Secure Parking Solutions NTK

IhateFines

I received a NTK from Secure Parking Solutions for £100 discounted to £60 for parking on a private road which is only allowed for customers of a specific supermarket in which customers must register their vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival. The driver of the vehicle did not visit the supermarket and was unaware that where they had parked was a private road and were unable to see any signage due to poorly lit conditions. The driver was parked for a total of 19 minutes.

I appealed using the template in the newbies section which doesn't name the driver however, the appeal was done on the 25th day after the NTK was issued due to me coming back from holiday.

The appeal was rejected however, in the appeal letter SPS stated "Therefore, we unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. We have now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay." However, it shows the discounted amount still being £100 and when I queried this with SPS Ltd they stated that the appeal letter they sent out is a template and as the appeal was submitted after 14 days of the NTK the discounted payment period no longer exists.

Surely, using this logic the original NTK is also a template and doesn't exist?

Would it be best to appeal to POPLA from here?

I have searched for similar cases in relation to this parking firm but could only find one which wasn't much help.

KeithP

Have the supplied a PoPLA code? Without that you will be unable to appeal to PoPLA.
If you were late with the original appeal, they probably didn't supply a PoPLA code, but as their admin seems a little suspect...

IhateFines

KeithP said:

Have the supplied a PoPLA code? Without that you will be unable to appeal to PoPLA.
If you were late with the original appeal, they probably didn't supply a PoPLA code, but as their admin seems a little suspect...

Hi Keith, thanks for your reply. They did provide a PoPLA code as the appeal was sent to them within the 28 days of the NTK. I will be happy to post the original NTK and the rejected appeal letter here if it helps at all

Coupon-mad

No need.  Standard stuff.  Standard POPLA appeal as per the NEWBIES thread 3rd post.

IhateFines

I submitted a POPLA Appeal and have now the evidence / comments made by Secure Parking Solutions Ltd.

My POPLA Appeal consisted of the following points:

1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. 

2. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary of the venue 

3. No Landowner Authority 

4. Disabled Occupant 

5. Contradictory Terms 

6. Failure to comply with the data protection ‘ICO Code of Practice’ applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach 

7. No evidence of period parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements – 

8. Vehicle images contained in NtK: BPA Code of Practice non-compliance – 

9. The ANPR system is neither reliable or accurate 

SPC Ltd responded:

The appellant has identified themselves as the keeper of the vehicle while they filed an appeal with the operator, as the notice has been issued as POFA compliant and given that no other driver has been nominated by the keeper they remain liable for the outstanding charge. Based on the appeal it is easy to deduce the keeper was the driver at the time of contravention as well. 

The notice to keeper was posted to the keeper at the correct date to remain compliant with the POFA regulations, the notice and the postage certificates issued by the postage supplier are attached. 

Terminal whitelist record attached as well for review. 

It is the motorists responsibility to ensure they are parking according to the terms and conditions of the car park. Parking according to the terms and conditions is a contractual requirement and if the motorist is unable to comply with the terms and conditions they must leave the parking site instead of assuming that they have some automatic right to park without a consent from the operator. As the vehicle was not registered on one of the four Kiosk terminals available inside the store the parking charge was issued. We have reviewed the kiosk records it is evident that the terminals were operational. However, as the vehicle remained on private land it was parked in breach of the terms and conditions a parking charge was issued after a considerable consideration period was provided to the vehicle as well, more than the duration required by BPA regulations.

 The appellant has presented no evidence to even corroborate they were a customer however they have alleged the terminals were not working which is incorrect as evident from the terminal record attached.

It is also stated on the signage in case of not adhering with the contractual requirements that: ”BY PARKING OR REMAINING ON THIS LAND OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS LISTED BELOW, YOU, THE DRIVER ARE ENTERING INTO A PARKING CONTRACT, AND AGREE TO PAY PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF  100.

All of the signage installed at the parking site has been done in accordance with the BPA requirements and have been approved by the BPA after a review as such POPLA can rest assured that the operator has installed sufficient signage that has been approved for the parking management and enforcement.

