PCN issued for breach of terms not on any signs?

charby

Hi All,
Received a PCN, online appeal to PPC rejected so now about to go to POPLA. 
Interested in peoples' opinions regards my Point 1 which shows the grounds for the PCN being issued, but these terms do not appear on any of the signs at this car park. Is this the easy win I think it is?
Appeal nowhere near the finished article, just a rough start, and have left out photos/evidence at the moment until I get some feedback. I do have the video and photo evidence proving the signs don't contain the 'stay period'  term or any time limits..
 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 9th April 2024, acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal, to the operator Premier Park Ltd, was submitted and rejected via an email dated 20th May 2024. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1.The PCN was NOT issued for any breach of any terms or conditions displayed on                           Premier  Park Limited's signs at this car park. The term they state was breached does not                  appear on ANY sign.

2. The Operators Entrance sign is inadequately positioned. The Operator failed to inform local regular users of the car park that new restrictions where now in place where non previously existed, by way of additional temporary signs at the entrance and throughout the site. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge and fails to comply FULLY with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, thus rendering their ability to hold the keeper accountable.

4. Consideration and Grace Periods.

5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority-the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

1. The PCN was NOT issued for any breach of any terms or conditions displayed on Premier Park Limited's signs at this car park. The term they state was breached does not appear on ANY sign.

The Parking Charge Notice/Notice To Keeper, sent by this Operator and dated 9th April 2024, CLEARLY states, in Premier Park Limited's exact own words the following:

“ The reason we issued the Parking Charge to the vehicle is as follows: Exceeded Maximum Stay Period (ANPR) – Overstay Duration 3 mins.”

See Ex.1

Then the Operators own email rejecting the registered keepers appeal goes on to state:

“ Whilst we note your comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions of parking, "including the maximum stay period". There are no exceptions to these terms and we can therefore confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.

It is the Appellants belief that this appeal should be upheld in favour of the Appellant on this following point alone:

The “Maximum Stay Period” that Premier Park Ltd have said is THE REASON for the breach in their terms and conditions, and why the PCN was issued, then to also state it is clearly set out on their signs, but DOES NOT in fact  appear on ANY of their signs at this car park.

I have taken video and photographic evidence to prove beyond all doubt that this is a fact. Please see video 2 and photos 3,4,5,6,7.

How can a contract, (not that one ever was entered into), be entered into, then one party told they have breached a certain term and condition of said contract, then be sued for breaching said term or condition, but said term or condition never existed in the contract to start with?

BPA CoP 9.5 states:

“You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of noncompliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Scrutiny Panel.”

BPA CoP 19.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

fisherjim

If you are going to state that new T&C's were put in place you would really need some time frame noted, for example your last visit could have been six months ago.

You should quote the actual grace periods you are relying on, it's quite clear that 3 minutes over stay is no reason to issue a PCN.

If the T&C's have been altered you would have thought that the signage would be new, it's very unusual for the scammers to actually not quote a scale of charges against times are you sure they aren't on the actual pay machine?

It is quite possible that the dimwit that put up the new signs missed the scale of charges, but beware PPC's do like to submit office master copies to POPLA as evidence, make sure they don't do this and only submit time/date stamped photographs that can be identified as the actual site.

charby

fisherjim said:

If you are going to state that new T&C's were put in place you would really need some time frame noted, for example your last visit could have been six months ago.

You should quote the actual grace periods you are relying on, it's quite clear that 3 minutes over stay is no reason to issue a PCN.

If the T&C's have been altered you would have thought that the signage would be new, it's very unusual for the scammers to actually not quote a scale of charges against times are you sure they aren't on the actual pay machine?

It is quite possible that the dimwit that put up the new signs missed the scale of charges, but beware PPC's do like to submit office master copies to POPLA as evidence, make sure they don't do this and only submit time/date stamped photographs that can be identified as the actual site.

Thank you for your reply.
The car park is ANPR run and it's free parking for patrons of a pharmacy and a barbers requiring vehicle reg entry onto a keypad inside. 
There are no timescales on any signs. The car park has had no parking restrictions for the last 30 years and the PPC can only of been on site for no longer than 3 months, but I'm still trying to verify an exact date the signs went up or my last visit.
The entrance sign is only visible from one direction of travel when entering the service road/ car park. We pulled in totally unaware, stopped, not in any marked bays or hatched areas, there are none, and my partner went to collect our 78 year old relative who had been to the pharmacy. It took her a while to walk back and to climb the steps into the car park. Whilst she was doing this the driver, after several minutes of sitting there, noticed a sign, 8ft high on a pole, so went to read it. Having read and understood what they could, with the usual tiny font size, they went back to the vehicle and left. 
The total time was 13 minutes, entry ANPR photo to exit photo.. The PCN says overstay of 3 minutes for the reason of issuing. 
I've been back and taken video and photos of every sign, they all read the same, with no mention of any grace period/time limits. 

