellant has parked do request a valid permit and the operator has provided a digital version of this, therefore, I am satisfied that they were there when the motorist parked.

 

They say that the vehicle had been on site for 5 minutes and could not have parked in that time. As previously stated, I can see that the vehicle has stopped and they are loading the vehicle. This is also confirmed in the letter from the business. As per section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice, no grace period is provided when a parking event occurs. They state that the area in yellow indicates the reach of the CCTV and that is where the terms apply, which the vehicle was not parked in. The boundaries of the car park are clearly set out by the paving and by the address on the landowner authority letter.

The areas covered by the yellow triangles shows the areas that are monitored by the cameras. It is clear from the images provided from the operator that the motorist was in an area monitored by the camera. The PCN was issued due to no permit and the appellant has not provided any compelling evidence to show that they had a permit to park in this area. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has not obtained a permit to park. As they have no permit, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

 

This section really makes me angry as it seems whatever I say or do they'll just side with the issuer of the ticket . 

On the parking companies evidence they say 3 times 

"We enclose copies of the signage at this site ( with an image underneath )"  - I pointed out this is not the sign on the site and asked them to look on my evidence which was provided .   

Although the signs on the images of the car park are small and difficult to read, the appearance of the signs has the longer string of words indicating that they are most likely the details indicated by the operator’s signs rather than the sign provided by the appellant. Therefore, I am satisfied that due to the evidence, it is most likely the operator has confirmed that the area is CCTV controlled. Regardless of whether there was ANPR or CCTV, the PCN was issued for no permit and there has been no confirmation that a valid permit was held by the motorist at the time of using the car park.

There is no sign as you enter  site , they are all located on the back walls ( which I provided as evidence ) , the parking company used low res images from Google maps on purpose so you cannot zoom in and read the signs .

The car was not fully parked within the yellow lines or within the scope of their CCTV cameras on the evidence , again they make an excuse  " The boundaries of the car park are clearly set out by the paving and by the address on the landowner authority letter." 

I really thought this would be the end of the matter as the parking company has lied several times but it seems Popla will do all there can to help their " members ". 

Coupon-mad

Ignore that then! 

Blame the BPA, they should be ashamed of their diabolical CoP 2020 that says this and took away any consideration period entirely for no good reason, pathetic, TBH:

They say that the vehicle had been on site for 5 minutes and could not have parked in that time. As previously stated, I can see that the vehicle has stopped and they are loading the vehicle. This is also confirmed in the letter from the business.

As per section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice, no grace period is provided when a parking event occurs. 

No Judge would agree and also, loading is not parking.  

D_P_Dance

This section really makes me angry as it seems whatever I say or do they'll just side with the issuer of the ticket . 

Of course they will that is who funds them,  That is why we say that these appeals are of no consequence.  Judges do not regard them as significant.i

homi

Went back today and took some more photos of the signs in case the parking company  change them , is there anyway I can date stamp them as proof of the date they were taken .

KeithP

homi said:

Went back today and took some more photos of the signs in case the parking company  change them , is there anyway I can date stamp them as proof of the date they were taken .

You now seem to be asking about how to get the best out of your camera.

That's just a little bit away from the usual 'how to fight a parking charge' problem.

Although it's best asked somewhere else, whoever answers will probably need to know more about your photographic equipment.

homi

Sorry what I mean, is there anyway of proving that the photos were taken on a certain date.

 My concern that they could swap the signs in the future and claim that they were like that before the ticket was issued especially as they already lied   . The photos they provided of the site are from google maps and the other one is suspiciously blurry especially as the other sites are fine  , it seems its done on purpose so the signs cannot be read in the photos as it proves that they are not the ones they say they are .

Coupon-mad

Bottom left of OPS' 'Uploader' page has useful tips about adding the date and timestamp:

https://oneparkingsolution.co.uk/enforcement-uploader/

homi

Just an update , this morning I received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus

They have given me 3 options of payment but now its £170 . 
You may not have responded to previous letter due to an oversight . Now , if you don't respond , you are making an active choice .  Our Client reserves the right to take this as evidence of you intent not to pay .  

Umkomaas

homi said:

Just an update , this morning I received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus

They have given me 3 options of payment but now its £170 . 
You may not have responded to previous letter due to an oversight . Now , if you don't respond , you are making an active choice .  Our Client reserves the right to take this as evidence of you intent not to pay .  

Here's a fourth option ... ignore them!