Parking Charge Exemption Rosebird Centre, Stratford upon Avon - Local Parking Security (LPS)

bunkersoldier

I am considering whether to appeal to POPLA on behalf of a disabled 80 year old driver. The driver was exempt from paying for parking, but the problem is no ticket is ever provided for the free parking, just an on-screen message.

I’ve read the Newbies FAQs and searched the Forum but I can’t find a similar case or anything about the legality of LPS charge notices, so I’d really appreciate any advice on whether you think the lack of evidence will be a problem or if there are any flaws in their notice. I can see flaws in their signage, but would this be enough if nothing else?

Attached is the parking charge notice (photos 1 & 2).

The driver did not need to pay for parking as they parked in a reserved space for Rosebird Community Hall, while using the hall. The hall has 5 of its own spaces within the car park, marked RCH (photo 3). Those parking in these spaces are entitled to park free of charge for up to 5 hours and are required to enter their registration in a touchscreen mounted on the wall inside the hall. The driver did this, as they have done on numerous occasions before and since. The exemption is stated on the hall’s webpage (photo 4).

The driver parked for less than one hour.

A complaint was made to the landowner, The Bird Group, who simply washed their hands and said use the correct channels.

An appeal to LPS was rejected for the reason - Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay (ANPR). They stated that as no payment was made for the duration of stay, the vehicle registration was not registered onto the system, and the parking charge notice was issued correctly.

Notes

The touchscreen inside the hall does not issue a ticket, but states that the parking has been validated (photo 5). No photo was taken on the incident date, as the driver trusted the system then.

There is only one ANPR sign on the opposite side of the road as the driver enters the car park (photos 6 & 7). This sign states see notice on site for terms and conditions, although there is no mention of terms and conditions on the notice (photo 8).

The notice is dotted around the car park (photo 6), although it is difficult to read as they have been positioned high up at around 8 feet with the £100 charge in a tiny font. 

No notice has been placed between the RCH spaces and the hall (photo 3).

The notice does not mention the hall parking spaces exemption.

Thank you for any advice.

Coupon-mad

Why didn't the landowner cancel the PCN when you/he complained?

Landowner complaint is plan A and it's easy enough to find out who contracted with a parking firm.

Never try appeal first.

Umkomaas

I am considering whether to appeal to POPLA on behalf of a disabled 80 year old driver. 

If it comes to an appeal, you do know that you cannot appeal 'on behalf of'.  You can do the legwork - as you already are doing in producing the evidence above - but everything must be done in the name of the vehicle's registered keeper (who may or may not be the 80-year old person). 

bunkersoldier

Coupon-mad said:

Why didn't the landowner cancel the PCN when you/he complained?

Landowner complaint is plan A and it's easy enough to find out who contracted with a parking firm.

Never try appeal first.

Thank you, Coupon-mad. Yes, I did that.  The Property Manager of the landowner, The Bird Group, replied and said that for data protection reasons he is not, nor wishes to be, privy to anyone’s personal information. He said that the agreement is between LPS and the driver. 

I challenged him over this and said that LPS, as his company’s data processor, may already have breached data protection legislation by requesting the keeper’s personal details when they were not entitled to do so (as no parking charge was due), and therefore his company as the data controller could be held culpable for any breach. He replied that LPS had not requested the keeper’s details and that they have their own direct link to DVLA via the APNR. I then realised I was dealing with an imbecile, so gave up!

bunkersoldier

Umkomaas said:

I am considering whether to appeal to POPLA on behalf of a disabled 80 year old driver. 

If it comes to an appeal, you do know that you cannot appeal 'on behalf of'.  You can do the legwork - as you already are doing in producing the evidence above - but everything must be done in the name of the vehicle's registered keeper (who may or may not be the 80-year old person). 

Thank you, Umkomaas. I will just be assisting the registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

OK.  Sounds like a complete idiot.

Re an appeal, I would appeal in his name as KEEPER (not saying who was driving) and say:


The signs only talk about 'pay and display' but there was no obligation to do so, when parking in the reserved spaces for Rosebird Community Hall, while using the hall.

The hall has 5 of its own spaces within the car park, marked RCH and that's where the car was. Those parking in these spaces are entitled to park free of charge for up to 5 hours and are required to enter their registration in a touchscreen mounted on the wall inside the hall.  The exemption is stated on the hall’s webpage.  The driver did this, as they have done on numerous occasions before and since. 

Neither the signs nor the NTK mention any such obligation nor any possible charge for a VRM keypad breach.  In fact this was a failure of the system, because the driver did exactly as they always do and the session was showing on screen as authorised. The NTK was not issued for failure to input the VRM; instead it suggests a breach that does not exist when attending the Rosebird Community Hall, while using the hall.  

