POPLA appeal - PPS parking - Western Gateway (HM Passport Office) - advice on response wording

amidamaru22

 Hi all

 

Looking for some help with this “red route” PCN on private land. I submitted the below initial appeal based on newbies thread, and have got the below rejection mail, with POPLA code.

 

I was actually sat in the car the whole time (10 mins) outside the passport office (waiting for my 70 year old uncle who couldn’t go by train and cannot walk very far). The “officer” clearly took the photos while I was sat in the car, rather than maybe first coming and telling me to movie (typical), I should’ve maybe been more vigilant of their presence.

 

I have also attached the photos uploaded (here) and you can see that I wasn’t parked next to the sign so would reasonably have to get out of the car to even look at it and learn the restrictions.

 

 Initial letter from PPS: 

 Initial appeal text to PPS:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

 

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location, and that there was sufficient signage at the entrance to the road facing the driver, such that a driver would not have to stop and get out of the car to read the sign. Clearly, the only sign in the area, as shown in your photo, is not facing the road and there was no sign at the entrance (as seen in attached).

 

Response/rejection from PPS:

 

“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.

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.

Having considered the photographs provided by the warden, it is evident that a sign detailing the specific terms was positioned in

close proximity to your parked vehicle. Signage clearly states no parking on red routes. Responsibility rested with the driver to

read the signs and ensure they adhere to the advertised terms in order to avoid the possibility of a PCN being issued.

This site is private land with its own terms and conditions and the motorist is to adhere to the terms as set out. The evidence

shows that your vehicle was 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.”

 

Draft response to POPLA (based on this post from the same issue earlier this year and reference to Henry Greenslade as mentioned here)

 

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 Restore van was parked directly in front of the sign as shown in the photos, 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.

5. The roads leading to the passport office are not public roads, they are laid out to appear like public roads and include double red lines next to kerbs, there are no markings on the kerbs themselves. In order for a driver to read any roadside signs it would be necessary to stop which could trigger a charge from UKCPS.

'No stopping' markings should be red and there is an annual report from POPLA which IAS will be familiar with, where Lead Adjudicator, barrister Henry Greenslade refers to what a no stopping zone must look like with red lines and repeater signs. These signs do not exist at the entrance to Western Gateway nor are there repeater signs through the area.

 

 

Is there anything else you can recommend I add in the POPLA appeal or anything I have missed?

 

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

A 'red route' requires repeater signs where the terms and a clearway logo are facing traffic.

Bet that's not the case. Take it to POPLA but you will have to spell out the requirements for a properly signed red route.