Advise on POPLA appeal for parking

Suzuki1200

I have recently been given a PCN from Premier Park for parking without paying on the 22/11 and Have already tried to appeal with Premier Park but have been rejected so am thinking of going down the POPLA route.
The basis of my Appeal is due to the signage being unlit and obstructed so therefore I couldn't of read the t&c's so therefore a contract could not of been made. I also believe the entrance sign goes against the AOS mandatory entrance sign regulation due to it not clearly showing 'the type of parking, and when and how any payment should be made.' as outlined in Appendix B on their code of practise.
I also was not parking in the car park to use the pub but was using the postal returns box which is situated on the land and due to a queue and technical errors with the machine caused the stay to be so long, The signs also do not mention parking there to use the post box but it is on their land. would anyone be able to advise if this is a reasonable defence or whether to pay the discounted rate. Photos attached of signage   

Fruitcake

Nobody here will suggest you fund the unregulated private parking industry referred to as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers by UK MPs.

Have you exhausted Plan A yet, a complaint to the landowner and your MP?

For PoPLA, use all the standard points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES. Your appeal should include where relevant, but not be limited to,

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Inadequate signage
Non PoFA compliant NTK
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures
Anything else relevant

Post your draft appeal here before you submit it.

Coupon-mad

You don't pay these things.  As above!

Suzuki1200

Hi, I have done a draft below and i am wondering if you have any advise on the below or if I have any chance with regards to the appeal, i have mentioned that I wasn't using the coronation Inn but using the postal machine as the sign says it is for coronation inn customers only but doesn't mention the postal box on their land so would argue a contract cannot be made??? I am unsure if this is correct however or if this is more of a bad point than a good 

I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. I was not using the ‘Coronation Inn’ but was using the postal service which is on the land.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park. I would also put the parking company to provide strict proof of advertisement permission which is also required for signage.

"I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")

2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have” authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question an hour earlier than the parking offence has been timed stamped which would have made it slightly lighter than the night in which the offence was and I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The signage also has no lighting above it to make the terms and conditions clear and visible when entering the car park and when using the car park in question, the signs which are also surrounding the car park are obstructed by plantation and spotlights which are not lighting the sign but shining onto the car park which due to the angle of the lighting actually makes it impossible to read clearly from the spaces marked. The signs are also low so if a van or other high vehicle was to park in the spaces in which the signs are above, they would be obstructed and hidden, I believe that the operator- Premier Park has done this deliberately so that the terms and conditions are hard to read. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in and is easily viable when driving in low light conditions as was the case in my charge. I also believe the entrance signage does not comply with BPA code of practise appendix B ‘As well as the AOS logo, signs at the entrance to the parking area must clearly show the type of parking, and when and how any payment should be made.  Whilst we consider it to be good practice that the landowner’s name is placed on the sign, we understand that in some instances the owner may not wish to be mentioned.’  The entrance signage also is not clearly visible when turning into the car park whilst trying to maintain concentration on the public highway.

Please see below photo of the entrance sign at similar lighting conditions to the night of the charge:

 

Please also see below photos of the signage in the car park at a similar lighting condition to the night of the charge and taken from the entrance to the car park to further show that the signage is situated away from the entrance and is not clearly visible when entering and from inside a car when driving and concentrating on the road:

 

 

 as the sign failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms as if this was not clearly outlined then no contract can be made and therefore no contract can be breached. Please see evidence of entrance sign:

 

 

4. I was not using the ‘Coronation Inn’ but was using the postal service which is on the land.

When I was parked on the land in question, I was not using the ‘Coronation inn’ which the sign is referring to but was using the postal service which is situated on the land and due to a queue at the time and due to technical errors with the machine taking me back to the homepage etc was the reason for the time spent on the land mentioned. With the signage only relating to users of the coronation inn a contract cannot be made as I was using the postal machine which is situated on the land and the signage does not relate to the postal machine on site but only the Coronation Inn. I can confirm however I never left the premises or parked there to go elsewhere and with me not going into the ‘coronation inn’ that night I would of not seen any reminder signage on the entrance of the Inn. please see below receipt from one of my returns from that night.   

 

 

 

 

Thank you