Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 12:00 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Michael Souris
    Popla rejection
    • #1
    • 5th Aug 18, 12:00 PM
    Popla rejection 5th Aug 18 at 12:00 PM
    Hello you good people.
    Over the last few months I have read and re-read the Newbies thread, and dozens of linked posts from around this forum; accessed templates, both here and on cloud hosting sites; read up on the BPA CoC (v7, January 2018); and generally tried to keep quiet and do my homework while preparing my POPLA appeal. Thanks to everybody for the useful information and guidance.
    Having now received a rejection from POPLA - to what I thought was a fairly robust appeal based on many hours of research - I would greatly appreciate some bespoke advice or someone willing to look over the arguments of my appeal - sorry, "dispute" - and the response received.
    I won't go into any details of my case just yet - I'm basically raising my hand here.
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Aug 18, 12:14 PM
    • 11,020 Posts
    • 10,986 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 5th Aug 18, 12:14 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Aug 18, 12:14 PM
    Without seeing your appeal and the adjudication no-one can offer and opinion. Please redact personal details and post it here. Also complain to your MP

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Aug 18, 12:14 PM
    • 9,702 Posts
    • 12,758 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #3
    • 5th Aug 18, 12:14 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Aug 18, 12:14 PM
    Hello you good people.
    Over the last few months I have read and re-read the Newbies thread, and dozens of linked posts from around this forum; accessed templates, both here and on cloud hosting sites; read up on the BPA CoC (v7, January 2018); and generally tried to keep quiet and do my homework while preparing my POPLA appeal. Thanks to everybody for the useful information and guidance.
    Having now received a rejection from POPLA - to what I thought was a fairly robust appeal based on many hours of research - I would greatly appreciate some bespoke advice or someone willing to look over the arguments of my appeal - sorry, "dispute" - and the response received.
    I won't go into any details of my case just yet - I'm basically raising my hand here.
    Originally posted by Michael Souris
    POPLA is very hit and miss, all depends if on the day
    they have fully trained assessors or not.
    They are an organisation who cannot be trusted

    If you want comments you really need to give full details
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 5th Aug 18, 2:20 PM
    • 3,417 Posts
    • 2,374 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #4
    • 5th Aug 18, 2:20 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Aug 18, 2:20 PM
    If you have used your real name as your log-in name, you should request a change from the forum admin team. If you post details that the PPC could use against you, you will have shot yourself in the foot. Of course it might be a pseudonym/alias/joke in which case ignore me.
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 3:28 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    • #5
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:28 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:28 PM
    Thankyou for your responses. Le_Kirk, rest assured that I'm not using my real name!

    A few of the ins and outs:

    My other half is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and all postal communication (ie from the operator) has been addressed to her. However she has granted me authority to act on her behalf as far as the POPLA appeal is concerned. At no point have either of us been identified as the driver of the vehicle.

    My challenge can be read at:
    [as a new user I am unable to post links - please bear with me while I redact, copy, paste below!]
    My challenge is based on one - successful - which I discovered through this forum (thanks to the original author whose name I forget), heavily adapted. I've gone to town with the redactions!

    The operator's response can be read here:
    [as above...]
    Unfortunately I neglected to take a screenshot of my comments on their response, and these no longer seem to be accessible. However, I pointed out that:
    !!!8226; A large chunk of the operator's response is a copy/paste of Clauses 13.1 - 4, which I have already read, and referenced in my challenge.
    !!!8226; They "allow" a 5-minute grace period, yet are referring to an entry time of 10.10 and an exit time of 10.15
    !!!8226; It is not in the operator's gift to suggest what is "reasonable", when a ten-minute grace period is explicitly stipulated in the current CoC.
    !!!8226; They have rebutted an argument I never made, ie "With regards to the appellant!!!8217;s remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.." etc; which suggests a stock response with no proper consideration of the case in question.
    !!!8226; They have only responded to 1/5 of my arguments, and have not provided the evidence I requested.
    !!!8226; The pack they provided contains inaccuracies, namely "the whole of the area outlined in blue is for customers of xxxxx", when in fact there are designated bays for local residents, which have separate signage.

    POPLA's comments are below (too long to take a screenshot):

    "Decision: Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name: Alexandra Roby
    Assessor summary of operator case: The operator!!!8217;s case is that the motorist parked at the site without the authorisation to do so.

