Wye Valley Visitor Centre ParkingEye POPLA Appeal

drbayleaf

I now realise that Dropbox doesn't enable shared linked to be removed - so I had to delete the file itself. The second upload just contained the bits without personal info. Sorry again.

Coupon-mad

No worries. I gave you some wording for your concise POPLA comments, nothing has changed.

drbayleaf

My evidence rebuttle text ready.
And in researching this I found a successful POPLA appeal shown on the TripAdvisor FAQ in very similar circumstances - https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/FAQ_Answers-g190769-d2292866-t4305980-What_are_you_doing_about_the_parking_I_would_not.html

The Supply Agreement presented here by ParkingEye as "proof" that ParkingEye have Landowner Authority not correctly dated - being left blank - with only the year 2017 printed by default. This renders the "Effective Date" of the contract ambiguous.

Following this on the second page, just above the landowners signatures (dated 26 February 2017) and ParkingEye signature (dated 3 March 2017), it stats the term commences on the Effective Date (unclearly "2017", but could be assumed March when the contract was finally signed) and expires 36 months later. This contract is for three years and would have ended in March 2020. This document is expired and as no other evidence is shown of this being extended ParkingEye have not proved they have Landowner Authority to issue PCNs.

Given that ParkingEye are fighting this appeal of this PCN issued for a parking session that had allegedly 'expired' (which it had not given my evidence) I put it to POPLA that there cannot be one rule for them and another for the appellant. The PCN must be cancelled due to no evidence of landowner authority in 2023.

In addition the Terms and Conditions of Supply document is heavily redacted, critically the sections concerning the rights of cancellations and any regarding the allowance of an arrival grace period at this rural location, to allow time to park, pay at a machine or to download the app. Moreover, even the un-redacted sections are presented at such low resolution to make them deliberately obscure and largely unreadable. The operator can't rely only on the BPA CoP 10 minutes' grace, in cases where a LARGE public-facing rural venue like this almost certainly offers longer (and that is impossible to determine from the evidence presented).  Court of Appeal authority in Hancock v Promontoria states that where a contract that has been disclosed stands to be interpreted by a court/tribunal regarding liability, it must NOT be redacted.

ParkingEye have not shown any evidence at all of the claimed 'two payment machines' and only one was seen and it was out of order which takes extra time after parking, to discover the machine malfunction and then read a sign, look for an alternative and try to download an app and then make a successful booking. ParkingEye have clearly failing to maintain the parking machine as TripAdvisor reviews at least as far back as May 2022 make reference to the machine being out of order. One year seems an inadequate time to fix a meter which must be generating a lot of PCNs due to similar payment related troubles.

ParkingEye have not shown evidence that payments were being successfully made by ANY method during the time between arriving and managing to pay, just like all the other delayed visitors who were faced with a non-functioning machine then overloaded and the unreliable app's payment authorisation system. ParkingEye have made no mention of the vicissitude caused by the apps failure to authorise payment.

Section 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

None of the signage in the carpark (or reproduced here) states ParkingEye are using the ANPR-captured time-of-entry into the carpark as the exact time at which they determine the contact having been entered into. Given the critical importance that ParkingEye is levelling on that precise timestamp it seems inappropriate to withhold that information from the driver. Furthermore the entrance sign only states that a tariff is payable by machine (which is broken) or by phone - meaning no one is able to view any of the detailed signs before ParkingEye have made the assumption that a contract has already been entered into. Furthermore, according to the evidence images provided by ParkingEye the entrance sign does not include the “Managed by” text which is required by the BPA CoP.

ParkingEye have made no attempt to recognise that the paid parking was complied with in good faith with the driver leaving well within the allotted time. If ParkingEye are going to time from point-of-entry then they should make that statement clear and obvious on ALL signage and furthermore, given internet communication technology, share that timestamp data point with PayByPhone app so the driver can be fully informed as to the time from which ParkingEye are determining the contract having been entered into. This would constitute fair practice.

Coupon-mad

Seems fine.

Not_A_Hope

One year seems an inadequate time to fix a meter 

Did you mean to use ‘inadequate’?

None of the signage in the carpark (or reproduced here) states ParkingEye are using the ANPR-captured time-of-entry into the carpark as the exact time at which they determine the contact having been entered into

Typo - should be contract.

You might want to check for any other minor errors

drbayleaf

I studied their photos with a fine tooth-comb and found inconsistency in their sign images. I also noticed in one of their photos from the carpark had a clear picture of a car and numberplate - which constitutes Personal Data under GDPR rules.... so i added this:

On close inspection of Sign Type 2 (page 48) and the supposed photograph of this sign type in situ (page 53) it is obvious despite the low pixelation, that the in-situ signs are different as the right edge of the small print text lines at the bottom follow a different pattern between the images. Therefore even this evidence of the signage can not be relied on as they are of different signs. Furthermore, the photograph on Page 37 used as supposed evidence of in-situ Sign Type 2 contains an image of a car with the number plate readable. Number plates are considered Personal Data and reproducing it without consent could be a breach of GDPR rules.

drbayleaf

POPLA - Unsuccessful.

Despte the Landowners agreement clearly being void, the fact that there was a photograph with a recent data seemed enough proof. The whole bloody thing is a scam (as we all know). Do I just pay-up now?

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant disputes that the operator has allowed a sufficient grace period. They question if the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue PCN. They dispute that the signs at the site are adequate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal they have also provided a copy of a receipt. They have commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention as they have confirmed this to the operator. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle.

