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
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 9th Sep 18, 11:03 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 5Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    Premier Park PCN - POPLA appeal.
    • #1
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:03 PM
    Premier Park PCN - POPLA appeal. 9th Sep 18 at 11:03 PM
    Despite my low post count, I consider myself somewhat clued up on these matters. Somewhat being the operative word

    I've successfully challenged a Council PCN previously and was aware of how PPCs operate, prior to PoFA / POPLA. As such, I am about to pop my POPLA appeal cherry...

    I have read the newbie posts. No golden tickets in this one.

    As the RK of a particular vehicle, I appealed a PCN concerning an alleged contravention, received an 'invite' to name the driver and ignored and as of the 30th of August, have a POPLA code.

    Premier Park have not been made aware of who the driver was. They are aware that I am the RK. I have not confirmed who the driver was.

    I like to think I have done my homework on this one - it's an interesting situation. I'll also be attempting to use the ANPR ICO point that, as far as I'm aware, is untested.

    Anyway, below is a link to my first draft. This should hopefully give a background. The pay and display ticket has been intentionally 'fettled' with, although for some readers of Pepipoo, you may recognise the 'case' that this is related to.

    hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1I0Arg3r7NuL_nP6QNtW0SrbBl2ovW2xQoyk6SzykI/edit?usp=sharing

    Please change xx to ss in the link.

    Your thoughts would be appreciated.

    Many thanks!
    Last edited by K.I.T.T.; 09-09-2018 at 11:11 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Sep 18, 11:08 PM
    • 19,647 Posts
    • 24,941 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:08 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:08 PM
    Premier Park have not been made aware of who the driver was. They are aware that I am the RK. I have not confirmed who the driver was.
    Originally posted by K.I.T.T.

    I have fixed that sentence for you, suggest you do the same
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 9th Sep 18, 11:14 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    • #3
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:14 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:14 PM
    I have fixed that sentence for you, suggest you do the same
    Originally posted by Redx
    Duly noted - thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 18, 11:37 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:37 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:37 PM
    I didn't see any wording to clarify that there is (it seems?) no fence/boundary dividing the two car parks, and that cars can pass and repass between the two, and that the crux of the case is not that the driver bought a ticket at the wrong machine (because they didn't, they parked in the Blackburn railway car park and the operator is put to strict photo proof otherwise).
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 9th Sep 18, 11:53 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    • #5
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:53 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Sep 18, 11:53 PM
    Coupon-mad, you are indeed correct. There is no physical boundary that separates the two car parks. Should the appeal be amended to reflect this?



    The car park managed by the PPC does not require one to display a ticket, however, does have a limit of four hours, unless one obtains an exemption somehow (?).


    Blackburn station car park, subject to railway byelaws is accessed via the above, privately managed, car park. This car park does require a pay and display ticket, which had been purchased and displayed.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Sep 18, 7:49 AM
    • 19,809 Posts
    • 31,281 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 10th Sep 18, 7:49 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Sep 18, 7:49 AM
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1I0Arg3r7NuL_nP6QNtW0SrbBl2ovW2xQoyk6SzykI/mobilebasic

    With the addition of what Coupon-mad says, your written appeal is clear, nicely laid out with good photos and looks to have made your case well.

    There's just one sentence in the appeal that maybe you should have another look at, it isn't clear to me exactly what you are saying in it.

    There is consistent not only throughout the car park, as demonstrated in Figure 6, but also upon entering The Peel Centre, as demonstrated in Figure 7.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 10th Sep 18, 3:24 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    • #7
    • 10th Sep 18, 3:24 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Sep 18, 3:24 PM
    With the addition of what Coupon-mad says, your written appeal is clear, nicely laid out with good photos and looks to have made your case well.

    There's just one sentence in the appeal that maybe you should have another look at, it isn't clear to me exactly what you are saying in it.


