F1rst Parking - St George Wharf - Acknowledgement of appeal but neither accepted nor denied

Lebowski36 · 3 January 2025 at 6:00PM

First things first, a massive thanks to everyone who puts their time and effort into this forum and these threads. I've successfully appealed a fair number of PCNs over the past 6-7 years thanks to the wealth of info on this forum.

I appreciate that my case will not be unique, but I have not managed to find the relevant info/answer to the questions I have.

Having sent the 1st template appealing an overstay (of a couple of minutes) at St Georges Wharf, I received a response the next day, though this leaves me with a bit of a conundrum... F1rst Parking have acknowledged the appeal, but haven't made any ruling on it, and are instead stating the following:

---

Dear Mr XXX,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXX (Vehicle: XXX)

Site: St George Wharf

Issue date: DATE

We acknowledge your appeal received for XXX. Please provide the following evidence by DATE. In this appeal you have not stated the driver at the time of contravention, therefore please provide us with a full name and serviceable address to enable us to pursue the driver. If you fail to provide this information within the required timeframe (29 days after notification = DATE) as stated on your Notice to Keeper dated DATE, the registered keeper will be liable for this PCN under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

PLEASE SEND THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TOSALES@FIRSTPARKING.CO.UK

WITH THE PCN NUMBER IN THE SUBJECT LINE.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department

First Parking

---

This was sent to me as a PDF. I've copied the text and X'd all relevant info.

I obviously have no intention of revealing the driver to them. Do I email the address stated, with a copy of my appeal? Do I ignore this and not contact them at all?

Where do I stand when I do not know what the outcome of my appeal is?

What would be the next step for me to take here?

Thanks very much in advance for your insight and assistance.

KeithP · 3 January 2025 at 6:04PM

Hello and welcome.

Do nothing but wait for them to reject your appeal and supply a PoPLA code.

Lebowski36 · 21 February 2025 at 12:33AM

Received the rejection as expect and appealed at POPLA. First Parking provided their "evidence pack" and I've just sent in my rebuttal. Fingers crossed

Lebowski36 · 21 February 2025 at 12:36AM

Here's a copy of my rebuttal, just in case it may be useful for anyone:

Rebuttal to Evidence Pack Submitted by First Parking

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am writing to respond to the evidence pack provided by First Parking in relation to my parking charge notice (PCN). After reviewing the documentation, I respectfully request that you consider the following points as part of my appeal.

1. Signage at the entrance

The signage at the entrance to the parking location is not easily visible or obvious. The sign is placed low on the right-hand side of the entrance, but due to the layout and the flow of traffic, it is not within the driver's natural line of sight. The driver is entering from a busy four-lane road, needing to cross a cycle path and a pedestrian pavement while also keeping to the left side of the parking site to avoid overtaking vehicles. As a result, the sign is easily missed unless the driver makes an unsafe and unnecessary adjustment of their vision, which could lead to overlooking pedestrians or cyclists.

Further, the image on page 30 of First Parking’s evidence pack clearly demonstrates that the entrance sign is not within the drivers line of vision at the moment of entry (as the entering vehicle would be in the location of the white van shown in the image). If the driver would for some reason decide to adjust their vision and see the sign, the only information visible on the sign in large font, is stating "Pickup and drop off only," while the crucial 5 minute time frame is in much smaller font, making it difficult to read. The second “entrance” sign, located by the exit, would only be visible if the driver checks their mirrors, but this is impractical as the driver needs to focus on navigating the parking area and cross a pedestrian zone, a two-way cycle path, and merge onto a busy road.

2. Size and clarity of additional signage within the parking area

The additional signage within the parking location is not clear enough to be read from within the vehicle. The signs are located in places where, unless a driver is extremely close to them, they would not be able to read the terms and conditions properly, which violates BPA regulations on signage. As evidenced on page 16 of First Parking’s pack, the signs again highlight "Pickup and drop off only" in a legible size, but the critical details such as the five-minute time frame are presented in smaller font, making them unreadable from the driver’s seat. The actual info on the amount charged is too small to be able to read properly and the circumstances in which it will be issued are even smaller. The icons used to communicate the circumstances under which charges are applied are also unclear and do not aid in understanding the terms.

3. Lack of illumination and visibility during dark hours

The signage within the parking location is not illuminated, which makes it practically impossible for drivers to notice or read the signs in the dark. From the ANPR images (provided by First Parking), it is evident that this PCN was issued during dark conditions. The lack of lighting and the poor visibility of the signs, coupled with the unclear sign at the entrance, further support the argument that the driver was unaware of the terms and conditions. Even the images of the signs submitted by First Parking fail to show any illumination or clear visibility in low-light conditions, reinforcing my position that the signage is inadequate.

4. Absence of signage near the stairs

Additionally, there are areas within the parking location where no signage is visible at all, such as near both sets of stairs. As shown on page 19 of the evidence pack, the car parked near the stairs does not have any sign visible from within the vehicle. This further highlights that the signage is insufficient and inconsistent throughout the site, contributing to a lack of clarity regarding the terms and conditions.

5. Failure to provide adequate grace period

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that a minimum grace period of 10 minutes should be provided for a driver to leave the car park. However, First Parking has not granted this grace period. In the accompanying letter (page 33 of the evidence pack), First Parking mentions that a grace period of "1 minutes" was allowed by them. I believe this reference to "1 minutes" is a clear error or manipulation of their template, as the plural form “minutes” should refer to more than one minute. Typically, this template would indicate a correct grace period as per the BPA Code of Practice, but I believe it has been reduced to fit their narrative.

Had First Parking provided a reasonable grace period (even just 2 minutes, as the plural use of the word “minutes” in their template would indicate), this PCN would not have been issued, as the driver would have still been within the allowed grace period.

6. Inadequate contractual evidence

The document provided by First Parking on pages 35 to 39 of their evidence pack purports to show the contract with the landowner. However, this document is heavily redacted, with significant portions obscured. On the second page, there is a digitally created signature by someone named Jo Clarke, but no details regarding the authority of Jo Clarke or their position are provided. The document also lacks clarity regarding the landowner’s identity, with sections of the text either left blank or removed. As a result, this contract does not show who Jo Clarke is nor whether they are authorised by the actual landowner. The client's (printed) name is either left blank, or removed and could be a single tenant, who could by now, no longer be a trading company or could be the previous owners/agents, or could in any case, merely be the managing agent, not the landowner. This raises serious questions about the validity of the contract. POPLA decisions have previously confirmed that redacted contracts, and those signed only by another agent (not the landowner and with no evidence of authority flowing from the landowner), or those with unclear or missing signatures, are insufficient as evidence. Without knowing the full details of the agreement or the authority of the signatory, this document cannot be considered valid proof that First Parking has the right to issue PCNs on this site.

Conclusion

Based on the points raised above, I respectfully request that POPLA consider the inadequacy of the signage, the failure to provide a proper grace period, and the lack of clear contractual evidence. First Parking has not adhered to the standards required under the BPA Code of Practice, and I submit that the PCN should be cancelled accordingly.

Thank you for considering my appeal.

Yours faithfully,

Lebowski36