pcn to registered keeper

Pdmum · 7 February 2018 at 10:51PM

Sorry i just copied it as it was sent to me. Hope this is easier.

We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by the BPA Auditing Team.
Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms.
By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorist.
Signs – according to British Parking Association Code of Practice 18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers.
Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.
Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.
Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.
The sign at the entrance does meet all of the BPAs guidance.
The motorist would not be doing 30mph at this point as there is an approach and the motorist is not directly entering the car park from the road.
18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges.
You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.
Keep a record of where all the signs are.
Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm
We enclose copies of the signage at this site.
The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage.
The signage clearly states:
Please pay for your stay.
Please enter the full, correct, vehicle registration details at the payment terminal, of the vehicle you are parking.
Charges apply at all times. •
All permit holders must have their vehicle pre registered before using the car park.
• Park only within marked bays.
• No stopping or waiting.
If you cannot pay for any reason do not park.
• Blue badge concessions do not apply.
• The xxxxxx is not involved in the parking management of this car park and cannot intervene in any disputes.
• Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes.
• Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry.
• Pay by Phone
It also states that if you enter or park on this land, contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice.
This car park is run by ANPR cameras which take a photograph using infrared technology to capture vehicles as they enter and exit this site.
These photographs are time and date stamped. To complete a successful paid parking session the driver must follow the correct process in order to pay for their stay, whether from the machine or via RingGo.

The vehicle entered the site at 19:55. We can confirm that a 2 hour parking session was purchased at 19:57.
Therefore, the driver was able to read the signage and be aware of the terms and conditions. The parking session expired at 21:57 and the Appellants vehicle exited the site at 22:13, 16 minutes after the parking session expired.
When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.
The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park.
13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The Appellants vehicle exited the site 16 minutes after the parking session expired, exceeding the minimum grace period of 10 minutes, as set by the BPA. The Appellants vehicle remained parked on site and the driver agreed to the terms and conditions.

If the driver felt, for any reason, that they were not able to adhere to the terms and conditions, then they would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site.
We have provided a log showing that the Appellants vehicle had been parked on site the day prior to the date of the contravention and therefore the driver had sufficient opportunity to be aware of the terms and conditions.
The Appellant’s vehicle was parked for 4hours and 21 minutes but payment was only made for 4 hours.

Therefore, an unpaid parking session occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued.

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions.
On this occasion, the Appellant did not.
We request that this appeal be refused.

With regards to the appellant’s remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Details on the case be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Fruitcake · 7 February 2018 at 11:03PM

The PPC mentions two different periods. One for two and a bit hours, and one for four and a bit hours. Which one is the PCN for?

They mention the vehicle visited the previous day, but of course that could have been a completely different driver.

They say you didn't deny seeing the signs. You said you weren't the driver, but did you tell them that as in one of your posts you just say you don't drive the vehicle.

Pdmum · 7 February 2018 at 11:28PM

PCN is for the two and a bit hours.

I dont ever drive this vehicle,
in my appeal i stated I do not drive this vehicle.

I suppose i should just spell it out to them that if i dont drive this vehicle then there is no possibility that i would have seen the signs on either visit.
The images of signs i provided were from google, my main point here was that no sign shown at entrance and signs inside the car park were camouflaged by dramatic graffit on the walls and that the car park is unlit at night.
The pictures they have provided are in daylight and many of them are in close up format.

Fruitcake · 8 February 2018 at 10:14AM

The point I was trying to make was that telling them you don't drive the vehicle is not the same as telling them you were not in the vehicle at the time.

I'm confused by your point about the graffiti on the signs. Are you saying there was graffiti on them? If this was the case then you need your own pictures of them.

Pdmum · 8 February 2018 at 10:08PM

Looking further at the evidence there seem to be quite a few points that i can comment on, some of the evidence is contradictary and doesnt apply to the NTK i was sent. It almost seems like they have mixed mine up with some other appeal.
I think i should try to draft some comments and post on the forum before i submit.
Should i comment on the fact that they have not commented on all my points of appeal or just comment on their specific evidence?
Thank you

Coupon-mad · 8 February 2018 at 10:20PM

I would comment mainly on their evidence, and try to keep it concise (bullet points). No restating your appeal or POPLA just will not read it or allow it.

DreamDetective1 · 9 February 2018 at 6:51PM

All these ANPR car park systems know what vehicles have entered past the camera.. Premier Park have set the system to allow for mistakes in entering the numbers... I think this could be fraud because they knowingly allow you to purchase a parking ticket for a vehicle they know has not entered and they know you must have made a mistake but they get double bubble paid for a space and can send £100 ticket to get more out of you. There is no technical reason to not do as others do.. enter a wrong number.. get a message plate not found.

Pdmum · 9 February 2018 at 11:39PM

Sorry not sure how this is relevant to me?

Coupon-mad · 10 February 2018 at 12:17AM

When a person with less than a 4 figure post-count rocks up, it's wise to be be wary of what's posted on this forum and ignore it, if irrelevant. Look how many posts I have made, and other regulars!

Pdmum · 10 February 2018 at 5:57PM

Would someone kindly look over my comments on evidence and advise. Thank you.

My comments on evidence provided by xxxxxx xxxx are as follows:

[FONT=&quot]The images of all signs are in daylight and are not true indicators of the conditions of the time of the alleged breach.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The entrance sign is very low, unlit and not in the usual field of vision for a driver entering directly from a main road. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator says that there is an approach to the car park . Images on page 19 and 27 show only pavement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The images on page 27 are also very low and unlit and would not be seen until leaving the car park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator has felt the need to circle the images of signage in order for them to be easily visible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] An exaggerated image is not a true representation of how the signs would appear to a motorist.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Operator by their own admission on page 3 and in the close up image on page 18 state[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry. (well below the BPA CoP recommendations)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The parking session has been calculated from the time of payment. So the alleged breach is incorrect. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Below the blown up image on page 18 is a statement saying the Appellant failed to enter the full, correct vehicle registration details at the payment terminal, therefore a parking charge notice was issued. This is untrue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Page 41 headed ‘Other evidence’ there is a copy of the operators log showing payment for in their own words Appellants full and correct vehicle registration.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator states they have provided a log that the Appellants vehicle had been parked on site the day prior to the date of the contravention and therefore the driver had sufficient opportunity to be aware of the terms and conditions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This information is irrelevant as the operator is assuming that the driver is the same person on both occasions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator states the Appellants vehicle was parked for 4 hours and 21 minutes but payment was only made for 4 hours..Therefore an unpaid parking session occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. This is untrue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator has provided a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (page 5) which contradicts the above statement..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator states ‘with regards to the appellants remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss’ .[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This statement has never been made by the appellant to the operator. Reference to the Parking Eye Ltd v Mr Barry Beavis was related only to the signage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no site plan included in the contract[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parts 2, 3 and 4 are missing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parts 10,11,13,14,16 and 17 are blank[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator has not provided the names of the people who have signed the contract and there are no witness signatories for either party.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] For these reasons no conclusion can be reached that the PCN has been issued correctly.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are a catalogue of obvious errors with this evidence and I respectfully ask for POPLA to uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you[/FONT]

pcn to registered keeper

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free