Author Topic: Parking Charge Notice Received.  (Read 2091 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Strawberries007

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2024, 03:03:24 am »
I received a link to the operator's evidence pack on Monday so I need to reply by Sunday night.
Please see operator's response here.
Operator contract.
Operator's Photo Pack.

My response in draft. Also below.

I write in response to Premier Park Ltd’s (PP) evidence pack.

The PCN does not comply with POFA 2012 Para 9(2)(a) as it fails to name the relevant place. See para 1 of my appeal.

This road is North St. It is not Market Hall. The post code named as the “relevant place” CV21 2JR is Market Place and is over 100ms from the road between 9 (Nat west) and 11(vacant) 13 (New Look) North Road CV21 2AH which is the location of the road in the photos.

PP may monitor the road, but the fact remains that the address stipulated on the PCN is incorrect.

My para 3 has not been rebutted. The Order Form is not signed by the landowner. There’s no proof that the Customer named on the Order Form is the landowner of this road. There’s no land owner contract showing the landowner’s signature, name of the authorised signatory, director or secretary.

There is no proof that the “Customer “has the authority of the landowner. There is no proof of whether the Order Form/Contract was signed by the Owner, authorised representative or managing agent. There is no visible name or signature. The document was valid for a year.

PP have not provided evidence to rebut my para 9 regarding alteration of photos. This violates British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a. As these are not the original images, the NtK is therefore invalid. PP Limited should have produced evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated. They must prove the above statements otherwise. Alteration to any degree is prohibited and calls all images into question rendering the NtK non-compliant. February 2024 POPLA decision citing similar issue as reason for allowing the appeal. Code 2413353469

PP has not proved the accuracy of their camera’s timing to rebut my defence. See para 10. Surveillance cameras whether APNR and CCTVs must be independently calibrated, audited and checked. PP is put to strict proof that the surveillance system has not failed motorists within this site. It cannot be assumed that the camera and timing is correct. I’m not a surveillance operative. I use APNR to mean cameras used by parking operators to record cars. I was not driving so I don’t know what type of camera was used.

It is unreasonable to expect the driver to park and call to find out the privacy policy. This will only further allow PP to claim parking or waiting in a no parking zone. It will take the driver considerable time to search online and read the policy. Perhaps this is what the driver was doing at the time. The text on the sign is too small.

 

PP have not provided any photo showing the driver exiting the vehicle yet the PCN was issued for “Parking In A No Parking Area” and for “parking in breach of parking terms”.

The PCN should have been worded as “Waiting” as there is no proof the driver left the car at any time. They have showed the car waiting but the PCN claims “Parking”.

There was no entry sign and this makes driver susceptible to driving in as prey. PP state that their entrance signs are compliant with BPA but there’re no warning entrance signs. They also state an entrance sign is included in the image pack but as can be seen there is none.

Para 12. There is no proof of consent to advertise on the signs nor of Planning Permission. This is a criminal offence and POPLA should not allow PP to benefit from illegality.

PP have failed to establish keeper liability as the Notice to Keeper was not fully compliant with POFA 2012 legislation. They have failed to comply with paragraph 8, section (2)(a) which very clearly states: specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

The Order Form is not signed by the landowner. There’s no proof that the Customer is the landowner of this road. There’s no land owner contract showing the landowner’s signature, name of the authorised signatory, director or secretary.

The photos supplied of the signs are stock copies of signs instead of photos of the actual signs on site. The remainder are from over two years ago. They’re unclear, illegible, nothing to show how close the car was to a sign and apart from the entrance photo are of another location. See my paragraphs 4 and 5.

I'm on the road all of today but shall work on it on Saturday.

 I'll be most grateful for your comments.

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2024, 09:03:12 am »
It's a weak case for POPLA. However, you never know on the day. If you are unsuccessful at POPLA, it has no bearing on what happens going forward. PP will certainly start with the debt collector letters which you should, by now, know you can safely ignore. You would only have to react if/when they send you an LoC.