    Assessor summary of your case: The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the motorist was not allowed a grace period in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the vehicle images on the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) do not comply with section 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site and has provided photographs to support his appeal. The appellant has disputed the accuracy and reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision: The terms and conditions of the site state: !!!8220;xxxxxx car park. xxxxxx customers only. xxxxxx customers must enter their full correct vehicle registration inside the practice for free parking only for the duration of their stay. Maximum duration of each stay 2 hours. No stopping or waiting. If yoy cannot register for any reason, do not park. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice £100!!!8221;. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked at the site without the authorisation to do so. Images from the operator!!!8217;s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the vehicle entered the car park at 10:10 and exited at 10:15 on the day in question, staying for a total of five minutes. A screenshot of its permit lookup has also been provided, showing that the motorist!!!8217;s vehicle was not authorised to park at the site that day. The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately.

    The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the motorist was not allowed a grace period in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. This operator offers a five minute grace period to decide whether to stay or to go, which is entirely appropriate given that this car park is very small. The motorist remained at the site for five minutes 28 seconds (5'23", if we're going to quibble!). While POPLA can extend a grace period if we are presented with evidence of circumstances demonstrating that the motorist did not accept a contract, on this occasion the appellant has decided not to tell any details of what the motorist was doing at the site during the time they were there or any additional evidence. Accordingly, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site and has provided photographs to support his appeal. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator 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, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. I refer to Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, which states: !!!8220;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!!!8230; signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. The operator and the appellant have provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site!!!8217;s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. The appellant has disputed the accuracy and reliability of the ANPR cameras. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, we do receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, we look to see if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR!!!8217;s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator!!!8217;s evidence pack. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has not provided POPLA with any evidence. The appellant states that the vehicle images on the PCN do not comply with section 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice states: !!!8220;When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered!!!8221;. Upon review of the notice, I am satisfied that this demonstrates that the motorist parked. They spent five minutes at the site, therefore I consider that they could not have been driving around such a small site for five minutes. Ultimately, it is a motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist parked without the authorisation to do so, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly."


    My other half has received a letter from the Operator demanding payment by 31st of this month - and that brings us up to date.

    What next - start preparing for court action? Obviously I intend to ignore any debt collection letters, as advised...
    Last edited by Michael Souris; 05-08-2018 at 3:51 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Aug 18, 3:37 PM
    • 20,684 Posts
    • 32,589 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:37 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:37 PM
    What next - start preparing for court action?
    Depends on which PPC.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 3:48 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    • #7
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:48 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:48 PM
    PCN challenge in full:

    I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Premier Park – was submitted and acknowledged by the operator on xxxxx and rejected via an email dated xxxxx.

    I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

    1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice: non-compliance

    Premier Park advertises the fact that it is approved to operate in accordance with the BPA’s Code of Practice. The BPA’s Code of Practice (Version 7, updated January 2018) - Clause 13 - states that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that a driver:
    “..must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
    “You must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
    “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 BPA Code of Practice (13.2, 13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst these sub-clauses do not apply in this case (by which I mean: a contract was never entered into, as I will show in the next section), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated therein is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
    “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”


    Source:
    [link provided]

    Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”
    Further details of this case can be found here [link provided].

    Finally, some 3 years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
    “Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

    The recommendation reads:
    “Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
    Source:
    [link provided]

    This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum; a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of less than six minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

    As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.2 and 13.4 do not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered into), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

    If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

    It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Premier Park claim was 5 minutes and 23 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given that:

    • Signs displayed within the car park vary widely with regard to their design, positioning (either above head-height or at knee-level) and wording (Figures 3 & 4).
    • In addition to Premier Park’s signage, other signs on two bays advise “xxxxx Parking Only” (in a design consistent with the business branding), and some “Residents Only”.
    • One sign appears to have been removed (Figure 2).
    The quantity and inconsistency of the signage takes time to be fully examined and understood.

    Lastly: none of Premier Park’s signs displaying their terms and conditions are legible without entering the car park and exiting the vehicle, due to their positioning and font size (Figures 3 & 4).

    Whilst legible, the sign at the point of entry to the car park does not include the terms and conditions, instead inviting drivers to “see additional signs for full details” (see Figure 1). Once within the car park, Premier Park’s signage is lengthy (in terms of word count), and a significant amount of text is in extremely small print - including, crucially: “Parking period commences on entry”.

