Highview Parking - Overstay Parking Charge

scara

Hi all, below is the email I sent to Punch.org and the reply I received

Simon <simon@allantaylor.net>

Hi XXXXXX

 

Nexus believe that they are fully compliant with BPA guidelines. 

Please contact them directly at appeals@groupnexus.co.uk, you are also entitled to appeal to POPLA

 

Regards

Simon

 

From: xxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 10:17 PM
To: Patrick Punch and Co <info@punch.org.uk>
Subject: Parking at Netherfield Neighbourhood Centre

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

RE: Parking at Netherfield Neighbourhood Centre

I am writing to you to make a formal complaint about Highview Parking/Nexus Group who as your agent/contractor control the parking at Netherfield Neighbourhood Centre.

They have issued me an invoice (PCN 2000013131328) for exceeding the maximum stay on December 11, 2023. I am contesting this charge and I have taken detailed photographs of the signage at the premises, copies of which are attached to this email.

As they are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) they are obliged to follow the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), a copy of which is also attached to this email. The signs at the site are specifying the use of ANPR without proper notification. What your signs say is:-

" The automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in this car park are used for the prevention and/or detection of crime, and the Data collected may be shared with third parties for these purposes. "

What the BPA CoP says is: -

22. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

22.1 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 at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.

The signage at the site does not specifically state that the ANPR is used for Parking purposes as the BPA CoP demands and as such will be reported to the BPA for non-compliance with the CoP.

As the signage is untrue and in breach of the Data Protection Act (DPA) and UK GDPR 2018 this will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I sincerely hope you will speak to your agent/contractor to have them cancel this invoice as I will not be paying the extortionate sum, they are trying to claim from me, and I would prefer to avoid the unnecessary waste of time and money that will come should further action be required.

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

scara

Here is the complaint I made to Nexus and their reply:

Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.Kindly refer to our previous correspondence on this matter, which explains why your appeal has been carefully considered and rejected on this occasion.Our previous correspondence represents our final stance on this matter and, as such, we would request that you refer to it as it details the options now at your disposal.We are sorry we are unable to enter into any further correspondence in relation to this matter.Yours faithfully,Highview Parking Ltd

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 21:11, XXXXXX wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,       

RE: PCN XXXXXXXX

I am writing to you today to make a formal complaint regarding the above PCN which was posted to me at my home address regarding an allegation of exceeding the maximum stay at Netherfield Neighbourhood Centre.

I have followed the online appeals process and requested close up actual photographs of the signage as well as the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

Neither of my requests were fulfilled as shown in the below forwarded email from Highview Parking. I have since returned to the site and taken detailed photographs of your signage which are attached to this email.

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

The signs are also specifying ANPR without proper notices. What your signs say is: -

"The automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in this car park are used for the prevention and/or detection of crime, and the Data collected may be shared with third parties for these purposes."

What the BPA CoP says is: -

22. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

22.1 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 at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Where does the sign say that ANPR is used for Parking purposes as the BPA CoP demands?

Your signage is untrue and in breach of the DPA and UK GDPR 2018 and will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

Furthermore, from the information supplied in your appeal rejection email: -

"POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge."

Based on the untrue information in the above paragraph I will be reporting you to the BPA for those misleading words.

Finally I will be making a formal complaint about the incorrect signage and misleading information from Highview/Nexus to your client Punch Retail and leisure.

Based on this information I have provided I fully expect you to cancel this PCN and inform me of such action without further delay.

Yours faithfully,

 XXXXXXXXXX

Registered Keeper of the car

---

From: "Nexus" appeal <appeal@appealpcn.co.uk>
Sent: 16 January 2024 11:18
To: XXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Re: WEB APPEAL - PCN - XXXXXXXXXXNew appeal submitted

 

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.
The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations. 
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the 1 hour 30 minutes max stay  , and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.
We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £55.00 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.
Please find below the payment options: 
Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcnBy Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO BOX 14836, London, NW3 1WT----------You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.  POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.  To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork. 
Your POPLA reference number is:XXXXXXXXXX
Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
Yours faithfully,

Highview Parking Ltd.

scara

I have submitted an appeal to POPLA. Highview has responded with a 31 page PDF sticking to their position that their signage is in compliance with the BPA CoP. Below is their case summary:

Case Summary
The Parking Charge was issued under POFA. In response to the Parking Charge, Mr XXXXX - who
we are pursuing as the Registered Keeper, appealed stating that he is the Keeper of the vehicle and
will not be naming the driver.
As the keeper did not provide us with details of the driver within 28 days of the Charge being issued
we are pursuing them as the registered keeper. We can confirm that the Notice to Keeper advises that
if the amount requested in the Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the
driver's name and current address), the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and
under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid
Parking Charge.
Rejecting his appeal, we advised that clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform
drivers of the 1 hour 30 minutes max stay, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises
without passing multiple signs.
By allowing his vehicle to be parked on the site Mr XXXXXX entered into a valid contract and agreed
to abide by its terms and conditions. The ample signage displayed throughout the site advises the
terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that there is a 90 minute maximum stay. The
signage advises that a Parking Charge of £95 will be issued when allowing your vehicle to remain on
site in excess of the maximum stay.
It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions of the site. In this
case, by allowing his vehicle to remain on site for 1 hour 57 minutes in excess of the maximum stay,
Mr XXXXXX breached those terms and conditions.
Mr XXXXXX stated that the signs are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. We can confirm
that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations – please see images
and photographs provided in Section F which support this. We operate a grace period at this site, in
line with the BPA Code of Practice to allow for movement throughout the site and on exiting. The
driver exceeded this grace period.
We can confirm that the Charge was issued on 20/12/2023 and therefore deemed to be delivered on
22/12/2023, the contrary has not been proven. As such, the Charge was issued within PoFa time
limits. We have included in Section C a copy of the Parking Charge which states the “This Charge is
given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”.
Our position remains that we have received no mitigating circumstances or evidence for which we
should cancel the Parking Charge. We maintain that the appellant entered into a valid contract and
should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on the site.

