POPLA appeal - P4Parking PCN during unloading at residential development

sh44ggy

@Coupon-mad Amazing stuff! I will Google it first thing tomorrow before drafting the POPLA appeal! Thanks for the insight!

TBH, I was baffled when, after being reassured by the warden that no PCN would be issued, I found out about the letter just a couple of days later. I cannot comprehend how someone can just outright lie like that. My only explanation would be conflict avoidance, but that's not a very good excuse, as those people should be trained appropriately, as the Code says.

I'll upload the sign in a second, together with the 'map of the road'.

sh44ggy

This is the bird's-eye view of the location in question.

The blue dot is the concierge building. I found out about it only after emailing with Rendall and Rittner; of course, I had to Google who the managing company of that development was first.

The yellow area is currently fenced off and not available to the public. It also includes the parking bays on Duke of Wellington Avenue when turning left from New Warren Lane.

The arrows show how the driver entered the development.

Green dots are signpost locations and where the delivery was scheduled.

The red dot is where the driver stopped, directly next to the 'Visitors and Deliveries' sign.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Coupon-mad

These first two signs are a parking contract offered by RAR, not by P4Parking:

This sign (below) carries the logos of both RAR and P4Parking and the latter do not 'make the contract their own' therefore they are only an agent and Fairlie v Fenton comes into play (not that POPLA understand that settled case law about agency).

Search the forum for that case.

There's more:

• 'white on black' text isn't readable on a road sign intended to form an agreed contract (to pay £100) which - due to a set up of immediate ticketing/photos taken by a lurking warden who reportedly lied to the driver - must be capable of being read and understood while driving. No chance!;
• it mimics a 24/7 no-stopping zone but neither the sign nor a single red line convey that meaning and (unlike an Airport) this isn't a sensitive site justifying red lines & immediate tickets;
• it says 'if you park on this land contravening the above' … but what is the meaning of 'this land'? What boundary does the sign purport to cover? It can't be no parking across the whole site, because the RAR signs offer and positively invite visitor parking (and deliveries) on different terms. And their offer prevails and trumps an agent, because RAR are the landowner/freeholder;
• there is no Code-compliant entrance sign;
• there's no GDPR sign/privacy policy;
• the sign says "please refer to the PCN issued to the vehicle" but there wasn't one;
• the sign also mentions CCTV and ANPR but that wasn't in use either;
• there is no data use/surveillance warning of a situation involving a warden taking images with a phone camera (in fact any device) for the data processing purpose of a PCN being served by post later. So this breaches the DPA and UKGDPR 2018, and it breaches the DUA Act 2025, and the surveillance/body-worn camera rules (all enforced by the ICO);
• and it also breaches the DMCC Act 2024 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the main UK consumer protection laws, enforced by the CMA) because all signs are 'consumer notices' but this one is missing the transparency and 'material information' that the CMA talked about in July. They tore into the parking sector and effectively pointed out that the industry Code of Practice is weak, and isn't reflective of consumer law. The missing 'material information' includes the glaring omission of a GDPR privacy policy at the entrance, which makes the whole set up of camera images sent for PCN issuance by post, unlawful data processing.
  

Was the car on or adjacent to the single red line? Or at an unmarked kerb?

sh44ggy

The vehicle was stopped directly under the 'Visitors & Deliveries' sign.

Fully on the road, perpendicular to the kerb, with a significant distance from it, as the driver had to unfold the ramp to remove goods from inside the van. There were 2 other delivery vehicles parked at the same place (Ocado on the left side and Sainsbury's on the right). Adjacent to a single red line with a post sign saying:

'←Deliveries 7pm - 7 am
Deliveries 7am - 7pm→'

I noticed that one of the T&C signs has only the P4Parking logo on it. This sign is located halfway between green dots 1 and 2. The following post at No. 2 has a T&C (only P4Parking logo) sign and a 'Visitors Only' sign (only RAR logo), and further down the road, the 'No Parking At Any Time' sign with both logos.

This is the 'T&C' sign from the driver's perspective from the dashcam footage.

Castle

There is a 0845 phone number, which was banned 12 years ago!

Coupon-mad

Read Fairlie v Fenton. These agents haven't 'made the contract their own' and even distance themselves as 'not liable for any loss or damage' on site. Just agents then!

And the double red lines are a poor attempt to create a pseudo 'no-stopping zone' but that requires:

• repeater (lots of) 'Clearway' cross signs on BOTH sides of the road, facing oncoming traffic, not at right angles;
• special dispensation from the APAs and only where the site is sensitive.

kryten3000

That 0845 number should not be in use either.

sh44ggy

It has been pointed out by @Castle earlier today.

I will include it in an appeal as a side note, as it's not the basis of what's wrong with this development.

sh44ggy

Permit Template

While using this as part of my appeal, do I use the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N?

From what I understand in this argument

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, stating: ''I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.''

I don't feel that this argument sits well with what my situation is, as the Pace Recovery case is about 3rd party changing tenancy agreements. However, can it be used to support Jopson's argument further, for example, by arguing that:

"Whilst Pace Recovery & Storage v Mr N concerned a leaseholder's right to park, I believe the underlying principle is equally relevant here. The court held that a parking operator could not unilaterally impose additional conditions outside the landowner's contractual arrangements.

In the present case, the vehicle attended the development solely because it had been invited by a resident to deliver a bulky item. As confirmed in Jopson v Homeguard, deliveries to residential blocks are an ordinary and necessary incident of residential occupation. If the resident had no authority to receive deliveries without first arranging a concierge permit, that restriction would necessarily form part of the landowner's visitor and delivery scheme. It could not simply exist as an undisclosed enforcement policy operated by P4Parking."

I also found this goldmine for Red Routes on the internet: Traffic Signs Manual

Section 7 Clearways, which clearly doesn't apply here as none of the lines is accompanied by the indication signs.

Section 16 Red Routes. Which clearly explains that Red Routes mean 'no stopping' but, to be in effect, have to be accompanied by specific signs (16.1.4, Figure 16-4).

Furthermore, 16.1.2 says "Also, provision can be made for parking and loading at certain times. Red routes are intended to be used strategically to deal with traffic problems assessed on a whole‑route basis, not to deal with issues on relatively short lengths of road." The road in question is probably 100-150 yards cul-de-sac.

And 16.1.3 says "Provision will need to be made for loading where this is essential for businesses along the route and cannot be accommodated either off‑highway or on adjacent roads." Again, this is cul-de-sac that has only approximately 3 parking spaces for "Visitors Only" (which serve 4 or 5 15-storey blocks of flats), as all other parking bays are fenced off due to the ongoing construction.

Coupon-mad

Don't use Pace. POPLA won't read it anyway.

And re red routes, quote Henry Greenslade's POPLA Annual report about no stopping zones (search the forum for words about that) not the Traffic signs manual.