PCN issued at Matisse road Hounslow by private parking solutions (London) limited - appeal rejected

Bob50000

Hi wajira27 - I have just received a PCN for the same location as yours, in very similar circumstances.   I just wanted to see how your appeal is progressing?  Did you reach a resolution?  This is such an utter scam from the parking company.

Umkomaas

Bob50000 said:

Hi wajira27 - I have just received a PCN for the same location as yours, in very similar circumstances.   I just wanted to see how your appeal is progressing?  Did you reach a resolution?  This is such an utter scam from the parking company.

Last visit to the forum was some 6 weeks ago, so might not see your post - try sending a PM which should generate an email informing of your attempt to contact. 

wajira27

Hi All, quick update my appeal to POLA is unsuccessful!

I was away on holiday and only got back recently.
It seems that POPLA twist their reasoning for not allowing appeals for their advantage.

If you look at their reasoning for not allowing appeals for the same parking space at Matisse road, it’s all different!

They have concluded that I was unauthorised to park there and hence the 5-minute grace period is not applicable.

 

I will post their full reply below….

wajira27

Decision : Unsuccessful

Assessor Name : Rebecca Appleton

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They stopped briefly in the bay as their son had a medical emergency. • They did not see or notice the ‘no parking sign’ before entering the bay. • The parking signs are not clear. • No grace period was given to allow them to observe the notice and understand the terms. • The operator has provided no evidence of landowner authority. • No contract was formed with them and the operator. • The location and description of the incident is incorrect. • The parking attendant is in breach of the British Parking Association code of practice. Section 9. Professionalism. • The photos provided by the operator were not collected in an orderly manner. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided: • Letters from consultants regarding their sons medical conditions. as evidence to support their appeal. • A copy of their sons’ prescription. • Photograph of the area they had parked in. • Photos of the parking attendant on site. • Photo of the parking attendant’s vehicle on site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist may form a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs within the car park which state motorists must not park at any time. Failure to comply with the terms will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice. The parking operator has provided photos of the vehicle parked on site, in a no parking area. I will now assess the appellants grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. In this case the appellant states they parked on site as their son had a medical emergency. The appellant has provided supporting evidence to show their sons medical conditions. I note and understand the circumstances the appellant found themselves in that day and I empathise with those outlined. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. That said, we have referred the case back to the operator, explaining the mitigating circumstances surrounding the parking event, and to ask it to consider cancelling the PCN. I should explain that they are not obligated to do this as it is a commercial decision that POPLA cannot influence. In this case, the operator has said they wish to pursue the charge – which they are entitled to do. As such, we can only assess the appeal based on the evidence provided by both parties and any relevant terms and conditions within the car park itself. We cannot consider any mitigating circumstances at this point.” The appellant has raised the inadequacy of the signs on site. 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 there are sufficient signs informing motorists of the terms. This is also shown in the photos provided by the appellant. It is clear the appellant has parked adjacent to a no parking sign on site. As such I am satisfied the appellant would have been aware they were not able to park on site. The appellant has stated no grace period was given to allow them to agree to the contract therefore no contract was entered into. It is important to consider whether the operator has acted appropriately before taking enforcement action. I refer to section 13.1 British Parking Association Code of Practice “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 dependent on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes”. As the site in which the appellant parked on does not permit parking I feel it is important to refer to the following. 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. As such there is no requirement for the operator to offer a consideration period in this case. Furthermore whilst the evidence provided by the operator shows the vehicle on site for 2 minutes, the vehicle is parked. I note the appellant has provided photos of the parking attendant however this time could have been used to leave the site after reading the terms displayed. Although I note that the appellant has commented on the parking attendants conduct however, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator directly. The appellant states the location of the incident is incorrect. In response to this the appellant has provided images taken from an online mapping tool. The operator has responded to this by providing a map of the site. I am satisfied this confirms the appellant was parked on Holloway Street. The appellant says the parking operator does not have the authority to issue charges on this land. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked in a no parking area and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

fisherjim

B789 said:

I still think you should highlight to the POPLA assessor that, irrespective of what they decide regarding the validity of the contract between the landowner and the PPC, there was no contract between the driver and the PPC because of the forbidding sign.

Just two legs about "contracts" that you can use in your POPLA appeal. The PPC has to either rebut or lose and the assessor also knows this.

@w@wajira27 Did you actually mention this in your POPLA appeal because they don't seem to have addressed it, even though they state there can be no grace period because there is no offer to park?

They have yet again made a complete pigs ear of it in favour of a scam, if there is no parking service to offer, hence no contract, the charge must be a penalty for trespass which it cannot be!

Coupon-mad

Laughable innit? You won't be paying anything.

They even referred the mitigating circumstances to the scumbags who said "no":

" That said, we have referred the case back to the operator, explaining the mitigating circumstances surrounding the parking event, and to ask it to consider cancelling the PCN. I should explain that they are not obligated to do this as it is a commercial decision that POPLA cannot influence. In this case, the operator has said they wish to pursue the charge"

Obviously ignore the £170 colourful threatograms!

wajira27

fisherjim said:

B789 said:

I still think you should highlight to the POPLA assessor that, irrespective of what they decide regarding the validity of the contract between the landowner and the PPC, there was no contract between the driver and the PPC because of the forbidding sign.

Just two legs about "contracts" that you can use in your POPLA appeal. The PPC has to either rebut or lose and the assessor also knows this.

@w@wajira27 Did you actually mention this in your POPLA appeal because they don't seem to have addressed it, even though they state there can be no grace period because there is no offer to park?

They have yet again made a complete pigs ear of it in favour of a scam, if there is no parking service to offer, hence no contract, the charge must be a penalty for trespass which it cannot be!

yes i did explain - there was no contract between the driver and the PPC because of the forbidding sign.

wajira27

Coupon-mad said:

Laughable innit? You won't be paying anything.

They even referred the mitigating circumstances to the scumbags who said "no":

" That said, we have referred the case back to the operator, explaining the mitigating circumstances surrounding the parking event, and to ask it to consider cancelling the PCN. I should explain that they are not obligated to do this as it is a commercial decision that POPLA cannot influence. In this case, the operator has said they wish to pursue the charge"

Obviously ignore the £170 colourful threatograms!

Do you think i can win if this get escalated to court?

Coupon-mad

But POPLA doesn't consider that. Nor mitigating circumstances. I wouldn't have bothered with POPLA.  But no harm done!

Forbidding signs are not a silver bullet for court either, but lack of consideration period would be.  No Judge would say you agreed to a contract on signs within 2 minutes under the circumstances.

B789

Just goes to show you how imbecilic POPLA can be when they try hard enough:

"When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract."

Perhaps a letter to POPLA highlighting their contradictory "consideration". Ask them to explain how a forbidding sign can ever form a contract. Not that it will do any good as they will never admit making an error but it does highlight to them and any reference to it in the DLUHC IA how absurd this unregulated joke of an organisation is.