They attached 17 pictures in their response but the writing was not readable. Below are 2 that are readable.

 

It seems either I am not presenting my case clearly enough as they are insisting their signs are compliant with the BPA CoP. Any suggestions as to how I can express my position in response to their POPLA submission. I have until Thursday to reply.

Regards Scara

Coupon-mad

You are (any consumer is) always likely to lose at POPLA & I wouldn't have tried. You won't be paying but I never tell people to bother with POPLA unless they have a slam-dunk winning point.

I haven't looked back in the thread (beyond clicking back to check what my advice was - below - clearly I advised not to hang your hat on POPLA) so I hope you went into this with your eyes open and were not expecting to win?

Coupon-mad said:

POPLA are rubbish and not independent (so I wouldn't bother with them at all, personally) but they consider any appeals on any grounds.

I would put a complaint in on the Group Nexus 'complaints' portal/webpage and say you will report them to the BPA for those misleading words.  Then do so.

You won't be paying. Not a penny.

The retail park can cancel it.

POPLA are unlikely to come good.  DO NOT TRY POPLA BEFORE EXHAUSTING LANDOWNER COMPLAINT.

fisherjim

They attached 17 pictures in their response but the writing was not readable. Below are 2 that are readable.

The fact that their pictures are unreadable goes in your favour, those two that are are obviously office templates not on site dated photos so mean nothing as evidence.

Nellymoser

Coupon-mad said:

scara said:

From their letter above:- "POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge."

Wow that's misleading and not true.

I would put a complaint in on the Group Nexus 'complaints' portal/webpage and say you will report them to the BPA for those misleading words.  Then do so.

I also had the above paragraph word for word in my appeal rejection from Group Nexus back in Jan 2022. I knew Nexus were "spinning a yarn" as Kelvin Reynolds BPA would say over saying there were only 4 reasons I could appeal to POPLA.

I complained to BPA about this (along with evidence of Group Nexus other CoP breaches). Here's the responses (x 2) I received from BPA on this particular issue.....

BPA Compliance Investigations Officer said
"Group Nexus must inform you of the right of appeal. It is your right to choose whether to do so"

BPA Operations Manager said "Please be advised that we do not consider this is a breach of clause 31.5

Both BPA employees couldn't see Nexus was providing misleading and untrue information about POPLA's appeal criteria. The BPA's suitability for the new CAB role should be reconsidered by DLUHC.

scara

Well folks I received the POPLA decision today. Surprise surprise my appeal has been unsuccessful. I am still waiting for a response from the BPA to the complaint I made about Highview. Are there any further options for me to fight this? Thanks, Scara

nopcns

You do realise that the NtK was not PoFA compliant as it did not conform to Schedule 4, para 9(2)(e)(ii) as nowhere did it invite the keeper to pay the charge. POPLA have been upholding appeals on this point recently.

Coupon-mad

scara said:

Well folks I received the POPLA decision today. Surprise surprise my appeal has been unsuccessful. I am still waiting for a response from the BPA to the complaint I made about Highview. Are there any further options for me to fight this? Thanks, Scara

Ignore it. But how was this lost at POPLA?

scara

Here is the POPLA decision

POPLA assessment and decision

22/03/2024

Verification Code

xxxxxxx

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The signs specify the use of ANPR without proper notices and are in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The signage on site states "The automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in this car park are used for the prevention and/or detection of crime, and the data collected may be shared with third parties for these purposes”, and Section 22.1 of the 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 at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by the ANPR for”, and nowhere on the signage does it state that the ANPR data will be used for parking charging purposes. The appellant has provided images of signage and a copy of the BPA Code of Practice. This has been considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions. The signage at this site states there is a 90-minute maximum stay. The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 3 hours and 27 minutes. I acknowledge the appellant has said the signage on site does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice Section 22.1 as they do not state that the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for parking charging purposes. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. In this case, the images of the signage on site provided by both the appellant and the operator contain the universally recognised logo for ANPR cameras. I am satisfied that the signage on site stating that terms and conditions apply, that ANPR cameras are in use, and that a PCN will be issued if the terms are breached, is sufficient to inform motorists that ANPR cameras are in use on site and what the data captured is used for. Furthermore, the evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator shows the signage on site also states, this car park is controlled by ANPR cameras and if your vehicle remains on site and fails to comply with the terms and conditions stated, you agree to pay a £95 parking charge. The signage also states the operator may contact the DVLA to request the vehicles registered keeper details and may send a charge notice to them by post. Therefore I am satisfied the signage on site complies with Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay, and therefore they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.