PCN - Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

auteur

Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has submitted their response to the POPLA appeal, posted below. RK now has ability to submit their own comment response.

PPS don't appear to have any new argument and most importantly seem set to completely ignore the 'forbidding signage' issue and the fact that no contract was ever formed. This seems by far the most important legal aspect and they surely have no leg to stand on. 

Also, it's all very well saying they manage the broad piece of land that is referred to on the PCN, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not actually where the vehicle was. 

Apart from the written response below, they just attach the correspondence and photos so far, no new attached evidence. 

Any suggestions on how RK may respond via POPLA? There is 7 days to submit a comment response before final adjudication by POPLA.

Thank you!

Dear Assessor, When entering into a private parking environment the landowner is entitled to set its own parking terms and conditions that they consider are necessary to form a contract with a motorist. The contract that the private landowner offers is within the terms and conditions of parking and these are set out in the signage that is offered on site. The contract formed when parking is between the motorist and the operator through the terms and conditions set out on the signage. The signage at the location in question is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "No parking at any time. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in a parking charge notice of £100 being issued". The charge was issued because the appellant’s vehicle was parked within a strictly no parking at any time area, which is a direct contravention of the terms and conditions of parking. The warden’s photographic evidence further supports this, showing that the vehicle has been observed not being parked under the car park’s terms within close proximity to visible notices on display, which indicated that parking is not permitted and further stating that there is no waiting at any time in the area. The terms were adequately brought to the motorist's attention. Therefore, if they choose to ignore the terms and continue to park on this site, they are accepting liability and are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge. In regard to grace periods, Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that 'the driver must have the chance to consider the terms and conditions before deciding whether they wish to park and use the site or to leave the car park. Therefore, there must be a reasonable consideration period to give the driver time to leave before they are bound by the parking contract. The amount of time given will vary dependant on the size and type of the site, but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes'. Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states 'there are instances where unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period. This includes parking in prohibited areas'. The signage clearly states that parking is not permitted at this location and there are no exemptions listed on the signage, therefore, the driver should have quickly established that they were not permitted to remain at the site and under section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, the driver was not entitledto a consideration period. Therefore, the PCN has been issued correctly, as we are not under any obligation to offer a consideration period as it would not apply in designated area such as a no parking area. In line with the signage, the vehicle was not authorised to park in this area, therefore the appellant was not entitled to park or remain during their stay on the site. By instead choosing to remain, they contravened the parking contract and this has resulted in them being liable for a PCN. The appellant has also disputed the location where the vehicle was parked. In response to this, we are providing evidence of the agreement we have with the landowner confirming our position to conduct parking management for BT EALING GREEN, EALING, W5 5EJ. The sitemap confirming our jurisdiction, which is highlighted in red, shows its area. The warden’s photos show that the appellant’s vehicle is parked on the land that we manage, which is also demonstrated by the signs in sight of the appellant’s vehicle. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions and ensure they adhere to the terms in order to avoid the possibility of a PCN being issued.

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread already covers POPLA Comments stage. You have 6 days not 7 because the day POPLA emailed you was 'day one'.

PPS don't appear to have any new argument and most importantly seem set to completely ignore the 'forbidding signage' issue and the fact that no contract was ever formed. This seems by far the most important legal aspect and they surely have no leg to stand on. 

Errrrr...except that POPLA don't consider legal aspects.  Please don't make your comments about this non-point.

They have NEVER made a decision about forbidding signs (and most Judges wouldn't agree with that, either, IMHO).  It's a niche argument, not a silver bullet and never one to win at POPLA.

auteur

Thanks for your feedback! The contract and forbidding signage point is interesting, as it is favourably mentioned and recommended across advice forums.

I've had a look through the threads mentioned, thank you. I believe I'm still best to post here, but tell me if I'm wrong. 

This is what I have so far. I feel it can probably be better (a bit less wordy and perhaps a couple more points). I appreciate the forbidding signage point is slapped right up top despite the comments, but it's all a draft for now. But any advice is massively appreciated.

