Parking Group PCN - Chester le Street

jozxyqk

(part 4)

4) No evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

PGL’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle was present in the car park on 06 December 2022. At no stage does PGL explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012. It is not in the gift of PGL to withhold the PoFA requirement for the period of parking - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

Time-stamped pictures were only provided by PGL in their appeal rejection letter dated 22 December 2022. According to the time stamps on the images (whose accuracy has not been verified), these indicate that the car was parked at approximately 1730 and 1740 on 06 December 2022. PGL have not stated the period of parking and only provided 2 unclear pictures that were not time-stamped in their NtK.

I require PGL to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date, time, for the duration claimed and at the location stated in the NtK.

 

END

jozxyqk

Am I right in thinking there's no point in arguing the charge is disproportionate vs their alleged losses?

KeithP

jozxyqk said:

Am I right in thinking there's no point in arguing the charge is disproportionate vs their alleged losses?

Correct.        

patient_dream

jozxyqk said:

Just this one, I can head back and get more.

There simply is no signage to warn people

The entry sign seems to be a cloned copy of the rubbish UKPC signs
BINOCULARS REQUIRED TO READ THE SMALL PRINT ?

The BPA constantly tell us they audit these car parks >   This is another one they missed or is DURHAM too far from Haywards Heath ?

And, Parking Group Limited ?   These bods have grand thoughts, this is is a one man band, one active director and one resigned

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12424996/persons-with-significant-control

GROUP ? HaHA

WAKEY WAKEY BPA

jozxyqk

Brief update: I submitted my POPLA appeal last Sunday, 13 pages total.

I had a brief letter from my MP yesterday confirming that he's written to the PPC to raise my concerns etc. I don't expect them to pay much attention but it's nice to have some support.

1505grandad

" I don't expect them to pay much attention but it's nice to have some support."

Should do  -  after all this is in BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020:-

"9.7 At a time when the private parking sector is under

intense scrutiny from Government, it is imperative that

correspondence from MPs (and similar VIPs) is dealt with

promptly with definitive and comprehensive responses

given. When such correspondence is received, we expect

you to acknowledge the communication within 10 days

and respond within 28 days. If the complaint will take

longer than 28 days to resolve, we expect you to update

the MP of this. Failure to achieve these deadlines may be

considered a Sanctionable Breach of the Code."

jozxyqk

I was in the town centre yesterday (using a council car park, natch!) and walked by this one. This may be a coincidence, but they've put up 2 new (larger) signs at the entrance. Ridiculously small T&Cs and poor general signs and lighting are still present.

Good job I took pics earlier, as advised here

jozxyqk

Well, the PPC submitted their response to POPLA, I found out on deadline day yesterday. They haven't written anything impressive and I will respond within the 7 days. I'll list their points and my ideas to rebut them below - could someone knowledgable please go through and comment on which to change / leave out / what to add? TIA.

1. They say that their PCN form has been audited on many occasions by BPA and passed. Maybe, but the PCN still didn't say how long the vehicle was there for or provide clear pics showing the vehicle and signage in place.

2. "The appellant has raised concerns that the signage is not clear and more so on an evening which I disagree with.....photographs show that the lighting is on and signage is visible from the location the vehicle is parked...T&Cs are visible and easily readable". They can disagree, but even their pics show the signage is inadequate, proving my point. It isn't shown in the same pics as the vehicle.

3. They say one of my pics shows an area not under their control. Irrelevant, but this reinforces my point about poor lighting and signage as this is not at all obvious on site.

4. For some reason they've challenged a comment I made about there being 3 entrances, saying one of them is exit only. Irrelevant - I won't pick this up.

5. They've included all pics they took in December, again showing poor lighting and signage. Worth repeating the point that the lighting and signage is poor? Or just make one solid point covering this?

6. They've also included a bunch of pics taken in daylight, again demonstrating the poor signs. They've even timestamped some taken in January 2023 (ie, after the event), showing 2 new signs at the entrance. Basically proving my point about the inadequate signage in place in December - they've started putting more up.

7. They've included a contract with the landowner, Cestria Estates Limited, which says it includes authority to carry out parking enforcement etc. The contract start was 01 Sep 2021 and it is a 12 month rolling one. Parts of it are redacted (contact details, a line below the contract dates, financial aspects, signatures). Do the redacted bits invalidate it for my purposes?

jozxyqk

1505grandad said:

" I don't expect them to pay much attention but it's nice to have some support."

Should do  -  after all this is in BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020:-

"9.7 At a time when the private parking sector is under

intense scrutiny from Government, it is imperative that

correspondence from MPs (and similar VIPs) is dealt with

promptly with definitive and comprehensive responses

given. When such correspondence is received, we expect

you to acknowledge the communication within 10 days

and respond within 28 days. If the complaint will take

longer than 28 days to resolve, we expect you to update

the MP of this. Failure to achieve these deadlines may be

considered a Sanctionable Breach of the Code."

If they fail to respond to my MP, what's the best route to highlight this? To POPLA or directly to the BPA? They haven't acknowledged within 10 days so he's written again.

patient_dream

jozxyqk said:

1505grandad said:

" I don't expect them to pay much attention but it's nice to have some support."

Should do  -  after all this is in BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020:-

"9.7 At a time when the private parking sector is under

intense scrutiny from Government, it is imperative that

correspondence from MPs (and similar VIPs) is dealt with

promptly with definitive and comprehensive responses

given. When such correspondence is received, we expect

you to acknowledge the communication within 10 days

and respond within 28 days. If the complaint will take

longer than 28 days to resolve, we expect you to update

the MP of this. Failure to achieve these deadlines may be

considered a Sanctionable Breach of the Code."

If they fail to respond to my MP, what's the best route to highlight this? To POPLA or directly to the BPA? They haven't acknowledged within 10 days so he's written again.

It depends just how good your MP is, if he is ignored then the information should be passed to the Dept of Levelling Up for the personal attention of Mr Gove .... by your MP

It surely won't be too long before the parking industry publish a book ... "PARKING FOR DUMMIES, Written by dummies"

A perect job for the BPA