    There is consistent not only throughout the car park, as demonstrated in Figure 6, but also upon entering The Peel Centre, as demonstrated in Figure 7.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    Thanks Umkomaas, the sentence highlighted was a typo. A textbook example of the metaphor 'burning the midnight oil'. "There" should be "This". This has been corrected this in v3.


    v3 below, please replace xx with tt:
    hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1mDE_XtyHoV3zf-dIvdrAm-sjA0Cu-kYs/view

    I have also paraphrased what Coupon-mad said, which is on page 4.

    What I shall say, in the interest of being up front, is that there is no other entrance to the station car park other than via Mayson Street and driving through the PPC managed car park. However, as established from the pictures, there is a sign present when exiting the station car park, and in the words of the sign, "entering" the managed car park. I have chosen not to comment about any signs at any other entrance. This concerns point 2 in my appeal.

    The only other thing that I am considering is amending (adding to) the wording on page 8, ie 'figure 6 on page 9' and 'figure 7 on page 10'.

    Also, the appeal draws heavily from one complied by SalomonAssassin, here: hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74168581&postcount=30 Consider this a citation
    Last edited by K.I.T.T.; 10-09-2018 at 3:33 PM. Reason: Typo
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 10th Sep 18, 3:28 PM
    • 3,290 Posts
    • 2,232 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #8
    • 10th Sep 18, 3:28 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Sep 18, 3:28 PM
    Here is your link made live: -

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mDE_XtyHoV3zf-dIvdrAm-sjA0Cu-kYs/view

    You might want to amend the split infinitive in your first sentence!
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 11th Sep 18, 4:22 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    • #9
    • 11th Sep 18, 4:22 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Sep 18, 4:22 PM
    v4, please replace xx with tt:



    hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rnev7ma8L9oWbnCi7apaFKE9_AHYBp_A/view?usp=sharing

    Final two paragraphs on page 8 merged, and the wording changed to remove any implication that "authority" does exist. Figure 7 renamed (originally went from figure 6 to figure 8 - 7 omitted by mistake).


    Some minor formatting amended, which isn't worth mentioning.


    Not sure what to say as per Le_Kirk's earlier comment as to the first sentence, but am open to suggestion I intentionally left this the same as per a previous POPLA appeal (different PPC): hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74168581&postcount=30


    As long as there's nothing else that is glaringly wrong, I am tempted to submit, although I do have another two weeks or so.


    The main point of the appeal is point 1; the others whilst (IMO) valid, are thrown in for good measure.
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 13th Sep 18, 1:15 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    The rejection letter (the one with the POPLA code) states: "Please be advised that payments made for Blackburn Station are not valid in this car park. For future visits, we would advise parking in the location you have paid for to ensure no further PCN's are issued for this reason." Premier Park are yet to supply any evidence to suggest the car was indeed parked at the location they manage Indeed, the only images PP have appear to be of the vehicle entering and leaving at entrance 1.

    As such, the PCN is being challenged on the basis that the vehicle was not parked on relevant land, nor was a contract entered into, point number one, however, points 2, 3 and 4 are relevant and applicable.

    I have found a few points that would be relevant if the vehicle was parked on relevant land (which is being refuted in point 1).

    Looking at the wording on the signs (figure 2, page 3)
    1. "Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry". One could argue that is in contravention of the 10 minute grace periods.
    2. The PCN lists the entry and exit times, however the duration is simply calculated as exit time minus entry time, which has been proven to not be the correct way of determining the duration of parking. This also contradicts what the sign states, as per the above bullet point.

    These two points have just been summarised - they can be expanded upon if required. So, would it be relevant to include these, or should the appeal focus on the four points in v4?
    Last edited by K.I.T.T.; 13-09-2018 at 1:41 PM.
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 17th Sep 18, 4:39 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    Whilst I'm hesitant to bump this, the appeal does need submitting the the next week or so; I'd be keen to hear any thoughts regarding v4 and the points raised in my previous post
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Sep 18, 1:58 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think your appeal is fine, albeit do Google 'split infinitive' as referred to by Le_Kirk.
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 11th Oct 18, 7:01 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    So, I submitted my appeal (as per v4, see post made on the 11th of Sepetember - hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rnev7ma8L9oWbnCi7apaFKE9_AHYBp_A/view) last month. Operator evidence received yesterday. The summary is below (colours added by me):


    The Appellant’s vehicle entered at 07:59 and exited at 18:43.