Regarding your arguments about the facts, the point about the "relevant" land is very weak. If there was likely to be any ambiguity about the location, it is not a strong point. The fact that it is 100m from somewhere on a Google maps area for the post code is likely to be dismissed.

When arguing BPA CoP practices, have you actually read the relevant document and why don't you include actual text from the clause that you are arguing. Just statin that the CoP has been breached without going into the specifics of what the clause actually says doesn't really help you. You mention a POPLA decision and give a number but you don't include the man point of that decision and you are expecting the assessor to know what that decision was. Feed it to the assessor. Don't expect them to do your work for you.

What has the Privacy Policy got to do with the PCN? Also, a driver does not have to exit a vehicle for it to be considered parked. I have no idea why you are making a point of that. Are you saying that if a driver stops on private land and then goes to sleep in the car for an hour but never exits the car it is not parked?

You mention keeper liability and PoFA section 8. Section 8 has nothing to do with your circumstances. If you're going to quote the Act, make sure you quote the relevant section (9). You go on about "...specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." Then it is left hanging there. Aside from the fact that you are quoting the wrong section, what point about that section are you making?

I could go on but the strongest points need to be signage. You don't mention which BPA CoP clauses the signage breaches and why. The landowner contract may have some legs but is more useful if this ever goes to court.

Anyway, good luck and let us know the outcome.


Strawberries007

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2024, 09:27:10 am »
Thank you. I suspect I read somewhere that the one jas a maximum of 1000 words. So as I'd already stated and quoted these provisions and made the points in my appeal I wasn't going to reproduce in full again but shall prioritise that following your comment.

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2024, 09:27:22 am »
Just to add a point about something I noticed in the contract; In the "Self Ticketing Schedule", section (Page 13), "Definitions" it mentions in the first paragraph about a "Self Ticketer" must be registered with the IPC. Then in point 2.1, it mentions that the "Self Ticketer" must be registered with the BPA.

I don't think it will help your case but you never know. You can raise this in your rebuttal as it is in effect new evidence as provided by the operator by revealing their contract. It certainly shows that it has not been proof read properly over the years since PP has flip flopped between ATAs.

Strawberries007

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2024, 03:16:48 am »
Thank you.
I've managed to redact their submitted evidence and uploaded here.

Here's the PCN that was issued https://ibb.co/album/Hp1RMf
Here is their evidence pack sent to POPLA. https://ibb.co/238C06R

Please see posted earlier but here for ease of reference:
https://ibb.co/YDCg3MJ operator's response.
Operator Contract https://ibb.co/F5vKLGJ
Operator's Photo Pack https://ibb.co/WDXCx6f
Sunday evening is my deadline to submit my comments to their evidence.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2024, 03:40:54 am by Strawberries007 »

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2024, 07:32:46 am »
You could highlight to the assessor that PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) is not complied with. Look it up yourself and understand why this is highlighted. Compare your original NtK to what is required by the Act in that paragraph.

Don’t assume that the assessor is fully clued up on the Act and can spot this lack of compliance. Lead them by the nose to this PoFA failure which means that you cannot be liable as the keeper.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

One additional point from PPs evidence pack is their timeline. It shows that they sent your file to DRP+ on 27/03/24 before the appeals process was complete. Did you receive any DRP+ correspondence at all?

They later cancelled the DRP+ action on 04/04/24 but, without having scrutinised the BPA CoP 24.4, you need to check to see if this is a breach of the CoP. Also,  check against 23.12a: “If an appeal is being considered by POPLA, the debt recovery process must not be commenced until the outcome of the case is known”.

Again, lead the assessor by the nose to this point. Whilst you cannot introduce new evidence that was not in your original POPLA appeal, you are highlighting evidence provided by the operator which shows a breach of the BPA CoP.

Make sure you read the CoP yourself and don’t just rely on us doing all the work for you.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf
« Last Edit: April 20, 2024, 04:55:48 pm by b789 »

Strawberries007

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2024, 02:56:37 am »
Thank you.
I've updated based on the helpful points you raised.