Civil Enforcement Limited POPLA Appeal - already declared driver.

Umkomaas

This is the sign that relates to the GP area - does it count as small print?:

How does it compare to this, held up by The Supreme Court as an example of a sign showing a conspicuous parking charge.

Coupon-mad

Yes that £100 is in small font.

The new Government draft Code includes that the parking charge must be the same size as the largest text on the sign.  Glad someone got that in... not that the imminent Government regulation of this greedy industry is 'live' yet but it will be, this year.

I have also had an email from the Aspen PPG chair where they note:

"Due to the amount of correspondence regarding car parking this is an article to explain the current position....
I would recommend that you challenge the car parking company based on the complexity of the signage not being clear and the areas set aside for each building that are hosted on the Aspen estate.  I believe because of the colouring and consistency of the signs it is not clear enough as your reason to challenge.
We recognise the impact this has caused on both patients and staff that have received parking notices and are working to improve the situation and be clear on parking arrangements for the Aspen Practice.  Please note that this is not a practice initiative and is an arrangement between the landlord and the parking company."

Presumably it's worth including this as something like an 'independent witness' that things are sub-standard?

Definitely, that is brilliant evidence and your pics are all great.

This thread will help other victims later this year, such as if some people haven't yet received their PCN (due to a typical oversight of an old address on their logbook) and later just get a court claim.

Really useful.  What is 'PPG'?

KeithP

PPG = Patient Participation Group.

Here is an expansion of that banner headline...

That notice is not saying the Aspen Medical Practice cannot help with parking issues - just that the Aspen Medical Practice cannot help with parking issues of the other businesses at the Centre.

Of course that may not be what they intended to write.  

Castle

And of course, Creative Parking and CEL are two different companies.

Le_Kirk

KeithP said:

That notice is not saying the Aspen Medical Practice cannot help with parking issues - just that the Aspen Medical Practice cannot help with parking issues of the other businesses at the Centre.

Of course that may not be what they intended to write.  

They should have run it by the forum regulars first!

disgruntled01

Evening all and thanks for the responses so far. I've been busy updating and writing an Appeal letter for POPLA. I have a couple of specific questions for advice please:

Section 1 - Signage - 'standard' text

As pointed out previously, the £100 is not "obvious" per previous cases.  So I was hoping to use the standard text.  There's a couple of points I'm not sure about:

• ...given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist....
• ...and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car....

Can I say the above? You've pointed out to me that the £100 is not big, does the sign also classify as 'illegible'?

(I've also highlighted to remind me to go and check what sign is at the entrance, as perhaps it does appear at the entrance, but I don't know (as I always cycle myself!).)

Section 1 - Bespoke text

Perhaps I've gone on a bit, but you seemed to suggest from other posts such information should be added, and this seemed the most logical place.

Section 3 - Permit Car Park

• From the 'Newbies' thread, there was a section on 'permit' car parks. I'm not sure if there was some example text I should be including as a point here? If not, I can delete point 3.
  

Section 4 - ANPR

• Again, I'm not sure if I can use some 'ANPR' text about reliability, wifi, time stamps etc. Can anyone advise?
  

Section 5 - I've written a section on compliance with BPA CoP 17. 

• I didn't find any example text, so have just gone free-style on this.  Feedback would be appreciated:

It is claimed that the Vehicle Registration is not recorded as having a permit. The driver is confident they entered the Vehicle Registration into the tablet on the premises and therefore obtained a permit. There is no proof that the driver did not enter the Vehicle Registration on the tablet. Rather it is stated only that CE Limited has no record. If for example a system fault caused the Vehicle Registration not to be stored in CE Limited’s recording system, this is a matter within CE Limited’s control and not the driver’s fault.

The Driver asserts that they entered the Vehicle Registration accurately as required to park whilst taking a patient to their appointment. Section 17 of the BPA CoP defines Keying Errors. Should a Minor Keying Error have occurred the CoP states that “...the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.” In relation to Major Keying Errors the CoP states:

Examples of a major keying error could include:

• Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration

• Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration

• Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)

• Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits

In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant).

It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.

In the first appeal stage, it was asserted that a valid appointment as a patient of the GP Practice could be confirmed. No evidence was provided in CE Limted's rejection that they had attempted to confirm this fact. Proof was available that, as claimed, the driver was “... a legitimate user of the car park...”. The Aspen PPG Chair identifies that that historically parking at the site has always been provided free of charge and should remain free for legitimate users of the car park:

<insert email 2 from PPG>

Proof (see below) is provided that a valid appointment was scheduled and therefore the driver had a legitimate reason to park on the premises. Therefore even if a Major Keying Error had occurred CE Limited should have offered settlement at £20.

<insert proof of appointment>

While CE Limited states that the Vehicle Registration was not recorded, as previously stated the Driver asserts that they entered the Vehicle Registration accurately. It is illogical to suggest that the Driver would not have complied, so far as is reasonably practicable, to obtain a parking permit by entering their Vehicle Registration.

Evidence therefore must be provided to underwrite any claim that, even if the Vehicle Registration was not recorded, an attempt to enter the Vehicle Registration was not made or that a Keying Error did not occur.

In conclusion with regards to this point, I call into question the reliability of both CE Limited's records and their compliance with BPA CoP. I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 17 of the BPA CoP.

Note, that if I end up removing Section 3 and 4, I've only really got 3 points to the appeal.... hopefully this would be enough. If there are other appeal aspects that you are aware could be relevant I'll happily accept advice.

Thank you again for all the contributions. Hopefully it sounds like a reasonable appeal. If not I'm about to run out of time before my "fee" goes up to the full £100!

---------------

I was going to include a link to share my draft appeal document for feedback. But I seem unable to (it says I have to be around for a little longer... if there's a way I'm able to share please let me know as I'd appreciate a once over!).

KeithP

disgruntled01 said:

I was going to include a link to share my draft appeal document for feedback. But I seem unable to (it says I have to be around for a little longer... if there's a way I'm able to share please let me know as I'd appreciate a once over!).

Host the document on Dropbox or somewhere then change the http to hxxp.

disgruntled01

KeithP said:

disgruntled01 said:

I was going to include a link to share my draft appeal document for feedback. But I seem unable to (it says I have to be around for a little longer... if there's a way I'm able to share please let me know as I'd appreciate a once over!).

Host the document on Dropbox or somewhere then change the http to hxxp.

Such an obvious solution once pointed out... don't I feel stupid

hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1eEQpflPV1NJdnl3di34CZ3nebSzSzKjE3_WqKieRtqo/edit?usp=sharing

D_P_Dance

IMO PE's signs are pants, they probably fall foull of the unfair T&C of the CRE 2015, read this

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

Coupon-mad

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eEQpflPV1NJdnl3di34CZ3nebSzSzKjE3_WqKieRtqo/edit?usp=sharing

You have put in the first sentence that it is ParkingEye, but it's not!

Don't bother with your queried 3 or 4 as POPLA won't consider that.  ANPR failure allegations hit a brick wall.

Change the heading of your draft #5 to 'The tablet was used and this can only have been a keying error at the most'

That's because you want a heading that grabs the Assessor's attention straight to the 'easy win' for you that this was a keying error.  So important is that point that, if it were me, I'd have it as #1 then 'unclear signage' and your pics, then no landowner authority.