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

wajira27

Greatly appreciate if you can advise / comment on below.

in response to my POPLA , PPS have submitted following along with the cover information ( Which i have copied on to here earlier in full)
copy of PCN
My appeal letter
Their appeal rejection letter
copy of the landowner agreement
a separate map of the location
all photographic evidence submitted on the PCN etc.

I have concerns and question on some of the information and details submitted by PPS. See below my comments and understating of the areas of concern. please advise if I should raise these with POPLA.

The landowner contract provided by PPS expired on 01.09.2021 (1 year 8 months ago) even though there is an automatic renewal clause, no evidence provided to show this contract was renewed and is still in force. Contract was signed on 01.12.2019 and valid for minimum of 12 months with a 12 months extension applied automatically (As it says). So the contract should valid till 01.12.2021.

But the renewal date is stated as 01.09.2021. Which is contradicting to above validity date. It’s a legal document and dates are of paramount importance. Should I dispute this in my comments?

It’s mentioned in the contract document as “important point” under the issue of PCN's that - “If a driver leave the site” whilst his vehicle remains in the car park, and does not comply with the terms above he/ she will be liable to receive a parking charge.I I never left the car or the site and did not even get out of the vehicle during this 94 seconds period. 

The site map within the contract document which forms part of a legal contract is vague and unclear. No indication of the road name/s or location. I cannot see Holloway Street marked on site map which is critical information in a legal document, if the legal document to be valid. the map is the only document to verify the location accurately and vital information is omitted from this map.

Very important point - Please advise on this ( below is PPS argument for not to apply the grace period)

Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice permits the driver five minutes as a consideration period to read the terms and conditions to decide if they are going to stay or go. This time can only be used for this reason so as the appellant has confirmed that they were carrying out a medical procedure and not actively reading the signage, they have confirmed that they accepted the terms and conditions of the parking contract. This means that the consideration period would not apply.

I did not mention anywhere that I carried out any medical procedure in my appeal to PPS or in the POPLA appeal. what i mentioned is my son needs medical attention or procedure depending on the situation. I stopped there briefly to check on my son and asses the situation.

But PPS have concluded that i have carried out medical procedure! (within 94 seconds)

my question is the grace period applied conditionally? does the parking company required to stablish what the driver was doing during the grace period - to qualify or not to qualify to apply the grace period?

I have gone through the BPA code of practice section 13.1 and as far I can see the grace period should be applied unconditionally as long as the drive leaves the car park within the 5 minutes period.

Also PPS have attached a stand alone map showing the Matisse Road named as Holloway Street. it doesn't say what the source of the map or where it came from. the parking locations are marked on this map. I am planning to comment on this as it amount to misrepresentation of facts and false information provided. 

Thank you.

B789

There was no contract. If the sign was forbidding, then no contract can be formed.

In order for a contract to be formed, there must be a clear offer by one party and an acceptance of that offer by the other party. Additionally, both parties must provide some form of consideration, which is typically something of value that each party agrees to exchange.

A forbidding sign cannot form a contract with the driver of a car because it does not offer anything to the driver nor does it request anything in exchange. While a sign may include terms and conditions that purport to form a contract, these terms are not be enforceable as a contract due to the unilateral and non-negotiable nature in which they are presented.

wajira27

B789 said:

There was no contract. If the sign was forbidding, then no contract can be formed.

In order for a contract to be formed, there must be a clear offer by one party and an acceptance of that offer by the other party. Additionally, both parties must provide some form of consideration, which is typically something of value that each party agrees to exchange.

A forbidding sign cannot form a contract with the driver of a car because it does not offer anything to the driver nor does it request anything in exchange. While a sign may include terms and conditions that purport to form a contract, these terms are not be enforceable as a contract due to the unilateral and non-negotiable nature in which they are presented.

I have put this as a point in my POPLA appeal already.  Do I need to reiterate this point again in my comments?
Thanks 

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't.

