UKPC lies (again). I won! Judge struck out the claim!

mmmatt

Le_Kirk said:

Your paragraph 2# states "there are no signs" yet your paragraph 8# "The signs fails to transparently warn drivers..."  You need to make it clear to the POPLA assessor specifically which sign(s) you are talking about.

Thank you for pointing that out - I need to get down to the site and get some pics as per Coupon-mad's advice to show what I mean!

mmmatt

Photos taken and added.  Just showing the bits I've changed rather than the whole appeal!

1505grandad

As pointed out previously:-

"18 Introduction to the operational requirements

18.1 Sections 18 to 25 below apply to England and Wales only. They take into account the changes to private parking management following the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Schedule 4 to POFA 2012 is set out in Appendix C of the Code."

Para 19 relates to signs.

mmmatt

1505grandad said:

As pointed out previously:-

"18 Introduction to the operational requirements

18.1 Sections 18 to 25 below apply to England and Wales only. They take into account the changes to private parking management following the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Schedule 4 to POFA 2012 is set out in Appendix C of the Code."

Para 19 relates to signs.

Thank you very much, totally missed that.  All paras updated now!

mmmatt

POPLA "evidence" pack through from UKPC (exactly on day 21).  I've removed some parts for berevity

Mrs XXXXXXXX stated that she was not willing to divulge the name of the driver at the time of the parking event - UKPC are therefore holding Mrs XXXXXXXX liable for the parking charge as the owner/keeper of the vehicle.

Please see the attached Notice to Keeper. The parking charge notice complies fully with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in permitting the registered keeper to be held liable to pay this unpaid parking charge. As can be seen by the attached evidence - Mrs XXXXX's vehicle was parked at Park Centrale Southampton for a period of 7 hours 9 mins.

There is more than sufficient signage on the site (including 3 x entrance signs positioned at every entrance onto the site) with numerous other signs on the site itself - advising all motorists that in order to park on site the vehicle must be registered. A more than generous consideration period is applied on the site - the vehicle was not registered to park (see further attached evidence) - the vehicle has passed through a camera and exited a camera positioned on Park Centrale Southampton - therefore the parking charge was issued correctly.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 refers to ‘relevant land’, which must be specified on a parking charge. However, the act does not require the identity of the road, or city or any other place- only the ‘relevant land’ is essential. The name of the land provided by UKPC has been chosen to reflect the site, and in the cases of large sites, a single name is chosen for convenience, with one address for ease of location. Of course, large sites such as Park Centrale often consist of Page 2 of 20 many interior roads and areas and it would be impractical to detail every section in one address of the parking charge notice. Instead, only the name of the relevant land and a single address are included and as such, we are confident that we have correctly identified the relevant land, and we reject the motorist’s argument that we have failed to do so. 

They haven't answered any of my other points - so what they're saying from the above is "we don't need to be specific about where the car (was allegedly) parked"

They sent pictures of 7 pictures of signs in a completely different area.

They even sent me a map of the area.  Which, err, has a different name and handily shows that there's two large areas UKPC aren't responsible for where there's places to park a car.  

Frustratingly, I can't upload any more pictures, I only get a text box comment!

But I've attached what they've sent

mmmatt

Can't find anything about this person either.

Coupon-mad

Just say what you see in your POPLA comments.

Fruitcake

If they have failed to address any of your appeal points, then state UKPC must accept them to be true and therefore the appeal must be allowed.

mmmatt

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Naomi Littler

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked in a location for registered only.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed document containing their grounds of appeal. For the purpose of this report, I have summarised the appellants grounds into the following points. • As the keeper of the vehicle they are not liable for the charge. • The PCN has been incorrectly issued as the location shown on it is incorrect. • There are no entrance signs. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from each parking bay. • There is insufficient notice of the charge itself. • There are no marked parking bays at the location. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • The signs do not warn drivers what the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. • There is no planning permission from the council for the ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates and expands their grounds of appeal and they raise some new points. The appellant has provided images contained I their document showing signage at the site, screenshots from the post office website & googlemaps and links to land registry documents. as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Non-compliance with the terms and conditions may result in a parking charge of up to £100…Registered users only”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 08:38, and exiting at 13:15, totalling a stay of 4 hours and 37 minutes. The operator has provided a search of it’s system which shows that the vehicle is not listed as a registered user. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The appellant explains as the keeper of the vehicle they are not liable for the charge. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant states the PCN has been incorrectly issued as the location shown on it is incorrect. I note the appellants comments and I acknowledge that the PCN contains the postcode SO15 2SJ whereas the vehicle entered the site via the postcode SO17 1XJ. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and I am satisfied that based on the size of the site, it covers multiple postcode areas. I appreciate that the appellant has provide screen shots from the royal mail; however, this relates to buildings rather than land, therefore has no bearing on this decision. I appreciate the appellant has provided evidence taken from google maps; however, this does not show that the land is not part of the site and as such, it does not invalidate the PCN. I acknowledge the appellant has provided links to the land registry; however, POPLA is unable to access external links due to IT security reasons, if the appellant wished us to consider this they would have needed to provide a hard copy of the information. Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the information contained on the PCN is sufficient to identify the site and is compliant with PoFA as the operator’s site map shows the boundaries of the relevant land it controls and has the authority to issue PCNs for. If the appellant is unhappy with the way the operator has chosen to identify the site on the PCN, they can raise this directly with the operator. The appellant advises there are no entrance signs and the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from each parking bay. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is entrance signage present which is compliant with the code of practice Section 19.3 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 that there was sufficient signage placed throughout the car park in such a way that satisfies me they would have been visible to the appellant. There is no requirement for signs to be placed so they are visible from every parking bay. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. I acknowledge that the appellant has provided images taken at the site which they say shows non-compliant signage, this sign is not an operator’s sign and therefore it is not the operator’s responsibility to ensure signs installed by third parties are compliant with the code. I appreciate the appellants evidence shows areas without signs; however’ the appellant has also provided evidence of an entrance sign which satisfies me that it is sufficient to make a motorist aware that terms apply at the site, if the driver was unsure of where this sign applied to they could have left the site to park elsewhere or call the operator to seek further advice. The appellant states that there is insufficient notice of the charge itself. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I have reviewed the signage provided by the operator and on this occasion I am satisfied that adequate notice is provided and the signage is compliant with section 19.4. The appellant says there are no marked parking bays at the location. I appreciate that this may be the case; however, the PCN was issued as the vehicle was not a registered user, as such this has no material difference on the outcome of this appeal. There is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the operator has provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that they hold the required landowner authority in line with the code. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The signs do not warn drivers what the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. Section 22.1 of the Code of Practice says that parking operators may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The signs at the car park must tell drivers that this technology is being used and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for. I can see from the evidence provided by the operator that the signage confirms that ANPR is in operation on the site and the reason for this.. I am satisfied that this is compliant with the BPA code of practice. There is no planning permission from the council for the ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. I note that the appellant’s on ground for appeal is whether the operator has the appropriate planning permission for the location. Please note, that POPLA’s role is to assess if the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning application or lack thereof. On this basis, my decision has focused on the other aspects of the appeal in order to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. I am aware that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider this as part of my decision. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver was not a registered user, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

mmmatt

" As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider this as part of my decision."

I don't know how I can answer that?  On our initial appeal to UKPC, we asked them for proof of the site and its boundaries.  They of course did not provide that.  They only provided their evidence to POPLA, which I commented on (which showed UKPC were talking nonsense), so what am I supposed to do?

They literally sent a site plan (of a different named site!) that showed a boundary that we were OUTSIDE of!

Infuriating!