PCN - SECURE PARKING SOLOUTIONS

Joity

@Coupon-mad
 
Updated below. -Red back to black -Points removed -Badge photo embedded (front side only with no name or photo) -Point about the 1 hour offer added (1g)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BKRcZbTGrvaCAhUZy0hoowXoPZJUGKch/view?usp=sharing

The driver was only there for under 11 minutes.

Umkomaas

Joity said:

@Coupon-mad
 
Updated below. -Red back to black -Points removed -Badge photo embedded (front side only with no name or photo) -Point about the 1 hour offer added (1g)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BKRcZbTGrvaCAhUZy0hoowXoPZJUGKch/view?usp=sharing

The driver was only there for under 11 minutes.

Your appeal point 4 index heading - LA Advertising Consent (of little relevance, and POPLA won't adjudicate on it) and the actual appeal point 4 - ANPR Usage - don't match. Change the index heading.

1505grandad

Also CoP para re ANPR is #22

Joity

Guys..... Your all great @Umkomaas @1505grandad @Coupon-mad @KeithP @B789

Thanks please find hopefully the final update....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p5RiXISjlHKmI0CpV7C-phjQQXXJMUfW/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

I'd change the heading to point 2 to instead say that the sign within is non-prominent and unreadable but there IS an entrance sign and it offers 'one hour free parking' so there was no breach.

And in that point 2 about the signs, you should clearly state this right under the photo showing it.

To me, you've buried this silver bullet, hidden in point 1 about grace periods.

You need to shout about it in point 2!

Joity

Thanks @Coupon-mad
Updated 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QnWNLotKNGIUpWxm4ArE5vAv2j3k0zYa/view?usp=sharing

Joity

Hi Guys, Firstly just wanted to say a thank you to everyone.
I am looking to submit this today, so if i don't hear back from anyone in the next few hours i will go ahead submit and then feedback to you all once i get a result. 

Coupon-mad

I am not seeing my suggested words as the heading for point 2 and I still can't easily find that stated loudly (or at all) in point 2 underneath the photo of it.

The entrance sign on the left in your photo IS NOT unreadable!  Don't say that.  That's the point here, it offers an hour's free parking without caveat.

Joity

Hi @Coupon-mad sorry i had already submitted as i was going to be out of country and needed to before i left.
However, i have received a response from Secure Parking through Popla and i am now asked to provide comments. Below is the operator response... also in addition to the below they have sent through their own internal images and evidence of signs and the contract etc...let me know if you would like to see that and i can maybe email it to you guys. 
Please provide any advice in how i may respond. I have 7 days, well 6 now as this came through around 11pm last night.  

Operator Name

Secure Parking Solutions Ltd - EW

Operator Case Summary

The appellant has identified themselves as the keeper of the vehicle while they filed an appeal with the operator, as the notice has been issued as POFA compliant and given that no other driver has been nominated by the keeper they remain liable for the outstanding charge. Based on the appeal it is easy to deduce the keeper was the driver at the time of contravention as well. It is the motorists responsibility to ensure they are parking according to the terms and conditions of the car park. Parking according to the terms and conditions is a contractual requirement and if the motorist is unable to comply with the terms and conditions they must leave the parking site instead of assuming that they have some automatic right to park without a consent from the operator. As the vehicle was not registered on one of the four Kiosk terminals available inside the store the parking charge was issued. We have reviewed the kiosk records it is evident that the terminals were operational. However, as the vehicle remained on private land it was parked in breach of the terms and conditions a parking charge was issued after a considerable consideration period was provided to the vehicle as well, more than the duration required by BPA regulations.  It is also stated on the signage in case of not adhering with the contractual requirements that: ”BY PARKING OR REMAINING ON THIS LAND OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS LISTED BELOW, YOU, THE DRIVER ARE ENTERING INTO A PARKING CONTRACT, AND AGREE TO PAY PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF  100. All of the signage installed at the parking site has been done in accordance with the BPA requirements and have been approved by the BPA after a review as such POPLA can rest assured that the operator has installed sufficient signage that has been approved for the parking management and enforcement. Please review the operator provided photographs captured by the ANPR camera system as it captured the vehicle entering and exiting the parking site to corroborate to the KIOSK record. It is the responsibility of the motorist to seek out parking conditions and to ensure their vehicle has been parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site to avoid receiving a ParkingCharge Notice ("PCN”). Under the principle in Vine v London Metropolitan Borough of Waltham, its immaterial if the appellant read our signage or not as long as the signage was in existence in the car park at the material time, which it was. Our signage installed around the car park at the material time clearly states, amongst other things that any Motorist in breach of the RELEVANT terms and conditions stipulated therein will be liable to a charge of 100 or 60 if paid within 14 days. This is regardless of whether the motorist has read the signage or not, as the law will deem him or her to have read it. Vines v Waltham ForestLBC (2000).  According to BPA code of practice 19.1, A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually bean act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. As according to the above the driver chose to use the land governed by the operator as such they are governed by the terms and conditions of the parking site. According to 20.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.  According to the above as the driver chose to park their vehicle on private land managed by the operator without complying with the terms and conditions, they broke the contract and are liable given the pertaining terms and conditions have been provided to the motorists on the Retroreflective signage placed at the parking site. By remaining at the site, the motorist entered into a contract with the car park operator and agreed to the terms of the contract, this includes paying the charge of  100.00 in the event of non-payment or contract being breached. The terms and conditions have been breached and so this notice has been issued correctly. if the driver did not agree with the terms and conditions that leave them liable, they should not have parked in the car park. As a member of BPA, we operate in accordance with the code of practice. I am sure you can appreciate that our team have to treat all customers who breach the terms and conditions of the carparks fairly and consistently in accordance with the BPA regulations. From all the evidence gathered, I can confirm that the notice was correctly issued. The vehicle was in breach of the Terms andConditions of the car park. Under the principle in Vine v London Metropolitan Borough of Waltham, its immaterial if the appellant read our signage or not as long as the signage was in existence in the carpark at the material time, which it was. Our signage installed around the car park at the material time clearly states, amongst other things that any Motorist in breach of the RELEVANT terms and conditions stipulated therein will be liable to a charge of  100 or  60 if paid within 14 days.  This is regardless of whether the motorist has read the signage or not, as the law will deem him or her to have read it. Vines v Waltham Forest LBC (2000)Please kindly look into all the evidence provided. If additional evidence required then please do not hesitate to contact the appeals team at appeals@secureparkingsolutions.co.uk   Yours sincerely Appeals Department Secure Parking Solutions Ltd. Suite 2A, Blackthorn House, St Pauls Square, Birmingham B3 1RL  

Umkomaas

You need to break up that wall of text with some appropriate paragraphing please as it's impossible to read, analyse and sensibly respond without risking a migraine!