• PPS does not address and thus accepts the aspect of forbidding signage; there was no offer and no contract was entered into. PPS does not address the provided case examples in relation to this. With the acceptance of this argument (no engaged response) the appeal must succeed on this basis. 
• PPS has breached PoFA Sc4, Sec9[2a]. ‘The notice must specify…the relevant land on which it was parked’. W5 5EJ is not an accurate postcode for the location of the vehicle. An alleged and unsigned contract with BT is immaterial; the postcode is incorrect and there is no appended map where indicated. A separate attached screenshot of Google Maps is irrelevant and uncertified, does not disprove inaccurate location on PCN, and instead reinforces breach of PoFA. The information on a PCN must be accurate. The appeal must succeed on this basis.
• PPS does not address - and thus accepts - the mandatory provisions of PoFA Sc4, Sec9[2a] ‘The notice must specify…the period of parking to which the notice relates’. A single ‘incident time’ is printed on the PCN but there is no ‘period of parking’ as required and there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read any implied terms. 
• PPS is non-compliant with BPA’s Code of Practice. PCN is is breach of 13.1 and has misinterpreted 13.4. ‘No parking’ is not a designated area and is not listed or implied in 13.4. ‘No Parking’ is an indicated term that would need to be considered, but it is clearly forbidding. The vehicle was in place for less than 5 minutes to consider parking and PPS do not deny this. The appeal must succeed on the basis that PPS ‘must provide a reasonable consideration period to leave…it must be a minimum of 5 minutes’.
• PPS is a private company and cannot impose a parking ‘penalty’ and the ‘notice’ which was issued is invalid, the appeal must therefore succeed. 

auteur

This is a POPLA appeal win this year based on forbidding signage, for reference! Against PPS London no less.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79020989/#Comment_79020989


I've just noticed something else, which may be or may not be relevant R.E. landowner authority. They provide a generic agreement with BT to certify landowner authority, with the start date being March 2021. 

This agreement shall remain in force for the minimum period of 12 months from the signed date. Period of validity shall be automatically extended by another 12 months and shall continue thereafter; until a termination of the contract is requested from any of the parties.
Termination of contract- must be requested in writing, a 28 days’ notice must be given by either party.

Is the wording and practice of 'auto-renewal' valid? It is obviously outside of the initial 12 months, perhaps not having an up-to-date contract goes against them? Landowner authority could have been cancelled and they could continue to rely on this document regardless.

Coupon-mad

Wow! I take it back!

Forgot that one. Most unusual for POPLA.

You must quote it in full and could pm Indie Girl and ask for her Assessor's name, POPLA Code and date of decision.  Maybe she'll see your pm.

auteur

POPLA have finally got back with a decision - unsuccessful. which is both unsurprising (from those telling me they effectively work for (funded by) the private parking companies), but also surprising given I referenced an identical case which was successful. Unfortunately when I had to submit my final comments, I did not have full details of the identical case so could only provide limited info - POPLA did not address my referencing of the other case at all.

The main point they seem to be trying to push is that because the driver cannot be seen in any of the photos taken over a 3 minute period, that it is clearly a 'parking event' and not a 'consideration' event. I'm not entirely sure how clear the CoP needs to be, considering it mentions nothing about the driver needing to be photographed with the vehicle at all times.

If PPS take this to court, is this worth fighting? What financial penalties as RK am I looking at if I am unsuccessful at that stage? Any advice or info is appreciated.

POPLA summary below (paragraphs my own):

As the driver has not been identified I must check that the PCN issued is compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. For the operator to successfully transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper, the operator must issue a Notice to keeper under using the PoFA 2012 and must comply with paragraph 9. I have reviewed the notice to keeper provided, and I am satisfied that it has been issued in accordance with PoFA and has met section 9. The keeper can now be held liable for any unpaid parking charges, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the signs state “…NO PARKING AT ANY TIME…unauthorsied parking will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice...By parking on this land you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge...”. I note the appellant has advised that the terms are forbidding, and no contract was formed. The terms on the signs form the contract and by remaining on the site, even for a short period, the driver has entered into a contract with the parking operator. 

