Parking eye Southampton pier POPLA stage

Suffolkish

Further to point 1. 

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Suffolkish

Dear parking experts - and Umkomaas - can I discuss the situation that led the unknown driver to fail to understand/see/notice any signage: that people have different abilities? That first time visitors are in a vulnerable position to ‘make a contract with the parking operator’? 
A sign that separates 7pm to 7am and says something different about 7am to 7pm using the word ‘Permit’ which is complicated to separate from ‘permission’ and therefore ‘ticket’  - when in fact 24 hour parking charges are in place. 

Coupon-mad

Suffolkish said:

Oh! How much time do I have to appeal to POPLA! I will look on newbies thread. 

33 days not 28. Believe us! You have almost a week and certainly the weekend to work on it and get the winning photos in pitch black (go over an hour later as it's summer now).

Your other points are unlikely to win but 'unlit signs' is unarguably a clear case of no contract ... IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.

Remove the bit about ANPR not being accurate. 

Remove the bit about excessive charge.

Is the PCN POFA compliant? Probably yes but do we know for sure?

Suffolkish

Well… I’m afraid the Notice to Keeper certainly contained the paragraph… and the follow up email refers to that: 

“Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further information.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postaladdress of the driver.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not

been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we

have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered

keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable

conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.

Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you

do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, Parkingeye will be obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.

Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide theevidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may wellbe rejected and a POPLA code provided.”

Coupon-mad

As we expected.

Changes nothing about the only potentially winning photo-evidenced POPLA point that needs to be front & centre of your appeal.

Dob't go to the site too early. Twilight evening pics are no good.