North Greenwich Blue Badge Car Park

BBDriver

Keeping it as brief as possible.
Received this in the post from Bridge PAM - They are a BPA member.
No windscreen ticket
North Greenwich Underground Blue Badge Car Park

Motability Car with Blue Badge displayed

Not parked in a bay but along the side of the car park as indicated in yellow in the overhead shot.

Having trouble finding out who owns the land the car was parked on, for a complaint to the landowner. Not sure if it was inside the Blue Badge car park boundary.

Car Park entrance signs say SABA Parking with no mention of Bridge Pam.
The signposts on the paved area along the side of the road indicates Bridge Pam and Greenwich Peninsula.

If it’s SABA land presumable it is not relevant land and therefore POFA does not apply.

If the strip of land is owned by Greenwich Peninsula and Bridge PAM would this then be relevant land?

There is a signpost that mentio GLA Land and Property Ltd/London Underground Ltd on the same strip of land further up. It is marked on the overhead map.

The Bridge Pam signs are poor - high up, small font, £100 not visible with the naked eye and forbid parking.

My plan so far according to Newbies thread

1 Complain to landowner if I can confirm who owns that strip of land the car was parked on.
2 Appeal as keeper online asap
3 Complain to my MP when they are elected

Would welcome any comments or guidance on this.

Thanks to all.

CAR PARK ENTRANCE

CAR PARK ENTRANCE TO THE RIGH HAND SIDE

CLOSE UP

ONE OF THE SIGNPOSTS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE CAR PARK

CLOSE UP

GLA SIGN FURTHER ALONG (MARKED ON OVERHEAD VIEW)

Fruitcake

There is little point in thinking about a keeper appeal or that the land might be covered by byelaws when the first point of your 3 point plan tells the world who was driving.

Yes, you need to identify the landowner if possible.
Yes you should appeal as keeper if a landowner cancellation is not forthcoming, using the template in blue text from the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES.

Half_way

"Issue Reason: Unauthorised parking

Could this be a possibility?

If the parking was unauthorised then it wasn't permitted, therefore no contract could be formed as the parking charge notice issue reason is forbidding .

Blue badges are not valid on private land, so the vague  instruction could be impossible, unless you print off a blue badge title it "Blue badge Valid unto October 31st 2064"

BBDriver

Fruitcake said:

There is little point in thinking about a keeper appeal or that the land might be covered by byelaws when the first point of your 3 point plan tells the world who was driving.

Yes, you need to identify the landowner if possible.
Yes you should appeal as keeper if a landowner cancellation is not forthcoming, using the template in blue text from the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES.

Thanks Fuitcake - This is why the advice given on here is invaluable

BBDriver

Half_way said:

"Issue Reason: Unauthorised parking

Could this be a possibility?

If the parking was unauthorised then it wasn't permitted, therefore no contract could be formed as the parking charge notice issue reason is forbidding .

Blue badges are not valid on private land, so the vague  instruction could be impossible, unless you print off a blue badge title it "Blue badge Valid unto October 31st 2064"

Thanks Half way.

The same point crossed my mind about the sign being forbidding.

Not sure it complies with BPA rules for legibility as the £100 charge cannot be read clearly

Fruitcake

Check the BPA CoP because I think adding a handling charge to payments is prohibited. If they are, then complain to the PPC and then the BPA.

Since ZZPS are mentioned several times, this PPC appears to be part of the great Ozner scam, the man who admitted that adding fake debt collection charges to PCNs were fake add on charges, and invented purely to make more money.

Coupon-mad

Bridge (Pam) sounds like the name of a tea-lady in a sitcom. Makes me think of Mrs Overall!

Anyway those blue & white signs have the £100 in such hidden small print that I think an appeal where signage is raised as an issue could even win at POPLA, like we saw last year with ECP signs.

KeithP

The attached Freedom of Information response confirms that the London Underground car park at North Greenwich is subject to TfL Byelaws as from November 2014:-
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tube_station_car_parks_2

Coupon-mad

And the NTK was issued by ZZPS as it says in the back. Appeals go to them too so we all know how that stage will pan out!

ONLY appeal as keeper.

BBDriver

I am preparing the appeal to Bridge Pam using the wording recommended by Fruitcake. (Less the PDT and overstay)

I have a few POFA points about the NTK.

Should these and points about inadequate signage be included in the Bridge Pam appeal or is that a waste of time and they should be saved for the POPLA appeal after the inevitable Bridge Pam appeal rejection?

Possbile POFA failures:
9 (2) (a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates
The land is not relevant land.
9 (2) (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;
NTK Specified period stated as “period of parking that immediately proceeds the time and date as detailed above”
NTK does not inform that the parking charges have not been paid in full
9 (2) (e) - State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
This is not stated on the NTK
9 (7) When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
They have not supplied any evidence at all and there is none on paymyparkingcharge.com as stated in the NTK (screen shot taken)

Signs: (Note Bridge PAM have not provided any photos of signs at this stage)

No signs stating CCTV or ANPR in operation
Entrance Sign is SABA smaller signs are Bridge PAM
Bridge PAM sign does not offer a contract to park.
Bridge PAM sign font too small and unreadable

Coupon-mad

Include it if you like but the appeal is going to ZZPS (see the back of the PCN) so there is zero expectation of them reading it.