Please review the operator provided photographs captured by the ANPR camera system as it captured the vehicle entering and exiting the parking site to corroborate to the KIOSK record.

It is the responsibility of the motorist to seek out parking conditions and to ensure their vehicle has been parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site to avoid receiving a ParkingCharge Notice ("PCN”).

Under the principle in Vine v London Metropolitan Borough of Waltham, its immaterial if the appellant read our signage or not as long as the signage was in existence in the car park at the material time, which it was. Our signage installed around the car park at the material time clearly states, amongst other things that any Motorist in breach of the RELEVANT terms and conditions stipulated therein will be liable to a charge of 100 or 60 if paid within 14 days. This is regardless of whether the motorist has read the signage or not, as the law will deem him or her to have read it. Vines v Waltham ForestLBC (2000).

According to BPA code of practice 19.1, A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually bean act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. As according to the above the driver chose to use the land governed by the operator as such they are governed by the terms and conditions of the parking site. According to 20.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.

According to the above as the driver chose to park their vehicle on private land managed by the operator without complying with the terms and conditions, they broke the contract and are liable given the pertaining terms and conditions have been provided to the motorists on the Retroreflective signage placed at the parking site. By remaining at the site, the motorist entered into a contract with the car park operator and agreed to the terms of the contract, this includes paying the charge of  100.00 in the event of non-payment or contract being breached. The terms and conditions have been breached and so this notice has been issued correctly. if the driver did not agree with the terms and conditions that leave them liable, they should not have parked in the car park.As a member of BPA, we operate in accordance with the code of practice. I am sure you can appreciate that our team have to treat all customers who breach the terms and conditions of the carparks fairly and consistently in accordance with the BPA regulations. From all the evidence gathered, I can confirm that the notice was correctly issued. The vehicle was in breach of the Terms andConditions of the car park. Under the principle in Vine v London Metropolitan Borough of Waltham, its immaterial if theappellant read our signage or not as long as the signage was in existence in the carpark at the material time, which it was. Our signage installed around the car park at the material time clearly states, amongst other things that any Motorist in breach of the RELEVANT terms and conditions stipulated therein will be liable to a charge of  100 or  60 if paid within 14 days.

This is regardless of whether the motorist has read the signage or not, as the law will deem him or her to have read it. Vines v Waltham Forest LBC (2000)Please kindly look into all the evidence provided. If additional evidence required then please do not hesitate to contact the appeals team at appeals@secureparkingsolutions.co.uk

SPC Ltd rely upon 3 the following 3 signs:

https://imgur.com/a/PAx1mS3 sign 1

https://imgur.com/a/f9KnalO sign 2 

https://imgur.com/a/UrdCEnP sign 3

They have submitted that their parking signage content is as follows: 
ATTENTION -THIS IS PRIVATE LAND PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY:• All customers must register their full, correct vehicle registration into the kiosk on arrival.• Customers parking only whilst on the premises.• All vehicles must park within allocated bay or space.• Vehicle must not block access or cause obstruction at any time.• No parking on yellow lines, red lines, access road or any area with hatched markings.• Vehicle parked within disable bay must display a valid blue badge with all the details clearly visible.Additional parking charge will be incurred for each 24 hours period or part thereof that the vehicle remains on the land or if it returns at any time.

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE REDUCED TO £60 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS.BY PARKING OR REMAINING ON THIS LAND OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS LISTED BELOW, YOU, THE DRIVER ARE ENTERING INTO A PARKING CONTRACT, AND AGREE TO PAY.

PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR:CUSTOMERS WHILST ON PREMISES OF CUSTOMERS PLEASE REGISTER INSIDE. MILUS SUPERMARKET60 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY NO RETURN 2 HOURS.