    As the Maximum Stay Period is 4 hours, the Appellant overstayed by 6 hours and 44
    minutes.

    We have checked the permits allocated to vehicles. This vehicle is not on the permit

    system and no permit was allocated on the date of the contravention. Please see
    Other Evidence’.

    The Appellant states that the driver did not park in The Peel Centre Car Park, but
    drove through to the Blackburn train station car park and purchased a parking ticket
    valid for the car park the vehicle was parked in.

    At this location, motorists are required to drive through the Peel Centre car park to
    access the separate train station car park area. There are payment machines and
    RingGo available in the train station car park.

    The signage at the exit/entrance to the train station states: YOU ARE NOW
    LEAVING THE PEEL CENTRE CAR PARK YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE
    PEEL CENTRE CAR PARK. Please see the Photographic Evidence within the OP
    Image Plan.

    The Peel Centre is only for customers of the stores on site. No payments can be
    made in the Peel Centre car park via any method to extend the maximum stay
    period.

    There are ANPR cameras on the entrance to the car park and on the exit into the
    train station car park. See the separate Images document for the site map with the
    ANPR cameras and signage highlighted.

    If motorists drive through the Peel Centre car park, the vehicle will be captured on 4
    occasions by the ANPR cameras.

    See ‘Other Evidencefor an example of this.

    Upon searching the Appellant’s vehicle on ANPR capture events, we are only able to
    find 2 reads for the Appellant’s vehicle. These evidence that the Appellant did not
    drive through the Peel Centre car park and park in the train station car park, but
    instead remained on site within the Peel Centre car park for 10 hours and 44
    minutes. See ‘Other Evidence.

    The ANPR images show the vehicle entering and exiting the main entrance.

    We cannot be held liable for the driver parking in the incorrect car park and believing
    they were able to park because they were using the train station.

    We do not understand why the Appellant believes the driver was able to park in the
    Peel Centre car park, contravening the terms and conditions. The signage clearly
    states the maximum stay period.

    We cannot be held liable for the driver, or Appellant’s, mistake.

    There is only 1 entrance and 1 exit through the same route into and out of the train
    station car park.

    If the driver was in any doubt as to whether they could park on the Peel Centre car
    park to use the train station, they could have telephoned Premier Park. Our number
    is on the signage. We can confirm we did not receive any calls regarding the
    Appellants vehicle registration on the date of the contravention.

    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.

    We have also enclosed evidence of a later visit, that the Appellants vehicle made to
    the car park, on 4th August 2018, on this occasion, the Appellants vehicle entered
    The Peel Centre Car Park and drove through to the train station car park, where it
    remained until leaving the train station car park and driving back through The Peel
    Centre Car Park and left via the main entrance/exit. This is captured as 4 reads on
    our back-office system, as opposed to only 2 reads on the date of the contravention,
    thus proving that, on the 10th July 2018, the Appellants vehicle entered and remained
    in The Peel Centre Car Park for 10 hours and 44 minutes.

    The appellant states that the driver was unaware of the terms and conditions. The
    driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the
    contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the
    opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before
    accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and
    ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

    13 Grace periods

    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 ‘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.
    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.

    However, 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.

    Ultimately, the motorist failed to keep to the conditions of the contract formed.

    As the Appellants vehicle overstayed the maximum stay period by hours and 44
    minutes, an exceeded maximum stay period PCN 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.
    "We cannot be held liable for the driver, or Appellant’s, mistake." Nowhere has it been mentioned that the appelant was the driver, so how could the appelant have made a mistake. Are they implying the appelant was driving?



    "The appellant states that the driver was unaware of the terms and conditions." - No they didn't


    Nor did the appelant make any specific mention to grace periods (a mention is made that a witness statement - as opposed to a contract with the landowner - would not define vital information, inlcuding grace periods).



    Their full evidence pack includes this blurb before the above summary (formatting / colouring as per their submission):


    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.

    All of the signage on site was installed on 27th June 2018 and the ANPR was
    monitored from 9th July 2018.

