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.