PERMITTED VEHICLES: - KIOSK FOR CUSTOMERS PARKING 1 HOUR MAX STAY - WHITELISTING FOR STAFF AND MANAGEMENT - OTHER PERMITTED VEHICLES ARE THOSE APPROVED BY THE LANDOWNER INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DELIVERIES AND REFUSE COLLECTION ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: - CUSTOMERS PARKING WHILST ON THE PREMISES -VEHICLE MUST PARK WITHIN MARKED BAYS - DISABLED BADGE HOLDERS NOT EXEMPT FROM CONDITIONS - NO PARKING ON HATCHED AREAS OR ACCESS ROADS


To rebuttal the evidence submitted SPC Ltd make it clear that they rely upon Vines v Waltham Forest LBC and clearly state "its immaterial if the appellant read our signage or not as long as the signage was in existence in the car park at the material time, which it was"

but this case related to clamping and was found that although it might reasonably be inferred that a motorist saw and understood the signs as a result of their numbers, size and location it was insufficient that an appellant had simply had the opportunity to see warning signs but that they must also have read and understood them and only then, by doing so, could they consent to the act of clamping if they parked in contravention to the notices. 

On this point have SPC Ltd not shot themselves in the foot?

Furthermore, in the original appeal against SPC Ltd they stated in their rejection letter: 
By parking or remaining in your vehicle in the Private Road/ car park, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions displayed around the private road / car park. if you do not agree with the terms and conditions that leave you liable, you should not have parked in the car park.

 There are 6 Terms and conditions signs on the private road and signs on both the side of the entrance and inside the store clearly states that:
 • All customers must register their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival.
• Customers parking only whilst on the premises.
It also states that " MOTORCYCLE AND DISABLE BADGE HOLDERS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM PARKING CONDITIONS"

Whilst SCP Ltd have submitted their parking signage includes the above term they have not provided any photographic evidence of it on any of their signs. 

However, in Sign 3 SPC Ltd state "Vehicle parked within disable bay must display a valid  blue badge with all details clearly visible" which the occupant of the vehicle did. 

The contract between SPS Ltd is between them and the client who is listed as A & A Management (UK) Ltd. It is difficult to assess whether A&A are the owner, authorised agent, or legal occupier of the site.

Is there any other points which I could point out against their evidence? 

Castle

According to Companies House A & A Management (UK) Ltd doesn't exist.

1505grandad

"...........and the client who is listed as A & A Management (UK) Ltd."  

Is there a company number stated?

IhateFines

Castle said:

According to Companies House A & A Management (UK) Ltd doesn't exist.

1505grandad said:

"...........and the client who is listed as A & A Management (UK) Ltd."  

Is there a company number stated?

Apologises it is A & A Investment (UK) Ltd 

Definitions
1) Client is "A & A INVESTMENT (UK) LTD"
2) Company is "Secure parking Solutions Ltd"

Coupon-mad

The notice to keeper was posted to the keeper at the correct date to remain compliant with the POFA regulations, the notice and the postage certificates issued by the postage supplier are attached.

And is it POFA compliant (deadline and wording)?

Did your appeal out you as driver (first appeal)?

Vine v Waltham Forest won't impress POPLA but you can rebut it if you search the forum because they misquote out of context from it.  Miss Vine won and was held not to have seen unclear signs.

IhateFines

Coupon-mad said:

The notice to keeper was posted to the keeper at the correct date to remain compliant with the POFA regulations, the notice and the postage certificates issued by the postage supplier are attached.

And is it POFA compliant (deadline and wording)?

Did your appeal out you as driver (first appeal)?

Vine v Waltham Forest won't impress POPLA but you can rebut it if you search the forum because they misquote out of context from it.  Miss Vine won and was held not to have seen unclear signs.

From what I've read on the forums it seems POFA Compliant in terms of the deadline and wording. 

My first appeal did not out me as the driver:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

An occupant of the vehicle is disabled and I have attached a copy of the Blue Badge.

 The Driver is not identified

Coupon-mad

I agree.  We can check the NTK if you show us both sides and redact your data and VRM/PCN ref but leave DATES in please.