POPLA HIGH SIGN AND SUN BLINDING ON ENTRANCE

Le_Kirk

juehankie said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you reading an unrelated section about court defences?

because its clear i cant find what i need........?

You don't need anything else yet!  You have appealed, you have received a letter asking for the driver's name, you IGNORE that - you don't tell them the driver's name - and wait for a rejection letter.  At that point it is time for POPLA or IAS depending upon which body the PPC belongs to.

juehankie

Le_Kirk said:

juehankie said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you reading an unrelated section about court defences?

because its clear i cant find what i need........?

You don't need anything else yet!  You have appealed, you have received a letter asking for the driver's name, you IGNORE that - you don't tell them the driver's name - and wait for a rejection letter.  At that point it is time for POPLA or IAS depending upon which body the PPC belongs to.

thank you for a clear answer. much appreciated

juehankie

letter of appeal states I should hear back within 28 days.. 

that has passed by 7 days.

are THEY  outisde their time frame now?

one rule for one..... and all that...

juehankie

even though i sent my pictures to them of the lack of signs.. they now emailed back to state they recevied nothing from me. 

do i start POPLA appeal now? 

Coupon-mad

If they gave you a POPLA code, you can.

juehankie

yes. recvd code
is it normal to recevie a letter stating I hadnt notified them of my findings/?

i sent the pictures of the carpark with no signs. but it kept crashing when i tried upload the video too which showed a full 360  view of NO signs. 

i also mentioned we never left the car, only used it to do bay parking.
told them i was a driving instructor who LOOKS out for signs probably more than the average person!!> 

i also quoted the homeguard vs jopson case and mentioned its a free carpark.. so no choice to pay for use of it. 

Coupon-mad

None of that will work at POPLA except the video showing no signs. Jopson is irrelevant.

juehankie

the site would not allow me to upload the video

juehankie

Coupon-mad said:

None of that will work at POPLA except the video showing no signs. Jopson is irrelevant.

Coupon-mad said:

None of that will work at POPLA except the video showing no signs. Jopson is irrelevant.

are photos no use? the ones i posted on here you said were ideal proof?

juehankie

here is the response from parking eye now filed through popla

any advice?

i was unable to upload the video of walking around the carpark which show NO signs are visible for the parking bays we used. THEIR site kept crashing when i uploaded it. I can still upload it now but the popla resposne says NO further evidence can be provided. I sent the pictures in that showed from view point NO SIGNS .

this is there response. 

P ITS A FREE SITE OF 2 HOURS USE. WE USED IT FOR PARKING PRACTICE OF A BAY ONCE STORE WAS CLSOED. WE SAW NO SIGNS
(THEIR EVIDENCE PACK SHOWS SIGNS WHICH WERE NOT VISIBLE AS THEY WERE EITHER BEHIND A BUSH ON ENTRY OR FAR AWAY FROM THE BAY WE USED. )

Case History 23/04/2025 Date of event System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request 25/04/2025 Request queued to DVLA for keeper details 26/04/2025 DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: POFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper) 26/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-210 01/05/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response 01/05/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing. 13/05/2025 Letter Issued - Driver Details Required From Keeper POFA 13/06/2025 Letter Issued - **Unsuccessful POPLA - Pro-Active Rules and Conditions This site is a 2 hours maximum free stay customer only car park Monday - Saturday 8am - 6pm, Sunday 10am - 4pm, No parking outside of these times as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site. Authority We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent). It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract. Additional Information The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace Periods. We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that; "By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, including making payment as required and entering your vehicle registration details into the payment machines and/or terminals as directed." “If you fail to comply with the terms of the Parking Contract, you will become liable to pay the sum specified in this notice (the “Parking Charge”)" All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow us to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable us to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation. We operate a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, we rely upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges. The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’. Initially, we would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality and have built up this expertise with more than 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured. We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. We are regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations. Once the cameras, signage and other technology are installed at a site, we will test the system extensively before parking charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without parking charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras which we fully comply with. Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate. Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, parking charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate. It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems. There is no evidence to suggest that a parking charge has been issued incorrectly, and we go to great lengths to ensure that all parking charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to us, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that parking charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case. We can confirm that Parkingeye’s use of ANPR cameras is consistent across all the sites on which we operate, and that the data collected is handled in the same manner on each occasion that a motorist is found to be in breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation. All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow Parkingeye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable Parkingeye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation. Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document included in this evidence pack