PCN For Parking In No Parking Area Double Yellow and Yellow Hatching.

nopcns

One additional point from PPs evidence pack is their "PCN History" timeline. It shows that they sent your file to DRP+ on 27/03/24 before the appeals process was complete. Did you receive any DRP+ correspondence at all?

They later cancelled the DRP+ action on 04/04/24. You need to check to see if this is a breach of the CoP. Also,  check against 23.12a: “If an appeal is being considered by POPLA, the debt recovery process must not be commenced until the outcome of the case is known”.

Again, lead the assessor by the nose to this point. Whilst you cannot introduce new evidence that was not in your original POPLA appeal, you are highlighting evidence provided by the operator which shows a breach of the BPA CoP.

Make sure you read the CoP yourself and don’t just rely on us doing all the work for you.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf

1505grandad

For info re England parking event in January 2024:-

"23.12a If an appeal is being considered by the IAS, the debt recovery process must not be commenced/ recommenced until the outcome of the case is known. We would expect operators to have systems in place to ensure that this does not happen.

strawberries1

Thank you @Coupon-mad, @1505grandad and @nopcns.
I've tidied up my response per your very helpful suggestions.

strawberries1

GrannyKate said:

A poster in 2021/22 sent some time trying without success to establish whether Karenor actually owned the site.  His invoice was eventually cancelled and he posted this: Letters revealed in SAR to ParkWatch show that the PCN has been cancelled by them AND Gladstones on behalf of their client, "Lansdown?"

Thank you.

strawberries1

Coupon-mad said:

I think you should bin the repetition and bin all the distracting stuff about PoFA
and the 'wrong location' allegation as that has become tenuous and IMHO, has no legs.

Forget all that and concentrate on your main 3 points:


1. Lack of date & time stamps on the images

None of the photos include a date and time stamp except the first image of the vehicle arriving/driving.  If the CCTV system automatically applies a timestamp to still images (as PP suggest) why do none of the other images include it?  Clearly the date & time was added to the first image afterwards but PP forgot to add it to the other image on the PCN.

The PCN included two images and the one showing an unidentifiable distance photo of a vehicle that seems to be stopped has no date or timestamp at all.  There is not even a close up of the registration plate nor any evidence of time.  This could be a stopping period shorter than the two minutes PP say they allow, or it could even be a different vehicle and/or a completely different day or time. This lack of date/time stamp was raised in my appeal, so it is not a new point, but PP haven't even bothered with date/timestamps on any of the other images in the evidence pack. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 21.5a of the Code states that the parking operator may use photos as evidence and that a date and time stamp should be included on the photo.   The PCN and the evidence pack both fail to comply.

2.  No landowner authority (paragraph 3 of my appeal):

The Order Form is not signed by the landowner nor by the named Managing Agents, who are stated on the two 'managing agent' contact boxes on the so-called landowner authority, to be Landswood de Coy. There’s nothing to explain who the "Customer" (London-based Karenor Partner(s) Ltd, who are not an estate agent) even is. There is no proof that this “Customer“ has the authority of the landowner or the managing agent.  The BPA CoP requires authority flowing from the landowner and whilst POPLA sometimes accept evidence signed by managing agents, the operator's own form shows that entity is Landswood de Coy.

3.  No entrance sign in evidence:

There was no entry sign and this makes driver susceptible to driving in as prey, having never passed a warning that a site is managed (and not having stopped anywhere near another sign). PP state that their entrance signs are compliant with the BPA CoP and that "an entrance sign is included in the image pack", but as can be seen, there is none.

Thank you so much for this summary.
It's really helpful and I've incorporated it into my response which I'm sending off in a few minutes.

strawberries1

Thanks again everyone and here is my response.
I received/they sent their email on Monday last week so I'll be sending this off tonight.
I couldn't have done it without the generous help of this forum.

I shall also contact my 90 yr old MIL's Councillor or MP as it her care that necessitated the driver and passenger to go to this road.

strawberries1

I've received a refusal of my appeal.