There was no breach of relevant advertised terms. At best, the operator might have claimed this was a major keying error (failure to input VRM on the keypad - which is denied). But in any case, the NTK was not issued for this reason and there can be no 'failure to pay' for those attending the Rosebird Community Hall.

Further, given the driver has not been identified, even though the NTK attempts to use POFA wording, as a matter of law it fails to invoke 'keeper liability' because it fails Schedule 4, para 9(2)b which says the Notice MUST:

(c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

There is also a lack of 'adequate notice of a parking charge' (second POFA failure) because there is no such warning beside the keypad inside the centre, and the signs outside only mention a parking charge for failure to pay a tariff. This is irrelevant to the reserved bays and Centre service users.

Thirdly (final POFA failure) to hold a keeper liable, there must have been a breach of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation'.  The operator has tried to invoke an irrelevant term in an area of the car park not subject to pay and display.

Without a 'relevant obligation/contract' in existence for the Centre reserved bays, there was no breach, no charge, and no liability. Effectively, there is a mini car park within the car park and the operator's ANPR cameras and signs fail to account for the completely different rules that apply to the reserved bays. POPLA will not be able to find that this PCN - issued for an incorrect and irrelevant reason - was properly given.  Therefore the operator is urged to cancel and revisit their irrelevant signage and their lax ANPR camera positioning, and should install an exempting camera and signage with different terms at the 5 reserved bays.

Fruitcake

You need to complain to the landowner then, not their ignorant sub-contractor.

Is it's full name The Bird Group of Companies Ltd?

The Bird Group Of Companies Limited company directors (Company Number: 02559444) at The Hunting Lodge, Billesley Road Upper Billesley, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire, CV37 9RA - UK (!!!!!!)

bunkersoldier

Coupon-mad said:

OK.  Sounds like a complete idiot.

Re an appeal, I would appeal in his name as KEEPER (not saying who was driving) and say:


The signs only talk about 'pay and display' but there was no obligation to do so, when parking in the reserved spaces for Rosebird Community Hall, while using the hall.

The hall has 5 of its own spaces within the car park, marked RCH and that's where the car was. Those parking in these spaces are entitled to park free of charge for up to 5 hours and are required to enter their registration in a touchscreen mounted on the wall inside the hall.  The exemption is stated on the hall’s webpage.  The driver did this, as they have done on numerous occasions before and since. 

Neither the signs nor the NTK mention any such obligation nor any possible charge for a VRM keypad breach.  In fact this was a failure of the system, because the driver did exactly as they always do and the session was showing on screen as authorised. The NTK was not issued for failure to input the VRM; instead it suggests a breach that does not exist when attending the Rosebird Community Hall, while using the hall.  

There was no breach of relevant advertised terms. At best, the operator might have claimed this was a major keying error (failure to input VRM on the keypad - which is denied). But in any case, the NTK was not issued for this reason and there can be no 'failure to pay' for those attending the Rosebird Community Hall.

Further, given the driver has not been identified, even though the NTK attempts to use POFA wording, as a matter of law it fails to invoke 'keeper liability' because it fails Schedule 4, para 9(2)b which says the Notice MUST:

(c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

There is also a lack of 'adequate notice of a parking charge' (second POFA failure) because there is no such warning beside the keypad inside the centre, and the signs outside only mention a parking charge for failure to pay a tariff. This is irrelevant to the reserved bays and Centre service users.

Thirdly (final POFA failure) to hold a keeper liable, there must have been a breach of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation'.  The operator has tried to invoke an irrelevant term in an area of the car park not subject to pay and display.

Without a 'relevant obligation/contract' in existence for the Centre reserved bays, there was no breach, no charge, and no liability. Effectively, there is a mini car park within the car park and the operator's ANPR cameras and signs fail to account for the completely different rules that apply to the reserved bays. POPLA will not be able to find that this PCN - issued for an incorrect and irrelevant reason - was properly given Therefore the operator is urged to cancel and revisit their irrelevant signage and their lax ANPR positioning, and should install an exempting camera and signage with different terms at the 5 reserved bays.

That’s superb! Thank you very much, Coupon-mad.

bunkersoldier

Fruitcake said:

You need to complain to the landowner then, not their ignorant sub-contractor.

Is it's full name The Bird Group of Companies Ltd?

The Bird Group Of Companies Limited company directors (Company Number: 02559444) at The Hunting Lodge, Billesley Road Upper Billesley, Stratford Upon Avon, Warwickshire, CV37 9RA - UK (!!!!!!)

Yes, that’s the company. I did complain directly to the landowner via the email address on their website and their own ignorant Property Manager replied, not a sub-contractor.

Fruitcake

There are a number of directors detailed in that link. I would fire off a complaint to all of them if it were me.

bunkersoldier

Fruitcake said:

There are a number of directors detailed in that link. I would fire off a complaint to all of them if it were me.

Thanks, I’ll do that.