Another Parking charge Plymouth Port - Appeal Rejected

Dourn

Hi all. My driver received a PCN from Parking Eye, after 37 mins in the Associated British Ports car park at Plymouth docks (not the official car park, the direction signs are misleading).
No windscreen stickers, there are ANPR cameras.

Same car park as these two threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6486430/advice-on-non-retail-carpark-please
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6492486/parking-charge-plymouth-port

Since the above, the Total Parking Solution signs have been removed from the car park, so no possibility of appealing on confusing signage.

Following advice on this forum, I appealed via PE's online portal, using the default template, and added text about it not being Relevant Land (which it isn't, according to the harbour bylaws).
PE have denied the appeal, sending a generic response about the signage being correct.

Wondering what the next steps are?
Appeal to POPLA as they've sent me a NTK referencing POFA 2012, but that doesn't apply?

Attaching the PCN and Appeal email and Appeal Response.

My appeal text was the usual template with the addition of this:

"You have sent me a 'POFA worded' NTK regarding a Port/Harbour site which isn't relevant land, so you are misleading me about keeper liability. Do you want this reported to Gemma Dorans at the BPA or are you going to 'cancel as a gesture of goodwill'?"

Back of PCN (with POFA Section) and rejection letter attached.
Any advice gratefully received!

LDast

Yes, appeal to POPLA pointing out their breaches of PoFA and associated breaches of the BPA CoP. Detail each of the breaches with references to the relevant legislation and CoP.

Also complain to PE about their breaches and tell them that you intend to follow up the complaint with one to Gemma Dorans at the BPA and then do make the complaint to the BPA.

Coupon-mad

Since the above, the Total Parking Solution signs have been removed from the car park, so no possibility of appealing on confusing signage.

I don't see why you wouldn't try that as well at POPLA. I'm sure you don't know whether the TPS signs were there on the day and how can you know when they were removed?

I'd include those photos as an extra point and cite the winning POPLA decisions and put PEye to strict proof which signs were or were not there on the material date.  This is their burden to prove.

Dourn

Thanks LDast/CouponMad - I've started the appeal process with POPLA with a 16-page PDF summarising my appeal, based on your comments above and the info I gathered from other threads on this site - I intended to post it here before sending, but ran out of time to hit the deadline - happy to post what I created so you can comment after the fact, but in any case will post here on the outcome of the appeal.
Have separately drafted a complaint about PEL breaching the BOA CoP and will send that to PEL first and then BPA after they respond as BPA apparently require).

Dourn

Coupon-mad said:

Since the above, the Total Parking Solution signs have been removed from the car park, so no possibility of appealing on confusing signage.

I don't see why you wouldn't try that as well at POPLA. I'm sure you don't know whether the TPS signs were there on the day and how can you know when they were removed?

I'd include those photos as an extra point and cite the winning POPLA decisions and put PEye to strict proof which signs were or were not there on the material date.  This is their burden to prove.

OK so PE have come back with an evidence pack, I'm working on a rebuttal.
The contract they have with ABP is included, although heavily redacted, and almost illegible.
My POPLA appeal had these main points:

1.     No valid contract can be formed

2.     Harbour Authority Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’.

3.     BPA Code of Practice breached

4.     Appellant not being the individual liable.

5.     Lack of standing / authority from landowner.

6.     Non-compliant signage.

1. is because there were signs from another operator there - I attached photos.

In their evidence pack, they don't even address 1-3.
And in fact they seem to have copied the evidence pack from somewhere else, as they say this:

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

But... i didn't even mention PEOL in my appeal, so I have no idea why they mention this! I'll put this in my rebuttal, though.
The contract also says that it expires 36 months after the "Services Commencement Date" - but there's no date with this name in the contract, just an "Effective Date" at the top. They also state they went to DVLA to get the Keeper details "Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA" - so I'll point out that this is invalid (illegal?) as again -= this is not relevant land!!

Anything else I should include? I'll draft up something and put it on here.

Fruitcake

Respond that any points you have made that have not been addressed/rebutted (points 1-3) mean that the operator has accepted those points in your favour and therefore the appeal must be allowed.

