Azure Parking tickets for stopping a few mins in car park

Coupon-mad

Still telling the World your full name.

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Still telling the World your full name.

Lol, okay, third time lucky. It's my wife's name. Have edited it again. 

Coupon-mad

Your wife could appeal to POPLA citing 'no keeper liability' (assuming she's the one with the POPLA Code) alleging it arrived in mid August - far too late - and was posted second class and showing a picture of any second class envelope she can find lying about and implying it is the one.

That will force them to prove she's wrong.

Brain of Britain Shannon will tear her hair extensions out... I reckon they use second class post. 

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Your wife could appeal to POPLA citing 'no keeper liability' (assuming she's the one with the POPLA Code) alleging it arrived in mid August - far too late - and was posted second class and showing a picture of any second class envelope she can find lying about and implying it is the one.

That will force them to prove she's wrong.

Brain of Britain Shannon will tear her hair extensions out... I reckon they use second class post. 

Thank you. I unfortunately already replied to that one earlier today as thought it was not POFA compliant (what a mess). Assuming that my original arguments to Popla earlier in the thread are not going to win on this ticket, if this one goes to court, do I have a chance of winning? 

Coupon-mad

Of course.

Nobody pays parking court claims here unless a Judge tells them to.  Imagine young Shannon's efforts at court evidence!  Anyway, it won't happen. They are new and won't be bright enough.

Danny30

Hi all, it's been a while. Unfortunately both my Pola appeals were rejected. I expected to lose on 1 of them but the other one was apparently not Pofa compliant as confirmed on page 2 of this thread but the adjudicator still said it is PoFa compliant and rejected it. The same person at Pola seemed to have adjudicated and rejected both appeals and with pretty much like for like wording so wondering if he made an error.

Below is the response:

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds of appeal: 1. The PCN is not compliant with PoFA 2. There is no keeper liability 3. There is no contract with the landowner 4. The operator hasn’t shown that it is pursuing the driver 5. Non-compliance with the BPA grace period 6. No entry signs, and the regular signs are not clear from all parking spaces. There are no marked bays nor boundary of the venue 7. The signs don’t warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for In their comments, the appellant re-iterates points 1 and 6 of the appeal grounds. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided two photos of the PCN.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

This decision relates to PCN: ******** The driver has not been identified. As the PCN fully complies with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), I am considering the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper. Accordingly, the identity of the driver is irrelevant. This deals with points 1, 2, and 4 of the appeal grounds. In point 1 of their comments, they say the operator doesn’t invite the keeper to pay the PCN, as required in Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). That full section ends in the word ‘or’ and gives the operator the choice of following Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) or Paragraph 9(2)(e)(ii), with this operator choosing to follow the second part. 

In point 2 of their comments, they say they is no period of parking specified on the PCN. On the contrary, the PCN specifies the contravention time of 08:48, which is a period time in which a motorist can be parked. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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 operator has provided photographs of the signs in place in the car park, which confirm there is no parking allowed at any time, with a £100 PCN being issued for not complying. The operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which has a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership. In point 6, the appellant has challenged the entry signage. While Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines the need for an entry sign, exceptions are listed, including if a site is very small. This site is tiny, and I am satisfied that it falls under that exception. Despite the lack of a standard entry, the site map and site photos show at least 7 terms and conditions signs, including two at the entrance that in effect act as entry signs, and 3 that are on the wall directly in front of the driver when they enter the site. 

This also answer point 3 of the appellant’s comments. Evidence has been provided by the operator to show that the vehicle remained in the no parking area for 7 minutes, exceeding the consideration period, and therefore adjudged to have been parked. In point 3 of their grounds, the appellant challenges the operator’s authority from the landowner to manage this site. The operator has provided the contract with the landowner, confirming their authorisation to manage this site, in accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. 

In point 5 of their grounds, the appellant says the operator hasn’t complied with the BPA grace period. It is the consideration period that would be applicable here, under Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. That section allows motorists 5 minutes, upon entry, to review the terms displayed on the signs, and leave the site if they cannot park for whatever reason. By remaining for 7 minutes, the appellant exceeded the consideration period. 

Point 6 has another appeal ground in addition to the signage challenge answered above. I must advise that the lack of bay markings does not invalidate a PCN issued for being in a no parking area. Had there been bay markings, I would likely have allowed this appeal, as the invitation to park in a bay would have contradicted the signage about this being a no parking area. Regarding the appellant challenge to the site boundary, it is marked with fencing and bollards, clearly separating it from the road, pavement, and neighbouring land. 

In point 7, the appellant says the signs don’t warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for. Section 22.1, it states operators may use camera technology as long as they do so overtly, and in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and that the data is accurate and securely held. There is nothing in that section that say specific information must be made available on the signs. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear and that the motorist broke them by parking in a no parking area. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly, and refuse this appeal.

Gr1pr

Please edit it into readable paragraphs 

Danny30

@Gr1pr Have edited it now 

Coupon-mad

The Appellant must complain to POPLA that their decision was wrong and the Assessor needs retraining regarding what is required for a POFA compliant NTK because this decision is a copy & paste joke.

If POPLA cannot tell that Azure NTKs are non-POFA in wording then this decision will be raised with the MHCLG to show that POPLA is not fit for purpose. You have one job, literally one tiny piece of statute law to understand and it's a thirteen years old Schedule that has never changed. How hard is it for an Assessor to understand?

Clearly the wording of at least one of the two NTKs (two POPLA codes xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx) is non POFA but the Assessor has just copied and pasted the same decision for both cases.

One or both of these two NTKs fails PoFA because there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by 9(2)(e)(i)

Also, there is no "period of parking" specified as required by 9(2)(a).

Consider this a formal complaint and be aware your answer will go to the MHCLG because this case is overseen by a consumer member of the Code Steering Group.  You don't want to get this wrong.

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

The Appellant must complain to POPLA that their decision was wrong and the Assessor needs retraining regarding what is required for a POFA compliant NTK because this decision is a copy & paste joke.

If POPLA cannot tell that Azure NTKs are non-POFA in wording then this decision will be raised with the MHCLG to show that POPLA is not fit for purpose. You have one job, literally one tiny piece of statute law to understand and it's a thirteen years old Schedule that has never changed. How hard is it for an Assessor to understand?

Clearly the wording of at least one of the two NTKs (two POPLA codes xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx) is non POFA but the Assessor has just copied and pasted the same decision for both cases.

One or both of these two NTKs fails PoFA because there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by 9(2)(e)(i)

Also, there is no "period of parking" specified as required by 9(2)(a).

Consider this a formal complaint and be aware your answer will go to the MHCLG because this case is overseen by a consumer member of the Code Steering Group.  You don't want to get this wrong.

Wow thanks @Coupon-mad.

So should I pretty much copy and paste the above for my formal complaint?

I think one of the NTK's is non POFA compliant and the other one is so assume the assessor thought as the first one was compliant, he wouldn't bother reading the second one and assume it had the same wording. 

Re, the no "period of parking" specified as required by 9(2)(a), is that because there is no exit time, but only an entry time on the NTK's.