    The signage clearly states:

    Welcome to The Peel Centre
    Maximum stay 4 hours. No return within 1 hour.
    Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. A blue valid badge must
    be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions
    apply.
    Park wholly within a marked bay only. Do not park causing an obstruction to
    other users of the parking area.
    The Peel Centre customers only. No parking and leaving site. No parking
    outside of store hours. No HGVs/Trailers or Large Goods Vehicles.
    Staff & contractors must have their vehicle registered on the permit system
    Mobile patrols/ Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are
    used for parking enforcement purposes. Parking period commences 5
    minutes after entry.
    The Peel Centre is not involved in the parking management of this car park and
    cannot intervene in any disputes.
    If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions display, you
    are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 100

    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
    3
    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

    There are sufficient signs around the site. These advise the motorists of the terms
    and conditions of the site clearly.

    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. All ANPR cameras are comprised of two modules. The
    overview camera is a coloured module which takes photographs of the vehicle
    entering and exiting in colour. The second module is black and white which takes
    photographs of the vehicle registration plates. 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.

    The Peel Centre is only for customers of the stores on site.
    .
    This is then followed by copies of the correspondence between the registered keeper and Premier Park, screenshots from their system showing two 'captures' on the day of the alleged contravention and four captures on a day in August (although their wording of the times for the visit to the railway station in August doesn't match their screenshots, but anyway...)


    They also supply redacted copies of the agreement they have with the landowner:


    We enclose a redacted copy of the agreement between Premier Park and XXXX to confirm that we have the landowner authority to enforce at this
    site. The names and signatures of the operators and client’s representatives have
    been redacted for confidentiality. We have supplied the landowner name and
    address.
    We can confirm that neither, XXXX nor Premier Park have
    applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place.
    We confirm both parties have opted to continue this agreement in accordance
    with section 1.2.
    Consequently, we would expect POPLA to be satisfied that Premier Park have
    sufficient authority to issue Parking Charges on the land, on the day of the
    contravention.
    According to a copy of the title obtained through the land registry XXXX is not the landowner (PP state they have supplied the landowner's address - they haven't).


    The contract does not mention basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Indeed, as has been pointed out earlier, there is no fence/boundary dividing the two car parks, and that cars can pass and repass between the two.


    Also, note that the contract only came in to play on the 9th of July, a day before the alleged contravention on the 10th of July. How does this tie in with the point below that was raised in the appeal?


    Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow
    regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.
    Also, confusing signage - old station car park signs and new (in the literal sense) PPC T&C signs hand in hand.



    Could one argue that they need to show eveidence of ANPR calibration (etc ????) and provide the results of any BPA audit carried out on their newly installed equipment? An arguement would be this newly installed equipment had not be set up correctly and simply missed the entry into the railway car park. Just because their ANPR hadn't picked up this instance, doesn't prove the car remained on the location they manage. Also, the ticket machine for the station car park is located in the station car park itself, so how could the driver not have entered the station car park?



    PP suggest their (entrance) signs are compliant, yet I provided evidence that shows otherwise, where an entrance sign does not state the car park is manged, nor are there any signs in the immediate vicinity of this entrance sign.


    On a side note, why do they still have data relating to the RK's vehicle from August when by their own admission, a contravention did not occur? Surely there must be some information governance issue with that.


    Suggestions on the best way to proceed would be welcomed, especially with the short timescales and 2000 character limit


    They haven't argued the ICO CCTV CoP though, which is AFAIK, still untested.
    Last edited by K.I.T.T.; 15-10-2018 at 12:13 AM.
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 13th Oct 18, 4:57 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    This is the best I can do with the 2000 character limit. Any help would be greatly appreciated



    Responding to point 1 of my appeal, Premier Park (PP) state "there are payment machines and RingGo available in the train station car park". As there are no payment machines in the location PP managed, the driver had to have been in the station car park to purchase the ticket.
    The points raised by PP regarding their ANPR suggests this new system was not working correctly on 10/7/18; it only operated from the day before (9/7/18). I ask PP to evidence their system was audited by the BPA.



