Llangrannog P & D

Coupon-mad

The CoP is ludicrously unfair in suddenly deciding (for the first time in 2020) that the consideration period falls away if people stay.

It is one of several anti-consumer traps operated by the parking industry and just because the self serving CoP says this, doesn't mean a Judge would agree it's a fair way to operate.

D_P_Dance

That sign is horrendous, more fit to commission an aircraft carrier.  I doubt that any judge in the land would agree that  it would form a contract, read this.

A judge earlier this year made these comments

"This signage contains a huge amount of wording, in varying fonts. There are

between 650 ta 700 words, by my rough count. it's well known that the average
reading speed of most adults is aground 200 to 250 words per minute. On the basis
however that this is reading a sign and there are many technical words, it would
probably take an average reader about 3 to 4 minutes to read everything on the
sign. The key part however is found be found some 140 words into the text. It is in the
middle of the sign and it says this, in capitals, then below it is a lower sized font
referring to the £100:"   DJ Harvey

and this, and complain to your MP.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

brynglas

Thank you all so much for every bit of information you are providing me with. I will now put together my POPLA appeal using the information on the newbies thread for this.  I hope you can please read it before I submit it for any errors/corrections  if the issue is that i paid shortly before 8pm and left after 8pm but didn't go back at 8pm and buy another ticket do you think its fair that I point out that £1.75 for 60 minutes equates to 0.029 pence per minute, and therefore as the biggest portion of my parking was after 8pm I've actually paid more than they would have requested.  as £1.25 for 60 minutes works out at just over 0.02 pence per minute and there's no option of part/reduced payment before 8pm.   out of curiosity has anyone ever come across a car park like this where you are expected to go back and pay again?  I certainly haven't.  

MX5huggy

I haven’t read it all but no, if I bought a ticket at 19:30 paying the fee for 2 hours I would expect to stay till 21:30. 

Castle

MX5huggy said:

I haven’t read it all but no, if I bought a ticket at 19:30 paying the fee for 2 hours I would expect to stay till 21:30. 

Same here and something which would be backed up by Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 about different meanings in a contract, and that which is most favourable to the consumer, will prevail.

Coupon-mad

I think this is overcomplicated for POPLA:

do you think its fair that I point out that £1.75 for 60 minutes equates to 0.029 pence per minute, and therefore as the biggest portion of my parking was after 8pm I've actually paid more than they would have requested.  as £1.25 for 60 minutes works out at just over 0.02 pence per minute and there's no option of part/reduced payment before 8pm.  

No. Just state that you paid the right rate for x hours based upon the time of arrival.  Plus all the usual stuff for POPLA, and include the pics of the horrendously over-wordy signs and all the news articles you can find.

Name and shame to POPLA, throw the kitchen sink at this but don't overcomplicate the main first point.

brynglas

points taken, thank you again x

Redx

Also bear in mind the NCP court case where it was pressing the green button on the PDT machine that started the parking time countdown clock , not the entry time , plus the fistral beach case where waiting for a spot etc is not parking ( Altrincham case )

So the initial grace period is to Park , read those horrendously long wordy signs , comply and pay , backed up by the CRA 2015 plus the ambiguous BPA CoP , the intention to comply and pay was clear , meaning an honest intention to do the right thing at all times

Poor signage , no landowner authority etc should be in the Popla appeal , as backstops

If common sense is applied , it's de minimis , meaning it's a trivial matter and the PCN should be cancelled

D_P_Dance

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

brynglas

Please find below my popla appeal which I’ve altered and changed many times, I would be great full if you could advise if this is too short/long, relevant/irrelevant.  I have tried to take into consideration the area ice you have given me and taken info where necessary.  Again I will take on board what you experienced people suggest.

Vehicle Registration: [XXX]

POPLA ref: [XXX]

PCN: XXXXX

Parking session: purchased 1 hour @ £1.75p – unfortunately ticket is not available

Reason for PCN: Expired payment/ticket

A notice to keeper was issued on 20th August 2021 and received by me the registered keeper on 24thAugust 2021.I appealed as the registered keeper to the operator – One Parking Solution Ltd – this was submitted for a second time on 6/10/21 as they say they didn’t receive the first appeal but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 12/10/2021

Appeal response from One Parking Solutions: At the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued, your vehicle was observed being parked on site without a payment for the full period of parking. The tariff applies at all times, a reduced hourly rate applies after 8pm, however parking is not free. It is the driver's responsibility to review and comply with the terms and conditions on arrival in the car park. A copy of the tariff sign is enclosed.

 

The driver of the vehicle has confirmed that they entered the car park and waited for a space before parking, as several cars were being loaded up by people due to leave, once parked they were then not able to safely exit the car due to the space being too narrow to open the car doors.  So further moved the car to another parking space within the car park.