Section 13.4 of the Code of Practice states that unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users or where parking is not allowed. The signs at the site state that there is no parking at any time, in the images provided by the parking operator the appellants vehicle is parked next to a sign for around 3 minutes 30 seconds, no one is seen reading the sign and the car is empty. If the driver was reading the terms, it would not of took them 3 minutes 30 seconds to read them and leave the area when they read, they were not allowed to park in the area.

Section 13.6 of the Code of Practice states that a consideration period is not a period of free parking, if the driver was entitled to a consideration period, they were not using it to read the signs and a consideration period is not a period of free parking so by the vehicle remaining at the site a parking event has taken place as the driver is not in their vehicle or reading the sign next to the vehicle. 

The parking charge issued is not a penalty and this has been ruled through the courts. If a parking operator is authorised to manage the land on behalf of the landowner, they are within their rights to issue parking charges in instances where parking terms are breached. The parking operator has provided a copy of the landowner contract that shows they can operate on the land the PCN was issued on. The parking operator has also identified the land the PCN was issued on the PCN, the site map and landowner document confirm this was the land the PCN was issued on, so I am satisfied that the parking operator has complied with all PoFA requirements. The appellant has not provided any evidence that shows this was not the land the vehicle was on when the PCN was issued. 

Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. In this case, the driver entered the car park in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to seek out the terms of parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Based on the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly and as such, the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Did that clueless POPLA Assessor help in the push to kill the English Language by actually typing "of" here?!

it would not of took them 3 minutes 30 seconds

If they take it to court you'd almost certainly win.

No risk.  Total sum awarded is c£200 (all told) if people manage to lose because there are added small court fees, but that's all.  Highly unlikely and no CCJ - not even if you lost because you'd just pay within 30 days.

You will get debt demands for £170 which you must ignore, except to tell the PPC and their agents if you move house within 6 years, and to erase your old address from their databases if you do move.

Otherwise sit on your hands and laugh at the daft debt demands of £170!   Covered in the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread. We don't want to see those letters ever again, thanks!

Cheerfully ignore them.  But keep the letters.

See you for the vital private parking  Public Consultation, discussed here soon I am sure.  Explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79803066/#Comment_79803066

Don't disappear!

You will want your voice heard by the Government, when you are getting the 'scary' inflated threatograms this Spring.

This is your one chance to help change the law about the level of parking charges and the banning of the false added 'fees'.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Did that clueless POPLA Assessor help in the push to kill the English Language by actually typing "of" here?!

it would not of took them 3 minutes 30 seconds

If they take it to court you'd almost certainly win.

Not to mention "took" instead of "taken" and they've never actually stood in a car park trying to read the signs and understand all the gobbledegook on them!

auteur

Coupon-mad said:

Did that clueless POPLA Assessor help in the push to kill the English Language by actually typing "of" here?!

it would not of took them 3 minutes 30 seconds

If they take it to court you'd almost certainly win.

No risk.  Total sum awarded is c£200 (all told) if people manage to lose because there are added small court fees, but that's all.  Highly unlikely and no CCJ - not even if you lost because you'd just pay within 30 days.

You will get debt demands for £170 which you must ignore, except to tell the PPC and their agents if you move house within 6 years, and to erase your old address from their databases if you do move.

Otherwise sit on your hands and laugh at the daft debt demands of £170!   Covered in the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread. We don't want to see those letters ever again, thanks!

Cheerfully ignore them.  But keep the letters.

See you for the vital private parking  Public Consultation, discussed here soon I am sure.  Explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79803066/#Comment_79803066

Don't disappear!

You will want your voice heard by the Government, when you are getting the 'scary' inflated threatograms this Spring.

This is your one chance to help change the law about the level of parking charges and the banning of the false added 'fees'.

I appreciate this is a rather obvious question, but at court I would just reiterate the arguments that have already been made in my appeals so far? These are the bases on which you believe I may be successful?

Is there a particular point you would focus on?

Coupon-mad

You'd use our template defence.  We do this every day.  No doubt you noticed every thread apart from yours and a couple of others, is about court claims!