    These factors serve merely to increase the time taken to:
    • Read and understand the full terms and conditions.
    • Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
    • Return to car and safely leave the car park.

    2. Inadequate Signage: POFA, Schedule 4; BPA Code of Practice: non-compliance

    POFA Schedule 4, 2(2) states that:
    “The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”

    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.1) states that:
    “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states that:
    “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (34.4) states that:
    “You must give drivers advance notice of all parking charges before they enter into the contract for parking services.”

    It is vital to observe - since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice - that the entrance sign at the xxxxx car park (Figure 1) does not provide “advance notice of all parking charges”. The parking charge is only visible on signs within the car park itself.

    Nor does the entrance sign advise:
    • that the “Parking period commences on entry”
    • that PCNs will be issued to any person who is not a registered xxxxx customer

    Therefore, the entrance sign does not make the driver aware of the operator’s terms and conditions “from the start”.

    In addition, I consider the entrance sign (Figure 1) to be misleading, in that:
    • it is located between a Tesco Express and a Subway (Figure 5)
    • it makes no mention of the fact that the car park is for the exclusive use of registered visitors to xxxxx
    • it prominently displays the word “Welcome”, positively inviting drivers to enter.

    A driver must enter the car park in order to read the full terms and conditions (it is unsafe - and illegal - to pull up on the road, due to zigzag lines and a zebra crossing (Figure 6). By doing so, the driver has - according to the operator - become liable for a PCN, whether “parked” or not. I contend that under these circumstances, a contract cannot be said to have been entered into.

    Figure 1: Entrance Sign
    Figure 2: variety of signs, including PP terms & conditions (positioned above head height); removed/broken xxxxx sign; Resident’s Parking sign
    Figure 3: showing height / legibility of PP terms and conditions
    PP terms & conditions (positioned at knee-level); “Client Parking Only” signs
    Figure 4: PP’s terms and conditions, from the perspective of a driver about to enter a bay
    Figure 5: location of car park: between Tesco Express and Subway
    Figure 6: showing that the entrance to the car-park is within zig-zag lines: it is an offence to stop and exit a vehicle here.

    3. No Evidence of Period Parked - does not meet POFA 2012 requirements

    Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract. Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9, refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the operator to:

    “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

    Premier Park’s PCN simply states that the vehicle “entered at 10:10” and “exited at 10:15” and was on-site for a “Duration of 00:05”. At no stage do Premier Park explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012. It is not in the gift of Premier Park to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

    By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Premier Park are not able to definitively state the period of parking. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. I require Premier Park to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated on the PCN.

    I do not accept Premier Park’s assertion that the parking period “commences on entry” for the obvious reason that - regardless of grace periods and inadequate signage as already discussed - a moving, occupied vehicle can not be said to be parked.

    4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised.”

    The images and information provided on the PCN in question do not constitute evidence that the vehicle was “parked”, whether authorised or not. Furthermore, the location that the photographs were taken is not identifiable as being the xxxxx car park. There is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated, and I require Premier Park to produce photographs which constitute evidence that the vehicle was parked at the location in question.

    5. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

    Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Premier Park to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images, to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

    As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (5 minutes and 23 seconds apart), it is vital that Premier Park produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

    on behalf of xxxxxx
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 3:50 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    • #8
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:50 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Aug 18, 3:50 PM
    Operator (Premier Park)'s response in full:

    The Appellants vehicle entered the site at 10:10 and exited at 10:15.

    We are unable to trace an entry into the kiosk system within the xxxxxx. Please see Other Evidence.

    This location has been assessed in view of the size of the car park, the number of spaces and the vicinity of the business it is attached to. All of this can be seen in the picture evidence provided within the pack. The signage does state that the parking period commences on entry however, we do allow a 5 minute grace period. The grace period has therefore been assessed on these points. 5 minutes is a more than reasonable grace period for a vehicle to enter, the vehicle to be parked and the motorist to enter the vet practice or to read the signage and decide whether to remain or leave.

    This car park is only for customers of the xxxxxx when they register their vehicle at the kiosk within the practice.

    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 !!!8211; according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice
    13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the !!!8216;parking contract!!!8217; with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.
    13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
    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.

    In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.

