Brocklebank retail park London Greenwich

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's in the bullet points I wrote for you already.  But I need to tweak them and will add a new reply now I've seen those photos.
 

Coupon-mad

POPLA Comments:

Evidence supports the appellant's case, that the parking areas at this retail site are insufficiently divided and signed. Most signs in evidence are on Savills land, not JLL.

- BPA CoP: 'A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area.' There is no sign at the entrance left turn where cars are caught by ANPR. There is no legend on the tarmac, no warning, nothing to tell drivers turning left to park, that this area is now different and has a far lower 'max stay' than the 3hrs free that faces drivers on arrival.

- there is no delineation between the areas to PROMINENTLY warn drivers that one part is 'Home Bargains only' or only 75mins. This always used to be one 3hr car park and looks no different.

- The pics of signs are mostly undated but show a ladder.  So these were taken in early 2021 when the signs were put up. No evidence they are there now.

- Only my photo is current (the MET parking sign) where 3hrs free is clearly offered. You can see it circled in the operator's pack. It's the only visible & readable sign on approach, facing drivers. It would need hugely prominent warnings to expect drivers to read more signs, having seen & accepted MET's offer.

- one Premier Park photo shows their sign with a small disclaimer sign above, identifying the landowner as 'Savills' who run the retail park units including Aldi. But the landowner contract is from JLL and only for 'unit 1'.

- Other evidence scene pics have 'June 2022' imprinted but are of '2 & 3 Brocklebank Road' (Aldi/other units addresses).  That's Savills retail land and not the unit 1 address covered by the JLL landowner authority! 

- there is no clear delineation of where one area ends & the other starts, nor evidence of where in the retail park I parked, given you can drive between. There's no barrier.  Nothing in evidence shows I didn't drive along lane 3 and 4 once inside, and in fact parked beside Aldi, which I did.

H_M3

Thanks CM for your detailed response! Please if anyone else wants to add things then please feel free. 

H_M3

Just some update, unfortunately Popla have rejected my appeal. (Very peeved)🗣

H_M3

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to exceeding the maximum stay period. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s handling of their appeal. They have also mentioned CCTV within their appeal. The appellant has questioned the signs within the car park. They have questioned grace period at the car park. They have questioned the reliability of the cameras used at the car park. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to manage the car park. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided images of signs from Brocklebank Retail park, and images from the Home Bargains car park. They have provided comments on the operator’s evidence pack. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has confirmed they were the driver of the vehicle on the day; therefore, I will be considering their liability for the PCN. The signage at the site states: “Home Bargains Customer Parking Only. Maximum stay 75 minutes…If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed you are agreeing to pay Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100…”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the appellant was at the car park for one hour 38 minutes, which is 23 minutes longer than allowed. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to exceeding the maximum stay period. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s handling of their appeal. For clarity, any customer service issues regarding the way the operator dealt with the appellant’s initial appeal are outside of POPLA’s remit, POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly in line with the advertised terms and conditions. They have also mentioned CCTV within their appeal. The site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, these cameras capture images of vehicles as they enter and exit the site, they do not capture images of internal movement within the car park itself. There is no evidence to suggest the operator has access to CCTV cameras. The appellant has questioned the signs within the car park. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet I note the images provide by the appellant; however, they have provided images of a different car park to where they parked on the day. Therefore, I can only consider evidence of signs from the car park where they parked on the day. In relation to signage, Section 19.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “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 be an 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.” Furthermore, Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. They have questioned grace period at the car park. In regard to grace/consideration period, the BPA 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. 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. As the site has a maximum allowed parking time the motorists time would start on entry, as the appellant exceeded the allowed parking time by 23 minutes it is evident the operator allowed a grace/consideration period before issuing the PCN. They have questioned the reliability of the cameras used at the car park. The parking operator has provided specific evidence documenting the vehicle entering and leaving the site at the times mentioned on the PCN, while the appellant has been unable to provide any evidence, which would cast doubt on the legitimacy of these images. I must accept that the images provided are a true reflection of the vehicles’ movements on the date of the contravention. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to manage the car park. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land, while the appellant has provided nothing to support their claims. Further, there are sufficient signs placed around the site as well as cameras. If the landowner did not want the operator to manage the site, I am fairly confident they would not allow such equipment within the site. Based on the evidence presented to me, I am satisfied the operator has permission from the landowner to manage the site. Despite the comprehensive set of comments I have identified no information that has any material bearing to my assessment of the PCN itself. The signage at the site is clear that exceeding the time limit, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the time limit, the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. It is the responsibility to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they exceeded the allowed parking time, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly I refuse this appeal.

H_M3

I sent picture of Saville signage that was in HB car park area so not sure why assessor ignored that.

Coupon-mad

H_M3 said:

I sent picture of Saville signage that was in HB car park area so not sure why assessor ignored that.

Nor are we. But a Judge wouldn't ignore it!

Le_Kirk

You do know that POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist?  Just keep an eye on your post and take action (as advised in NEWBIE second post) if you receive a letter of/before claim.  Also, if you move house, make sure you inform the PPC.

H_M3

Thanks guys just bit annoyed as to the assessor not considering all the facts. However, I have had some good news on this. Aldi have agreed that they will offer me voucher in the value of ticket if I did pay it. My argument is that the ticket was issued wrongly as they are clearly tricking motorists!! Scum

H_M3

Le_Kirk said:

You do know that POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist?  Just keep an eye on your post and take action (as advised in NEWBIE second post) if you receive a letter of/before claim.  Also, if you move house, make sure you inform the PPC.

How long normally before I receive letter before claim? Thanks