It is not illegal for a PPC to obtain keeper details even when the alleged event occurred on non-relevant land. They are allowed to obtain these details so they can invite the keeper to provide the driver's details.

Dourn

Fruitcake said:

Respond that any points you have made that have not been addressed/rebutted (points 1-3) mean that the operator has accepted those points in your favour and therefore the appeal must be allowed.

It is not illegal for a PPC to obtain keeper details even when the alleged event occurred on non-relevant land. They are allowed to obtain these details so they can invite the keeper to provide the driver's details.

Thanks Fruitcake, that's really helpful - makes sense about DVLA. POFA prevents them from pursuing the Keeper if the Keeper doesn't divulge the Driver and it's non-relevant land, I can see that now.

Interestingly, PE added this in their "rebuttal":

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

They're also referencing BPA Code of Proactive v8 - dates Jan 2020, even though the latest is v9 dated Feb 2024.
I'll point that out, although not sure if they have control over what version of the CoP they follow.
In my appeal, I assumed it was the latest v9, as that's what I reference.

They have a whole section about grace period, referencing BPA CoP, and then say their signage "demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice." 

I'll point out that I'm not referencing grace periods.
It very much seems they've used a previous evidence pack from this same site - one of the ones in Jan had an appeal about grace periods and GPEOL, so I suspect that they've just been lazy.

Also: @Coupon-mad in the NEWBIE sticky mentions that for rebutting an evidence pack "Do not re-write your appeal or call it 'an appeal' or POPLA will not read it." - I assume what this means is don't write your rebuttal so it seems like a new appeal, as opposed to referencing the appeal I made i.e. can I reference that they haven't addressed points 1-3 of my appeal and list those point headings (i.e. use the word appeal in my rebuttal text)? I assume so. Sorry, that didn't seem clear to me, although it probably is to everyone else! 

Also, they've used the same legalese they used in a 2016 rebuttal on this forum, although I thini theyve f'd up, as that legalese says:

In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment,
along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5,
support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that,
“The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must
justify their charges under their code of practice”.

And yet, paragraph 19.5 of v8 of the BPA CoP says:

The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information. 

I think it's paragraph 19.4 which they mean, which talks about specifying the sum payable. I'll point that out as well.

Right, off to read more rebuttal examples - thanks for your help!

Coupon-mad

We don't need the Beavis stuff, thanks! We go waaay back years before that case, know all about it and I'm in touch with Barry Beavis. The case is fairly irrelevant in most instances.

Dourn

Coupon-mad said:

We don't need the Beavis stuff, thanks! We go waaay back years before that case, know all about it and I'm in touch with Barry Beavis. The case is fairly irrelevant in most instances.

OK great, thanks, I've removed from the post so as not to clutter things up!

KeithP

Dourn said:
They're also referencing BPA Code of Practice v8 - dates Jan 2020, even though the latest is v9 dated Feb 2024.

I'll point that out, although not sure if they have control over what version of the CoP they follow.
In my appeal, I assumed it was the latest v9, as that's what I reference.

Depends on when in 2024 the parking event took place.

I don't think you've mentioned the actual date of parking, but if it was before 1st February 2024 then v8 of the BPA CoP was in force.

I've not checked if the wording you are using has changed. I'll leave that to you.  

Dourn

KeithP said:

Dourn said:
They're also referencing BPA Code of Practice v8 - dates Jan 2020, even though the latest is v9 dated Feb 2024.

I'll point that out, although not sure if they have control over what version of the CoP they follow.
In my appeal, I assumed it was the latest v9, as that's what I reference.

Depends on when in 2024 the parking event took place.

I don't think you've mentioned the actual date of parking, but if it was before 1st February 2024 then v8 of the BPA CoP was in force.

I've not checked if the wording you are using has changed. I'll leave that to you.  

Thanks, @KeithP - it was after 1st Feb 2024, so v9 applies. I've compared v8 and v9, so I can see the differences.
I think it's just sloppiness on the PPC's part that they've copied an evidence pack from either late last year/earlier this yet and didn't properly update it.