Show Posts - therealrjp

The assessor’s name is Kevin Woodall. I wasn’t sure if publishing his name was appropriate but I see your point.I’ll follow your advice and revert back if I receive a letter of claim.

One of the issues that has irked me is the assessor states the photos show the vehicle empty and this simply isn’t the case. A person can be seen in the images (despite it being taken from a distance and admittedly not crystal clear). The vehicle running lights are also on indicating the vehicle is switched on and running.This alone makes me wonder how closely the assessor has viewed the images! Am I able to complain about the decision?

I have today received my appeal decision from POPLA. It was unsuccessful. The following are the notes from the assessor - I have tried my best to separate it into readable paragraphs but it is still a long slog. I appreciate anyone that takes the time to read it and offer advice.————————DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor Name********Assessor summary of operator caseThe operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking in no parking area.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They advise it is not safe to read the signs from the driving position of a vehicle and is necessary to stop first and the operator has not shown any sign was visible from a moving vehicle to stopping and due to this, a consideration period is required as per section 2.9 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. • They say the supplied evidence does not show the vehicle was not parked for longer than the minimum consideration period and the images show the vehicle was stopped for a little as 90 seconds. • They advise the notice to keeper issue does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the handful of timestamped images are not sufficient as per paragraph 9(2)(a) and has said this is supported by Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where they say the court held that a timestamp does not establish a period of parking and due to this, there can be no liability to the keeper of the vehicle. • They say the operator has inaccurately referred to the location as a car park when it is an industrial estate with no general parking areas and raises doubt on the operators understanding of the site. • They state the operator has not demonstrated a legitimate interest or commercial justification for issuing the charge in response to a brief stop where there was no obstruction caused, and no facility used. • They have advised the operator has to prove that a valid contract or chain of authority from the landowner exists giving them the right to manage the site and issue PCN’s. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. They have also raised new grounds and states the signage is prohibitory in nature and cannot form the basis of a contractual agreement, and they have said that ParkingEye V Beavis is misplaced. I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.Assessor supporting rational for decisionWhen assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs state “…No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time…” The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photos of the vehicle to demonstrate that it remained stationary on site. • They advise it is not safe to read the signs from the driving position of a vehicle and is necessary to stop first and the operator has not shown any sign was visible from a moving vehicle to stopping and due to this, a consideration period is required as per section 2.9 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I understand that they may have felt it was not safe to read the signs from the driving position of the vehicle. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The operator has provided various photographs of the vehicle parked, and behind the vehicle on the left-hand side, there is a sign visible on the lamppost. Also, further down the road on the right-hand side of the car, there is another lamppost on the other side of the toad which a sign visibly attached to it. I am satisfied the signs adhere to what is required in The Code and would be visible from sitting within a vehicle. Section 2.9 of The Code states the consideration period is the time the driver is in the process of parking (or in a no stopping zone while driving). In this instance, there is no visible driver within the car on the photos provided. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, as the area is a no stopping zone, the consideration is provided while driving, and as stated above, the photos show there was no one in the car when it was parked. • They say the supplied evidence does not show the vehicle was not parked for longer than the minimum consideration period and the images show the vehicle was stopped for a little as 90 seconds. As stated above, as it was a no stopping zone, the consideration period provided is while driving, however, the photos show there was no driver present. • They advise the notice to keeper issue does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the handful of timestamped images are not sufficient as per paragraph 9(2)(a) and has said this is supported by Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where they say the court held that a timestamp does not establish a period of parking and due to this, there can be no liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. They have quoted paragraph 9(2)(a) which states the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. On the PCN, the photos contain two-time stamps which are 11:32 and 11:33. I am satisfied that the time stamps adhere to what is required. They have quoted Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where they say the court held that a timestamp does not establish a period of parking, however, this was when the photo contained one time stamp. In this instance, the PCN includes two different times, and the evidence provided shows three different times. • They say the operator has inaccurately referred to the location as a car park when it is an industrial estate with no general parking areas and raises doubt on the operators understanding of the site. When we carry out an investigation, we are investigating if the PCN has been issued correctly. If they have any issues with wording the operator has used, they will need to raise this to it directly. • They state the operator has not demonstrated a legitimate interest or commercial justification for issuing the charge in response to a brief stop where there was no obstruction caused, and no facility used. The operator has demonstrated that the vehicle was parked with no driver present with photos showing time stamps 11:32, 11:33, and 11:34. While there was no obstruction or facility used, the vehicle was parked and left unattended which broken the terms of the site. • They have advised the operator has to prove that a valid contract or chain of authority from the landowner exists giving them the right to manage the site and issue PCN’s. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the operator has provided evidence which shows the contract started with the landowner on 7 February 2024 for 12 months and continued after this date and would terminate if 12 weeks’ notice in writing had been provided. I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements of section 14 and a contract to enforce PCN’s was in place the date the appellant parked. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the vehicle was parked in a no parking area, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

I think I’ve already spotted that the contract they’ve provided is out of date. Have I read it properly?