The driver then went to pay and had to wait at the machine as the person in front of them was trying to pay by card and the signal here is very poor as noted in previous cases and also by the BPA. 

See attached link:-  http://llangrannogwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MS-Report-Llangrannog-Beach-PDF.pdf

 

Whilst waiting the driver attempted to read the lengthy notices which are in both Welsh and Englishand various font sizes.  The driver then paid by cash for 1 hour at a fee of £1.75 therefore entering a contract Under Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This is also backed up by:-

3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage. The judge also stated that in any case £100 was not likely to be a true pre-estimate of loss.
In an important case, the judge ruled that the 31 minutes the defendant spent driving round the crowded car park in Whit week did not classify as 'parking'. The ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.

 

The ticket was then left displayed in the car.  The importance of all this the time of night.  Slightly before 8pm.  As you can see from the car park signs, parking before 8pm for 1 hour is £1.75.

The driver returned to car shortly before their ticket was due to expire, loaded up the car and as they were not local sat for a little while in the car planning their route back to where they were staying with a paper map as their phone could not pick up a signal.

 

 

 

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:-

 

One Parking Solutions is not disputing that a ticket was purchased but that the payment for the ticket expired.  But as the driver had paid for 1 hours parking the ticket hasn’t expired. If you park after 8pm its £1.25 per hour, (no option to pay for more than 1 hour at a time) so if anything, the driver has overpaid for parking for the majority of the time that they were there.  The driver is not aware of reading on the numerous signs anywhere that it states you must go back at 8pm and purchase another ticket

The NTK states the entry time :- 7.35pm, Exit time 8.52pm.  These time have been taken by ANPRThese times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking by One parking Soluctions  own admission on their NTK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed and is therefore not reliable or accurate. They only show the time the vehicle entered and exited the car park.  Waiting for.Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states; “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and theperiod of parking to which the notice relates.

In the British Parking Association Code of Practice point 13.3 there is a minimum grace period allowed for exiting the car park on this site the grace period of 15 minutes as noted on the attached photo.

 

 

 

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

 

I have also been in touch with- The LLangrannog Welfare organisation, who have been trying endlessly to meet with the owner of this car park due to the number of complaints being received by both them and Ben Lake Ceredigion MP 

 

Response to my email dated 17/10/21  from Llangrannog Welfare Organisation

I agree that the 8pm cu toff is ridiculous and shouldn’t be allowed. It will be something that the Community Council will definitely ask the owner about when they meet with him (no date set for that; he is trying to dodge it). 

Dr Kathryn Dawes
Ysgrifenyddes y Pwyllgor Lles Llangrannog | Llangrannog Welfare Committee Secretary
http://llangrannogwelfare.org/
kldawes@gmail.com

 

Response to my email from Ben Lake MP dated 6th September

Thank you very much for your recent e-mail to Ben Lake MP expressing concerns following your recent experiences at Llangrannog Beach Car Park, Ceredigion. 

First and foremost, both Ben and I were very sorry to learn of your recent experiences at the car park.  

May I assure you that we are well aware of the many concerns stemming from the activities at the car park and are frequently in receipt of correspondence from both constituents and visitors who have received a disputed Parking Notice at the site.  

As noted in your e-mail, this is extremely regrettable, and has sadly caused detriment to the village’s reputation as well as a detrimental impact on many of the local businesses. May I assure you that over recent years we have tried our best to ensure such concerns are fully investigated, and have previously met with the site owners, local Community Council, businesses, Local Authority, and have previously brought the situation to the attention of the British Parking Association (BPA).  

Our involvement has been documented in several previous media reports: 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/llangrannog-parking-car-park-fine-16999213 

It remains frustrating that such situation continues to blight the reputation of the car park and village, and we continue in close discussions with the Local Authority regarding the matter.  

You may be interested to know that the Local Welfare Committee have correlated very useful advice that can be used to address many of the points made in your correspondence, as well as submitting an appeal – this can be found via the below website: 

http://llangrannogwelfare.org/beachfront-car-park 

It remains a frustrating situation, but may I assure you we are trying our best to address the issue – to ensure both locals, visitors, and the reputation of the village is not dealt further unfairness as a result of such operation practices. 

I do hope the above will be of some interest to you. 

Kind regards, 

Aled 

Aled Morgan Hughes

Prif Swyddog Gwaith Achos & Pholisi Ben Lake AS 

Senior Casework & Policy Officer for Ben Lake MP

Bryndulais, 67 Bridge Street / Heol y Bont, Llanbedr Pont Steffan, Ceredigion SA48 7AB

01570 940333 | aled.hughes@parliament.uk