The Truth Behind Where Your Money Goes (Tax Free!)

fisherjim

"They (and POPLA) maintained their signage is compliant with requirements."

By what evidence?

Did they provide date stamped photographs?

POPLA will always repeat the phrase "the operator has stated that there are x number of signs etc stating the terms and conditions" which isn't evidence.

brandmartyr

Yes, they provided photographs of signs and a site map as attached. The photographs were taken October, November when the car park was empty. Because it's a surfer spot, during an August evening the car park was full of Surf Vans/ Camper Vans/ SUVs and Cars with Roofboxes which definitely would have obscured some of the poorly placed peripheral signage. I'm going to be in the area again in a few weeks and intend to take the chance to do some more photography and maybe recreate my experience through a video.

I believe I stopped around the bottom left hand corner where there is nothing in direct line of sight.

Castle

brandmartyr said:

Yes, they provided photographs of signs and a site map as attached. The photographs were taken October, November when the car park was empty. 

The Photos are nearly 5 years old!

fisherjim

Yes as Castle sates those are not photos taken at the time of the event, they are quite clearly historical office copies.

Their adapted Google plan showing pretty coloured shapes where signage may have been placed in 2019 is not evidence that is is still there nearly 5 years later or if it is still legible.

I can see from GSV that there is a third camera position not even noted on their plan (which is the entrance ANPR) in the far corner, the one covering the exit is on the right of the entrance, and the one near the exit looks to be an old stile ANPR or CCTV camera which is in slightly different position to that shown on their plan. 

All enough I would say to show that their evidence isn't accurate / current.

So you should have debunked that with POPLA who always discount appellant's photos that are not date stamped, but seem to conveniently lose the ability to see when PPC's fail that test!

Half_way

If the exit data is with the photo then it will have a date on as well as a location if from a phone embedded in the photo file data

brandmartyr

fisherjim said:

Yes as Castle sates those are not photos taken at the time of the event, they are quite clearly historical office copies.

Their adapted Google plan showing pretty coloured shapes where signage may have been placed in 2019 is not evidence that is is still there nearly 5 years later or if it is still legible.

I can see from GSV that there is a third camera position not even noted on their plan (which is the entrance ANPR) in the far corner, the one covering the exit is on the right of the entrance, and the one near the exit looks to be an old stile ANPR or CCTV camera which is in slightly different position to that shown on their plan. 

All enough I would say to show that their evidence isn't accurate / current.

So you should have debunked that with POPLA who always discount appellant's photos that are not date stamped, but seem to conveniently lose the ability to see when PPC's fail that test!

This is a link to the actual signage file Premier Park submitted to POPLA. What their map doesn't show is the road based signed that lured me to safety and is a generic P sign.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AldX589xDbGVgtMy6vjheBWurJBFyA?e=AtRTbq

This was POPLA's contradictory response in their appeal denial:

It is understandable given the circumstances that they did not see the signs regarding charges. However, the decision on whether or not to cancel the parking charge remains with the parking operator. On this occasion, the parking operator had already considered the mitigating circumstances when reviewing your initial appeal. Therefore, we have not referred this case back to the parking operator. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the signs state “…Please pay for your stay…Up to 30 minutes £0.50…”. There are 6 signs on the site to inform motorists terms and conditions apply and a payment must be made to park at the site. Based on the size of the carpark I am satisfied this is sufficient to inform motorists of the terms and conditions of parking and the parking operator has complied with section 19.3 of BPA code. 

fisherjim

Well it's water under the bridge with POPLA that boat has sailed, they have believed the PPC's evidence even though it's 1) out of date 2) Just office records not on the day.

Parking operators never take notice of mitigating circumstances it isn't profitable.

Looks like a free shoppers car park from this angle.