They’re now disordered in the post but the images show the page numbers. Apologies… [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

It’s not, there’s 3 pages but I’m unable to add them all as the files are too large. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Attached is the contract. Thank you for pointing this out. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I’ve edited point number 4 as PPS did in fact send a copy of the contract with the landowner. It clearly shows at the top that they have been given authority so I believe it’s reasonable to accept this.Also, apologies regarding the blur of text in my previous post - I copy/pasted the notes PPS added that clearly didn’t have paragraphs!

Morning all. I edited my previous appeal to include the suggested points and submitted.I have today received notification that PPS has added comments and I’ve been invited to do the same in response to theirs. Below are their comments. Should I respond?Thanks in advance!————Dear Assessor, The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The signage on site is located conspicuously around the site. The signs are legible and written in intelligible language. The entrance signs inform the drivers that they are entering private land and must be aware of the terms and conditions once they are within the car park. The terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "Private Road. This car park is controlled by Warden Patrols. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time, you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time. No causing obstructions at any time". The charge was issued because the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no parking area within the site, which is a clear contravention of the stated terms. This is supported by timestamped photographic evidence showing the vehicle stationary on the road where parking, waiting, or loading is strictly prohibited at all times. While it is accepted that it may not be safe or practical for a motorist to read the signage from the driving position of a moving vehicle, it is reasonable to expect them to stop in proximity to a sign for the purpose of reviewing the terms before deciding whether to remain parked. In this case, the photographic evidence shows that the motorist parked at a significant distance from any signage and made no attempt to position the vehicle near a sign to enable them to read it. We therefore submit that the motorist did not stop to review the terms and conditions, but rather for an alternative, unauthorised purpose. In doing so, the motorist contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge. As there are no rules in that a PCN has to be fixed to a windscreen, we requested the registered keepers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed. For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, 9(2) (a), it must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. The PCN states the location, the date and time of the contravention, and also contains images of the vehicle parked at the site, which is sufficient to identify the period of parking to which the notice relates. We would also like to advise that a PCN is a parking charge issued for a breach of contract and based on a contractually agreed sum, which is stated on the signage. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100; the Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it.

Below is my appeal letter. I have chosen what I believe are the most valid points from those given previously. I think it’s pretty clear the PCN was unjustified from the evidence but appreciate any tips on what I’ve written.—————A parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle of which I am the registered keeper on 21.05.25. I appealed directly to Private Parking Solutions (PPS), however, received an appeal rejection letter from them on 02.06.25. My appeal was based, primarily, on the fact that the evidence shows the vehicle was stopped in the location for approximately 90 seconds and that this was not sufficient time to consider the terms of parking. This objection was, quite disappointingly, entirely ignored in the appeal rejection letter sent to me. I detail my complete appeal below.Firstly, as it is not safe to read the on site signage from the driving position of a vehicle, it is necessary to stop first. The operator has not shown that any sign was visible from a moving vehicle prior to stopping and therefore a consideration period is allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice before deciding whether to stay. The supplied evidence shows that the vehicle was not parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required to read the signs and make a decision. Further, a handful of still images showing the vehicle was stopped for as little as 90 seconds cannot be assumed to be acceptance of a contract of parking and the operator is put to strict proof that a contract was indeed formed and breached.Secondly, the Notice to Keeper issued does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to specify a period of parking. Only a handful of timestamped images are given which is not sufficient according to paragraph 9(2)(a). This is supported by Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where the court held that a timestamp alone does not establish a period of parking. Based on this, there can be no keeper liability.In addition, the operator has inaccurately referred to the location as a car park. This is misleading as the site is in fact an industrial estate with no general parking areas. This mischaracterising raises doubts about the operator’s understanding of the site and undermines the credibility of their claim.Finally, the operator has not demonstrated a legitimate interest or commercial justification for issuing a charge in response to a brief stop where no obstruction occurred and no facility was used.Based on the above I believe the Parking Charge was issued incorrectly.

Many thanks for your reply. I am away at the moment and intend to write my appeal letter when I’m home. Once I have, I’ll post here as you mentioned.Thanks again!

Their response letter: [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

As expected, PPS have rejected my appeals. I have attached their letter of response.They state that their PCN does meet the requirements of PoFA and have ignored my statement that in the three minutes of evidence they have provided there was sufficient time for a contract to be formed.I will now escalate my appeal to POPLA. Should it be on the basis that sufficient consideration time was not given or do I maintain their original notice does not meet the requirements of PoFA.Many thanks!

Thanks for your speedy reply. I’ll appeal based on those two points.After browsing around a bit, I wonder if I should expect PPS to reject my appeal?

PCN issued by Private Parking Solutions (PPS). Received today, 8 days after the alleged infringement occurred.The driver remembers being in the area and vaguely recollects stopping on the road for 2 or 3 minutes in order to enter new sat nav details.After revisiting the road, signage is dotted along the road, tied to lamp posts. A large sign is present when entering the road. In order to review these signs, parking would presumably need to take place first as it cannot safely be viewed while driving. Based on this, the charge seems unfair but I am by no means an expert.Secondly, the charge notice refers to a ‘car park’ on a few occasions. For clarity, this is not a car park, rather, it is an industrial estate with no on-road parking permitted. Does this make a difference?Thanks in advance for any advice. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]