I think your FIRST point should be that the minimum 5 minutes consideration period set in the BPA CoP is unconditional and when an operator chooses to use ANPR, they have no idea what the driver is doing during that period. But if a car leaves within 5 minutes, the driver has had an opportunity to read the signs and has clearly declined terms (by the conduct of leaving) so no PCN should ever be issued according to the BPA CoP..

Also, there was no medical procedure and the driver DID also look around for signs when entering and from the driver's seat whilst briefly stopped. Any signs were unlit and the terms not prominent at all (nothing could not actually be read from the car) but the car park looked uninviting and there was no intention to park or form any contract to park. The driver left within xx seconds so POPLA cannot conclude that the PCN was properly given. 

B789

wajira27 said:
I have put this as a point in my POPLA appeal already.  Do I need to reiterate this point again in my comments?

Have you? I see you have tried to argue that the "contract" is out of date. Whilst a valid point, you should also highlight the fact that whether the contract is out of date or not, there never was a contract entered into. If no contact could have been entered into, how can the PPC allege that you owe them any money for breaching the terms of a contract that never existed,

Use what I wrote as you see fit in your POPLA appeal. Just remember that not all assessors are equal. Emphasising your legal points is essential. If the day yours gets considered, it could be the tea boy assessing that day. He/she may or may not have a better understanding of contract law and how the PPC can or cannot form a contract for you to allegedly breach.

Coupon-mad

Was it ANPR or was it a lurking person with an iphone camera? Was it dark?

KeithP

There seems to be a little confusion here between a) the contract between the driver and the parking company, and b) the contract between the parking company and the site owner.

Also, I suggest that this sentence...

The landowner contract provided by PPS expired on 01.09.2021 (1 year 8 months ago) even though there is an automatic renewal clause, no evidence provided to show this contract was renewed and is still in force.

Would be better as...
The landowner contract provided by PPS expired on 01.09.2021 (1 year 8 months ago).
Why provide the parking company with a 'get out'?

wajira27

Coupon-mad said:

Was it ANPR or was it a lurking person with an iphone camera? Was it dark?

Yes it's the latter , a person with a mobile phone . It was mid day so the point about the poor lightning is not applicable. 

wajira27

B789 said:

wajira27 said:
I have put this as a point in my POPLA appeal already.  Do I need to reiterate this point again in my comments?

Have you? I see you have tried to argue that the "contract" is out of date. Whilst a valid point, you should also highlight the fact that whether the contract is out of date or not, there never was a contract entered into. If no contact could have been entered into, how can the PPC allege that you owe them any money for breaching the terms of a contract that never existed,

Use what I wrote as you see fit in your POPLA appeal. Just remember that not all assessors are equal. Emphasising your legal points is essential. If the day yours gets considered, it could be the tea boy assessing that day. He/she may or may not have a better understanding of contract law and how the PPC can or cannot form a contract for you to allegedly breach.

I was referring to contract between PPS and the land owner is expired as per the dates mentioned on the contract. But there is a automatic renewal clause within the contract,  but PPS have not provided any evidence or confirmation to say the contract is renewed. 

wajira27

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't.

I think your FIRST point should be that the minimum 5 minutes consideration period set in the BPA CoP is unconditional and when an operator chooses to use ANPR, they have no idea what the driver is doing during that period. But if a car leaves within 5 minutes, the driver has had an opportunity to read the signs and has clearly declined terms (by the conduct of leaving) so no PCN should ever be issued according to the BPA CoP..

Also, there was no medical procedure and the driver DID also look around for signs when entering and from the driver's seat whilst briefly stopped. Any signs were unlit and the terms not prominent at all (nothing could not actually be read from the car) but the car park looked uninviting and there was no intention to park or form any contract to park. The driver left within xx seconds so POPLA cannot conclude that the PCN was properly given. 

Thanks,  I will use the details from your points above.