    If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is !!!8220;reasonable!!!8221; for the purposes of Section 13.2, we would consider this parking also. As the Driver remained on site for 5 minutes, we would consider this more than reasonable and class it as parking.

    Ultimately, it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

    An unauthorised entry / parking 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 the Appellant's appeal be refused.

    With regards to the appellant!!!8217;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 [link provided]. This case was seen as an important !!!8216;test case!!!8217; 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
    • By Fruitcake 5th Aug 18, 4:14 PM
    • 38,051 Posts
    • 85,388 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #9
    • 5th Aug 18, 4:14 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Aug 18, 4:14 PM
    In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.

    I believe this is not true and a complaint should be made to the BPA regarding this statement.

    You are now in ignore mode unless you get real court papers.

    You will of course ignore anything and everything from debt collectors.

    Chances of court are low according to padi.

    http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Premier_Park.html
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 05-08-2018 at 4:22 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 4:22 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    Noted.. thanks.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Aug 18, 7:03 PM
    • 20,684 Posts
    • 32,589 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.

    I believe this is not true and a complaint should be made to the BPA regarding this statement.

    You are now in ignore mode unless you get real court papers.

    You will of course ignore anything and everything from debt collectors.

    Chances of court are low according to padi.

    http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Premier_Park.html
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Once again they are using that totally incorrect line. Steve Clark (senior BPA official) confirmed this not to be the case and he would be informing POPLA of that fact.

    So @OP, it's important that you complain to Steve Clark about this misinformation and misjudgment by POPLA which is included in their rejection of your appeal.

    steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

    I don't know why it is, but Premier Parknseem to be getting a disproportionate number of POPLA wins compared with the general PPC cohort.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 7:15 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    Will do! Thanks
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 5th Aug 18, 7:50 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    How does this look?

    Dear Mr Clark,

    I have received notification from POPLA that a PCN challenge I recently submitted (# xxxxxxx) has been unsuccessful.

    The PCN was automatically generated by use of an ANPR system. The vehicle in question allegedly remained on-site for a total of five minutes and 28 seconds. The operator (Premier Park) have stated in their response that they allow a grace period of five minutes.

    Since the grace period and a matter of seconds is of significant importance in this case, I requested, within my challenge, evidence that that the ANPR system had been properly maintained, calibrated and synchronised (with reference to time stamping), with the dates and times that this was carried out.

    This information was not provided by the operator, and the adjudication notes I received from POPLA contained the following:

    "In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.!!!8221;

    It has come to my attention that this is in fact not the case, as confirmed by yourself; and that you had specifically informed POPLA of such.

    I would be grateful if you would clarify the situation for me, as it appears that POPLA may have provided misinformation and made a misjudgment in their rejection of my challenge.


    Yours sincerely,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Aug 18, 8:41 PM
    • 20,684 Posts
    • 32,589 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Complaint looks good, but do have a read of some previous threads on this, from which you might find you can even further sharpen up your complaint to Steve Clark. I couldn't link them previously, Mrs U had our evening meal ready!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74322248

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74125170
    (And specifically (important) read the link to the beccih1892 thread highlighted in post #9 of the linked thread).

    Do let us know what Steve C (who is a decent guy) says. Clearly POPLA are totally disregarding his interventions in an utterly unprofessional manner. Link Steve to this thread of yours in your complaint to him.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Aug 18, 8:56 PM
    • 9,702 Posts
    • 12,758 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Whilst Steve Clark might be a decent chap, the impression I
    get is that POPLA and various parking companies don't think he
    is very important, hence they tend to ignore him
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Aug 18, 9:11 AM
    • 11,020 Posts
    • 10,986 Thanks
    The Deep
    You may have lost your PoPLA appeal, but I very much doubt that a judge would find in their favour. \this is a trifling matter, and the \law does not concern itself with trifles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

    Have you yet complained to your M.P.?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Aug 18, 11:35 AM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    "13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. "

    Given the period to leave must be at least 10, an unnown grace period cannot bve less than this period
    • Michael Souris
    • By Michael Souris 6th Aug 18, 6:32 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Michael Souris
    "13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. "

    Given the period to leave must be at least 10, an unnown grace period cannot bve less than this period
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    That was my understanding too, and formed the basis of my appeal...
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,843Posts Today

7,326Users online

Martin's Twitter