The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs require drivers to make a payment using either the machines on site or the paybyphone app. They warn that if sufficient parking is not purchased a parking charge of £100 will apply. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle was on the car park for four hours and 16 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of a system printout, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park on the day in question, along with any payments made. The printout shows that the vehicle was registered with a payment allowing four hours parking. Based on this evidence the operator considers that a valid contract was formed.

I will now consider if the appellants grounds of appeal impact upon this.

The appellant disputes that the operator has allowed a sufficient grace period. A drivers parking starts when they enter the car park. This is allowable as section 13.1 of the British Parking Association code of practice requires the operator to provide the driver with a minimum of five minutes to decide if they are going to stay or go. The drive decided to remain parked so in accordance with Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association code of practice the consideration period does not apply. The time it took the driver to make their payment forms part of the drivers parking time and needs to be paid for. The payment app cannot tell when the driver entered the site so the driver is responsible for taking the time this into account. The court cases quoted by the appellant in their appeal are county court cases and therefore are not relevant to the outcome of this appeal.

The driver was able to make a payment using the paybyphone app which proves that this payment system was working. If no payment methods were available the driver would be required to leave the site so I cannot conclude that any breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has occurred. The appellant would have to raise any further concerns regarding this with the relevant authority.

[Landowner Authority]
They question if the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue PCN. The operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract it holds with the landowner. It has also provided photos showing the signs at the site. Section 7 of the British Parking Association code of practice requires the operator to hold a valid contract for a site it does not own. While the contract was signed in 2017 the photos of the signs are dated 2022. On the balance of probability having consider both sets of evidence I am satisfied that a valid contract does exist for the management of this site.

[Signage]
They dispute that the signs at the site are adequate. As I have stated above the operator has provided date and time stamped photos of the signs at the site and a site map. Section 19 of the British Parking Association code of practice sets the requirements for signs. The evidence shows that there are prominent white signs throughout the car park. The signs have the amount of the PCN in bold text providing adequate notice of the sum of the charge as was established in Parking Eye Ltd V Beavis. There is no requirement for the operator to have placed signs so it can be seen from every space within the car park only that there are enough signs that the terms and conditions were brought to the attention of the driver. As the driver has made a payment I am satisfied that they could see the signs proving that they were adequate on the date in question.

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal they have also provided a copy of a receipt. I have considered the document above. The receipt does not casts doubt on the operator’s list of payments. I have explained why time would show as remaining above.

They have commented on the parking operator’s evidence. In response to the appellants comments, there is no requirement for the operator to provide an unredacted contract. The signs do warn drivers regarding the use of ANPR cameras and this is included on the entrance sign.

The appellant did not present any evidence to cast doubt on the evidence of the signs provided by the operator(*).

The driver was able to make payment showing that there was at least one working payment method on the date in question. By parking on site for longer than they had paid for the driver has breached the terms and conditions for the use of the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

"The payment app cannot tell when the driver entered the site so the driver is responsible for taking the time this into account." << what a load of lazy lies.

Coupon-mad

Of course you don't pay.   Where in posts made in the bespoke 'POPLA DECISIONS' sticky thread (which you need to read the 2023 posts at least) do you see people with losing POPLA decisions told to pay?

Please read a few other losing decisions there and add yours there too, but break up that POPLA 'wall of words' into 10 paragraphs first.

Copying the decision from the POPLA website 'in a chunk' and not re-paragraph splitting it means it is never readable - so I confess I didn't try!

drbayleaf

@Coupon-mad - I've read through the Newbies thread a few times and it does make it clear not to pay up. I know to ignore (but keep) the debt collectors letters. But there is still a gap in understanding what happens next and the timeline of such.

For someone visual like me, something like a flow diagram showing the stages and likelihoods of each and you are in the process would be insightful. 

Questions I don't think are covered:
• after POPLA will I first get told to repay the existing fine or get sent the debt collector letters (which I keep & ignore)?
• will I definitely get a LBC, or do they only pick on a few to take further?
• does the £100 steadily increase as they add the cost of debt collector correspondence? (And is the court cost really only £25 + fine?)

bargepole was excellent. Again being dyslexic the idea of witting an argument, then presenting it eloquently and not getting in a middle muddle is extremely taxing and while I definitely don't want these criminals to simply "win", I can see the advantage of making it all go away.


Referenced Court Claim Procedure info: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1

Coupon-mad

Taken from the POPLA DECISIONS thread:

Questions I don't think are covered: 

• after POPLA will I first get told to repay the existing fine or get sent the debt collector letters (which I keep & ignore)?

A - you'll get a reminder to pay, if this is ParkingEye.  Debt collector letters might not come at all because:

 (a) ParkingEye don't usually do that, and

 (b) the Government are about to (THIS MONTH) announce the final stage of the new statutory regime.  Likely to put the cat among the pigeons... it would be stark staring mad if the DLUHC U-turns and allows +£70 to be added by DRA greedy bullyboys after they last year called out that fake 'fee' as 'extorting money from motorists';



• will I definitely get a LBC, or do they only pick on a few to take further?

A - ParkingEye will likely send a 'LBCCC' which is mentioned specifically in the NEWBIES thread because it's a chance to appeal to a new team of people;




• does the £100 steadily increase as they add the cost of debt collector correspondence?

A - Nope.  See above.  We hope it will be banned again this month.

ParkingEye have been adding £20 at LBCCC stage recently as a new trick, but (even if the DLUHC fails to ban it) they can't have it - or any 'admin/DRA/damages' add-on - because ParkingEye signs don't state it; 




(And is the court cost really only £25 + fine?)

A - It's not a fine!

Capped fees at court claim stage are £50 plus £35.