PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS charge when i paid for Parking

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't have bothered. You know they are considered incompetent and not independent? 

Wesleymcuk

Had my appeal with POPLA refused this was the reason 

not really sure what to do now 

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They parked in the bay and eventually paid parking after downloading the app, after spending time finding out which company to pay. • They do not understand why they have received the parking charge, as they regularly park in London and never had this issue before, and they paid on arrival. They also paid for extra time. • The parking operator provided a photograph of the sign that was not at the address. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds for appeal in extensive detail, stating that the JustPark signs state that payment can be made on arrival which is what they did. The appellant has provided correspondence with JustPark to support this comment and says that there is conflicting information provided by the parking operator and JustPark. In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has raised signage further and provided a google map image to show a bigger JustPark sign is displayed on the wall, referring to payment on arrival. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • The parking operator’s response letter to the original appeal. • Their email to the parking operator.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that motorists must only park at the site with a valid JustPark booking, not before and not after. The signs also state that a £100 PCN will be issued to any motorist who fails to comply with the terms and conditions. The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log from the date of the parking event. Having considered the terms of the site, a payment was required prior to the vehicle arriving on the site to cover the appellant’s parking time. The parking operator’s data log shows me that a payment was made however, it was made at 10:03 and not at the time when the vehicle was captured on the site at 09:51. As such, the appellant did not have a valid parking session at the time of breach and therefore, the PCN has been issued. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a code of practice, which sets the standards for its parking operators. Section 17 of the Code recognises that drivers are more frequently required to enter their vehicle registration when paying for parking or registering for a permit. Section 17.4B requires the parking operator to have a process for dealing with major keying errors. Where the motorist has proven they were a legitimate user, it requires the parking operator to offer to reduce the amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. In this case, the parking operator has accepted the appellant as a legitimate user of the car park and offered to reduce the parking charge to £20.00 in its letter dated 4 March 2024. By the appellant referring this appeal to POPLA, they have disputed this offer and therefore, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the requirements of section 17. I have considered the appellant’s response letter from the parking operator and whilst I do not dispute they issue has been raised, this does not support that the appellant correctly complied with the parking terms. Furthermore, the appellant has provided an email to support the appeal however, this document is blank. As such, I must base my decision on the evidence already provided. I acknowledge the appellant has raised the signage at the site, especially an image provided by the parking operator. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on this grounds in extensive detail, stating that the JustPark signs state that payment can be made on arrival which is what they did. The appellant has provided correspondence with JustPark to support this comment and says that there is conflicting information provided by the parking operator and JustPark. In their further comments to the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has raised signage further and provided a google map image to show a bigger JustPark sign is displayed on the wall, referring to payment on arrival. Section 19.1 of the Code of Practice states that signs must be provided to make it easy for motorists to find out what the terms and conditions are. Section 19.3 continues that signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, stating that motorists must only park at the site with a valid JustPark booking, not before and not after, and the PCN fee is prominently displayed on the sign. I can see from the images that multiple signs are displayed throughout the area, including a sign positioned directly next to where the vehicle was parked. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size of the writing is clear so that the terms can be read. Whilst I have considered the appellant’s extensive comments and google map link, and I can see that the JustPark sign does state that payment must be made on arrival, the parking terms are set by the parking operator. JustPark is a third-party app service, who do not set the terms of the site. The parking operator is not responsible for any information displayed on a third-party app’s signs. Should the appellant wish to raise this matter further, they would need to contact JustPark directly. Although I note the appellant’s extensive comments and correspondence, I am satisfied that the parking operator’s signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. I am satisfied that the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the terms. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Ignore them of course.

I did tell you I wouldn't have bothered (please don't ask what happens next. That's why we have the NEWBIES thread first 4 posts).

Is this right?

"Furthermore, the appellant has provided an email to support the appeal however, this document is blank"

Wesleymcuk

Yes I sent and email and pretty sure I included what I wanted to say but don’t understand why I can’t resend the email 

Coupon-mad

Because you get one shot at POPLA and if you missed out evidence you can't send it now. POPLA isn't independent and you'd have lost anyway.

Waste no more time or effort on it.

Wesleymcuk

ok thanks thought i would give it a shot but like a number of people have said its normally pointless 

will now ignore all future letters from them and the debt collectors and hope they go away 

Wesleymcuk

Hello I keep getting letters asking for £170 which I have ignored from debt collectors but have today received a Letter before Claim letter 

it’s just the usual rubbish they say (Pre Action Protocol) 

is this also ok to just ignore 

Gr1pr

No, do not ignore 

Study the second post in the newbies FAQ sticky thread in announcements,  respond by email using the response template 

Wesleymcuk

Ok thanks this was the letter and looked like another one of those scare tactics but I will look at sending the following email to Credit Investigation services 

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref.

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: Private Parking Solutions Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - 

assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

KeithP

And here's that image the right way up...