Premier Park POPLA Appeal - Request sense check

Bolognese

Good Evening,

I have been through the newbie advice thread and lots of others with templates of POPLA appeals, so I thank everyone who has come before me, it feels like I'm standing on the shoulders of giants!

I was hoping for a sense check of my appeal to POPLA and any advice or comments people wished to add to aid the case.

The story - 
The driver went to visit a friend in an apartment block, and did what they usually do, of avoiding the marked bays and instead parked alongside the pavement/railings where there are no ground markings. The friend and driver's belief was that the marked bays were for residents/employees of the block and everywhere else unmarked was fair game. There were double yellows present nearby which were obviously prohibited areas. The driver has never seen any parking signs previously and was comforted by many others who parked in a similar way. The driver also always obeys parking rules and is fastidious and law abiding.

A few days later the keeper received a NtK with a PCN and all involved were shocked. This car parking company is clearly a rogue operator designed to extract money from members of the public with their awful signage and pushy letters. This is not how our society should work and it is unbelievable that unscrupulous companies like this are allowed to operate.

An appeal was sent to Premier Park and their standard rejection received:

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was parked in an area where no parking is allowed, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
It would appear that you believe we are obligated under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) to supply you with information that is not deemed to be personal data.
It may be worthwhile reading the following link from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) which gives a clear definition of Personal Data:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/what-is-personal-data/what-is-personal-data/
Therefore, we must advise, the additional information you have requested does not fall under your rights with regard to Article 15 of GDPR and therefore we will not be providing this to you.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; you can either pay or appeal to POPLA - you cannot do both

Below are links to the PCN received;

PCN Page 1

PCN Page 2

Below is a link to the POPLA Appeal that will be submitted, with 5 main arguments;

• There are no entrance signs, and parking signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all areas of the car park. Furthermore, there are no road markings delineating areas where parking is forbidden.

• No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

• Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

• Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of  Practice – non-compliance

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

POPLA Appeal

Any comments or advice on the appeal letter would be greatly appreciated!

Once again, thank you for this brilliant community.

Coupon-mad

I simply would not bother with POPLA if the NTK is POFA compliant, unless it was darkness (evening visit) and if you can get damning photos of the signs in the dark and (better) whole areas with no sign in the picture.

I tell friends not to use the IAS or POPLA unless it's case with a slam dunk POPLA win.

Better to sit tight & ignore. Tell them / their agents if you move house with 6 years of course as you must open every letter to ensure you never miss seeing a court claim.

Ignore all £170 threatograms.

Get pics as evidence & keep them.