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below. • The Notice to Keeper does not correctly state the address where the vehicle was photographed and therefore, does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. • There is no evidence landowner authority. • There are no entrance signs. • The signs on site are not prominent clear nor legible and fail to give the drive an opportunity to decide. • There are no marked parking bays at the location. • No grace period was given. • The operator has failed to comply with data protection and ICO code of practice regarding Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. • There is no evidence of the alleged period of parking. • The image contained in the PCN are not complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice. • The ANPR system is neither accurate or reliable. • The signs do not warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. • There is no planning permission for pole mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. • The operator has not complied with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. The appellant also raises new grounds in relation to sections24.4 23.12a. 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 these grounds as part of my decision. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided several Google images and photographs. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has not admitted to being the driver. I will therefore be considering their responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out and reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. On this site, the signs confirm that no unauthorised parking stopping or waiting is permitted at any time and failure to comply will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. While I acknowledge the appellant has pointed out a discrepancy in the stated address and has provided several Google images in relation to this, on reviewing the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the named site, Rugby Central Shopping Centre is the location where the parking event occurred. As such, the Notice to Keeper meets the requirements set out in POFA regarding relevant land where the vehicle parked. The BPA Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. While an entrance sign plays an important part in establishing that a site is managed, there must be other signs around the site, bringing the specific terms and conditions to the motorist’s attention. Section 19.3 of the BPA code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and a site map which confirms there are a total of 12 signs located within this area. I recognise the appellant has also provided several images of the area, however, after reviewing these images and the images provided by the operator and site map, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within this area and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. The appellant states there are no marked parking bays at the location. As no parking waiting or loading is permitted at any time, I would not expect the operator to provide marked out bays as there is no reason for a motorist to park in this area. Section 13.4 of the BPA code confirms unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g. Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc. As such, in this area no grace period is given as motorists are not authorised to park. I note the appellants comments regarding data protection and the ICO code or practice however, this is outside of POPLA’s remit to comment. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the ICO directly. This area is monitored by CCTV cameras. The operator has confirmed these cameras only capture still images. These images confirmed the vehicle stopped in a no parking waiting or stopping area. These images confirm the vehicle entered this area at 13:19 and was captured several times stopped on double yellow lines between 13:26 and 13:42. Therefore, I am satisfied the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the vehicle parked. Section 21.5a of the BPA code confirms that if an operator is using photographic evidence for issuing a PCN, at least one of these images must clearly show the vehicle registration number and bear an accurate time and date stamp. I acknowledge the images contained on the PCN do not clearly show the time and date stamp, however, the operator has provided clear images from the CCTV in its case file. On reviewing these images, there is no evidence to suggest that the time and date stamps have been altered in anyway. The operator has confirmed it uses CCTV on this site and not ANPR cameras. POPLA accepts evidence on good faith from both parties unless the opposite is proven. I fully appreciate technology can fail and as such, I am happy to accept any evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the operators CCTV cameras. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to show otherwise, I can only work on the basis the CCTV cameras were working accurately on the day in question. Signage on this site clearly states mobile and camera enforcement is in operation and images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes. Therefore, I am satisfied sufficient warning is given to drivers of the intended use of these cameras. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is solely to consider if the PCN has been issued correctly based on the evidence provided by both parties. I recognise the appellants comments regarding planning permission for the ANPR cameras and advertising consent for the signage however, as these issue hold no impact on the drivers ability to comply with the terms and conditions of this site, I cannot consider these issues relevant to my assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue these matters further, they will need to contact the relevant authorities. I note the appellant states the operator has not complied with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regarding prominence or terms and consumer notices. When entering onto private land that is governed by terms and conditions, it is the drivers responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions of use displayed on the signs located within the site. A driver accepts the terms of the contract by remaining on site for a reasonable period of time. In this instance, I have already confirmed that I am satisfied that the signage meets the requirements of the BPA code of practice and a driver is given sufficient notice of the terms and conditions of the site. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. As I have addressed these grounds above, I will not comment further. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the driver parked in a no parking area, the terms and conditions of the site have not been met, therefore, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Print

Your POPLA appeal is now complete

You can print out a copy for your records

The parking operator has been informed of the decision.

Finish

Paying your parking charge

If you would like to pay your parking charge now, you can do so below by selecting make a payment.

Please note:
The parking operator has provided us with the payment site for your convenience and POPLA is not affiliated with the payment site in any way.

Make a payment

Unhappy with the outcome?

You cannot challenge POPLA's decision. However, there are alternative routes to resolve your dispute. You may wish to seek advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau or seek independent legal advice.

Coupon-mad

Fine. You know to ignore POPLA of course!

strawberries1

Thanks. Shall see if PP lodge a claim.