    As per point 2 in my appeal, PP's entrance sign at car park 2 does not state the car park is managed, contravening BPA CoP 18.2. This is evidenced by figure 5 in my appeal as well as by PP's own submission.
    This appeal involves the Peel Centre car park 2, NOT car park 1, a separate location. The PDF file PP have submitted includes signs of both locations, which is misleading.


    In response to point 3 of my appeal, PP have supplied an agreement between themselves and [Redacted] and state "we have supplied the landowner name and address". [Redacted] is NOT the landowner, nor is the landowner's address [Redacted].
    The landowner's address is [Redacted]. I would be happy to supply a copy of information obtained from the Land Registry to POPLA, which will confirm any agreement PP have with [Redacted] is of no relevance to this case.
    Not only is PP's agreement irrelevant, it came into place on 9/7/18 a day before the alleged contravention. As per point 3 in my appeal, PP's operation on this site is also in contravention with BPA CoP 18.10



    As per point 4 in my appeal PP is in contravention of BPA CoP 21.4. Not only has PP not undertaken a privacy impact assessment, they are still in possession of information relating to my vehicle from 4/8/18 where no contravention occurred. This does not "keep to the Data Protection Act" (BPA CoP 21.4). I shall raise this separately to the Information Commissioner's Office and commence legal proceedings against PP.
    Last edited by K.I.T.T.; 13-10-2018 at 5:00 PM.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Oct 18, 5:19 PM
    • 37,572 Posts
    • 84,512 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Do you still have the parking ticket purchased in the station car park, or a credit/debit card receipt or statement? This would be your smoking gun.
    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
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 13th Oct 18, 5:30 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    Do you still have the parking ticket purchased in the station car park, or a credit/debit card receipt or statement? This would be your smoking gun.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    I do indeed, Fruitcake.


    A copy of the parking ticket was submitted in to both PP, at the informal stage as well as to POPLA


    The original is still in my possession.
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 15th Oct 18, 12:11 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    Slightly amended. Needed a few more characters and ICO / empty threats of legal proceedings irrelevant at this stage (and may be considered "hot air").



    Still, is there any way the last point could be taken up with the ICO?



    Responding to point 1 of my appeal, Premier Park (PP) state "there are payment machines and RingGo available in the train station car park". As there are no payment machines in the location PP manage, the driver had to have been in the station car park at 0802 to purchase the ticket.
    The points raised by PP regarding their ANPR system suggest it was not working correctly on 10/7/18. This ANPR system only operated from the day before (9/7/18) - I ask PP to evidence the data it collected is accurate (BPA CoP 21.3) and confirm this system was audited by the BPA prior to 10/7/18.


    As per point 2 in my appeal, PP's entrance sign does not state the car park is managed, contravening BPA CoP 18.2. This is evidenced by figure 5 in my appeal as well as by PP's own submission.
    This appeal relates to the Peel Centre car park 2, NOT car park 1, a separate location. The PDF file PP have submitted includes signs of both locations, which is misleading.


    In response to point 3 of my appeal, PP have supplied an agreement between themselves and XXXX and state "we have supplied the landowner name and address". XXXX is NOT the landowner, nor is the landowner's address XXXX.
    The landowner's address is XXXX. I would be happy to supply POPLA a copy of the title of the relevant land, which will confirm any agreement PP has with XXXX is of no relevance to this case.
    Not only is PP's agreement irrelevant, it came into place on 9/7/18, a day before the alleged contravention. As per point 3 in my appeal, PP's operation on this site is also in contravention with BPA CoP 18.10



    As per point 4 in my appeal, PP is in contravention of BPA CoP 21.4. PP has not undertaken a privacy impact assessment, supported by the fact they still hold information relating to my vehicle from 4/8/18 where no contravention occurred. This does not "keep to the Data Protection Act" (BPA CoP 21.4).
    • K.I.T.T.
    • By K.I.T.T. 15th Oct 18, 7:36 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    K.I.T.T.
    Unless there's anything obviously wrong with the above (?), these comments shall be submitted this evening.
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

2,459Posts Today

7,076Users online

Martin's Twitter