LDast

Please show us the dates on the NtK. Do not redact dates as they are vital for determining PoFA compliance. Aside from that, without seeing the back of the PCN I am pretty sure that it fails PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b). So, no identifying the driver.

charby

Thanks for the reply.
Date of alleged breach is 4th April, PCN dated 9th April. Vehicle details and everything else under PoFA 2012 9(2)(a) and (b) are shown in top right of the PCN. Driver not identified.  
The problem I have is that the PPC issued the PCN stating a breach of 'exceeding maximum stay period'. This stay period is not on any signs, but the PPC's email to me says that it is. Has the PCN been issued for a breach of a term or condition that doesn't exist? Meaning it was wrongly issued or does the absence of that particular term not matter and I'd be better concentrating on other forms of defence?

LDast

Are bits I've highlighted below from the Act noted in the NtK?

9(2). The notice must—

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

charby

LDast said:

Are bits I've highlighted below from the Act noted in the NtK?

9(2). The notice must—

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

Yes, all those details are on the NTK. 

Zbubuman

I think what the parking company are implying is that the driver did not input the vehicle reg in the barber's tablet. They allow 10 mins grace period and he exceeded this by 3 minutes. 

Their signs are rubbish, but technically as long as you put your details in the tablet, you can park here all day. Or at least that is how i understand it! 

If it is a POPLA one, I would go to town on the inadequate signage and ambigous terms. Also on grace periods. that this was a pickup/drop off. Also go with the old age angle ( maybe include document showing proof of his age, and if he is a regular customer, ask the barber to write a small statement confirming he was a client and you were picking him up) 

Nearly forgot, don't identify the driver at any point, even if you obtain a statement from the barber. ask him to just put something generic like a relative picks him up. 

Coupon-mad

Do you know why the driver didn't just go into the pharmacy and add their VRM to the exempting keypad, rather than get an inevitable PCN by instead driving out and letting the PPC capture their numberplate at the exit?

I am trying to understand, because if they read the sign, deciding to drive out past the exit camera without exempting the VRM is like saying "here's my data, send me a PCN".

Has the Pharmacy agreed to send the email to cancel the PCN yet? They can.

charby

Hi Coupon-mad. 
 Thanks for your reply. 
They went to collect our 78 year old relative after she phoned saying she was having a panic attack, brought on by her breathing issues, whilst in the Pharmacy. Wife went to get her and helped walk her back to the car. Driver saw the signs eventually and was reading them on their return. On hindsight maybe the best option was to go into the Pharmacy and enter reg but the concern was with Mother and getting her home.

 I know the driver didn't enter their vehicle reg, but they also, upon reading the signs, declined the contract and left immediately? Any delay was down to poor signage.  If the driver was made aware from the 'start', has they should of, according to BPA CoP, that new restrictions were now in place, then this situation wouldn't of happened. Of the 13 minutes at the car park, two thirds of that time was spent totally unaware that an ANPR clock was ticking or there were signs. We've used this car park countless times over many years and there's never been any. We've been back and taken video from a drivers perspective showing  that the entrance sign cannot be seen and have asked the pharmacy to instruct the PPC put this right . 

We received an email reply from the pharmacy, apologising and asking for a photo of the PCN so that they can investigate. I've sent it along with parts of the BPA CoP, (19.1, 19.2 and 19.10) concerning the poor hidden entrance sign and questioning that 19.10 'material change, additional signage' was never installed. BPA CoP states it should be for a minimum of 4 months, the Operator hasn't been there that long. 
 
 The driver suffers with mobility, on the NHS waiting list for both hips to be replaced, not a blue badge holder, though this car park offers no disabled parking anyway. Is BPA CoP 'Accessible Parking' 16.1 and especially 16.2 relevant here do you think? All the signs are 8ft high on poles, none lower down, where 16.2 states 'you must ensure at least one sign is viewable without the driver leaving the vehicle. The whole car park signage is a mess and no where near transparent/obvious, and I now know of a lot of locals who have been caught out here in a short space of time.