PPS - Western gate way London - Going to POPLA

zeesara

I've appealed as the keeper of the vehicle which has been rejected, i followed the newbies thread and now going to POPLA. I need some advice on how to write it, i have seen some of the POPLA decisions posted but couldn't find a case similar to this. 

This in regards to the black Mercedes, the car stopped breifly in order for the driver to read the sign as the van was blocking the view and the signs are spaced out quite sporadically. The driver also wears glasses and the writing on the sign is quite small so driver had to get out and read. We actually saw the PPS attendant get out of his car and smile as he took a walk (what we thought), he was actually hiding and taking pictures. 

Once the driver read the sign and saw it wasn't allowed we drove off, it can be seen in one of the pictures with the indicator light on. The sign was a couple of meters behind the Grey Van. 
Below is the appeal that i wrote:

I am writing as the registered keeper of the above vehicle to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by Private Parking Solutions (PPS). The PCN alleges the vehicle was parked on double red lines; however, I dispute the charge on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate and Poorly Positioned Signage The only visible signage was installed parallel to the road and not facing oncoming traffic, contrary to requirements for clear and prominent signage. This made it impossible to view or read from a drivers approach.

2. Signage Obstructed by Another Vehicle At the time, a large van with registration H*****O was parked directly in front of the sign, completely obstructing visibility. Your own photographic evidence shows this obstruction. There were no other signs next to or in front of the vehicle to inform of any restrictions.

3. No Reasonable Opportunity to Understand Terms Before Alleged Contravention Due to the lack of visible signage, the driver exited the vehicle to locate and read the sign. After establishing the nature of the restriction, the vehicle left the area shortly afterward. Your own photos show the vehicles indicator light on and in the process of leaving, during which no parking activity (as defined in the BPA Code of Practice) took place.

4. Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012 As the registered keeper, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence that your signage complies with the British Parking Associations Code of Practice, nor that the conditions for keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 have been met. In light of the above, I request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. Should you choose to reject this appeal, please provide a POPLA verification code so I may refer the matter to the independent appeals service.

Their response:

Further to your appeal received regarding the above parking charge, I have now had the opportunity to review this case and my findings are below.

Parking at Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London is only for the vehicles that are parked in accordance with the site instructions, as detailed on signage on site; the signage is clear, in excess of industry standards, stating:

 

RED ROUTE

NO PARKING AT ANY TIME

NO PARKING ON RED ROUTES OR PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATHS

NO WAITING OT RED ROUTES OR PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATHS

NO LOADING/ UNLOADING OT RED ROUTES OR PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATHS

 

The charge was issued because your vehicle was parked on red route, which is a direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions.

The signage, placed prominently, is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. It also made clear that failure to comply with the terms offered, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a £100 PCN. It is important to note that the signs do not need to be visible from every space on the site, they only need to be placed throughout the site so that the motorist has the opportunity to read the terms and conditions. As such prominent sign at the site’s entrances makes clear that terms apply and refers users to further signs within the site. Responsibility rested with you, having passed the entrance sign, to seek out additional signage within the site and avail yourself of the relevant terms.  According to the evidence, there is a sufficient amount of signs on site, and at least one sign detailing the specific terms was positioned close to your parked vehicle. The terms and conditions were adequately brought to your attention, and therefore, we cannot be held responsible for a breach of the parking contract.  

Please note that double red lines mean that rules and regulations apply at all times and on all days. Red lines are meant to ease congestion in traffic hot spots, so they mean no stopping at any time. The double and single red lines used on Red Routes indicate that stopping to park, load/unload or to board and alight from a vehicle is prohibited.

The evidence shows that your vehicle parked on red route, and therefore, in breach of the advertised in the signage terms.

For the reasons noted above, we find the PCN was issued correctly and we refuse your appeal.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions of the site.

(the rest of the response is standard instructions on how to pay etc, they have provided POPLA code)

Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.  

fisherjim

What utter cobblers these scammers speak.

Signage and road markings in private car parks mean what ever the scamming parking company make up, you cannot know this until you read the signs. 

In your description of events you did exactly this as required by their pathetic response:

As such prominent sign at the site’s entrances makes clear that terms apply and refers users to further signs within the site. Responsibility rested with you, having passed the entrance sign, to seek out additional signage within the site and avail yourself of the relevant terms.

They were never going to accept your appeal and some robotic dimwit in their sweaty rejections office has fired out a template rejection, you can try POPLA with the usual arguments including signage but they will side with the scammers at any opportunity, you would need dated photos to present.

But the halfwits talk about "entrance signs" there aren't any, see below from GSV 2024:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Excel+London/@51.5080794,0.0218868,3a,75y,51.3h,83.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sam7ImAsdiBL1Oni9LU3bZg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=6.876350739664531&panoid=am7ImAsdiBL1Oni9LU3bZg&yaw=51.29851789083038!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8a80ce609e50d:0xa0de5f705d7aec7!8m2!3d51.5084601!4d0.029846!16zL20vMDR4ZG0w?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for:

Henry Greenslade repeater signs red route

...and quote him in your POPLA appeal. If there is to be a red route there MUST be repeater signs facing oncoming traffic and a large entrance sign with a 'clearway' cross.