Hi guys,
I received a PCN (picture attached) from PPS for parking on their land without valid permit.
The reason why the driver parked there was because he did Amazon deliveries in few buildings next to their land, but because the road ahead was closed there was no other option available for parking. The driver put a note on the windscreen Amazon.
The location on the PCN The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London is different from the location where the car was parked. The car was parked on Seagull lane.
I appealed the PCN with PPS and request some information, of course they reject the appeal and totally ignored my requests, answering me with generic template. I will write down the grounds of my appeal and will attach their Notice of Rejection.
Then, last night, I submitted appeal with POPLA (will write down the grounds). Today I received email with update that PPS uploaded their evidence of the appeal. Now I have 7 days to submit my response.
The grounds of the appeal with PPS:
"I write to formally challenge the above Parking Charge Notice and request that it be cancelled.
At the time of the alleged contravention, the vehicle was being used for the purpose of undertaking Amazon parcel deliveries within the development. Deliveries were being made to multiple buildings in the immediate area (Alder House, Salus house and The Oxygen) and the vehicle was present only for the period reasonably required to complete those deliveries. The reason why the driver parked at this location is because the road ahead was in full construction works, so there is no other parking options available for the purpose of the delivery. The vehicle displayed Amazon delivery identification, which is visible within your own photographic evidence. The vehicle was therefore being used in connection with active delivery duties and not for general parking purposes. I further note that your photographic evidence appears to show the construction works and access restrictions present within the area at the relevant time. These conditions significantly reduced the availability of alternative stopping locations and should be taken into account when considering the circumstances of this case.
Also the car hasn't been parked at the address in the PCN - 4 Western Gateway. The address provided in the PCN doesn't match the address of the picture.
In addition, all photographs made available through your online portal appear to have been taken at 11:48, whereas the Parking Charge Notice states an incident time of 11:58. The notice does not disclose any observation period, time first seen, or explanation as to how the alleged contravention time was established. Accordingly, please provide: � The warden's contemporaneous notes;
� Details of any observation period undertaken;
� The observation start and end times;
� Details of any observations made between 11:48 and 11:58;
� Confirmation of the evidential basis upon which the alleged contravention time of 11:58 was determined.
I respectfully request that the charge be cancelled in light of the genuine delivery activity being undertaken and the surrounding circumstances evidenced within your own photographs.
I'm attaching proof of delivery activities.
Should you decline this appeal, please provide a full response addressing each of the points raised above together with all evidence upon which you intend to rely.
Yours faithfully,"
The ground with POPLA:
"I am the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle and appeal against the Parking Charge Notice on the grounds set out below. I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
1. The operator has failed to establish that the alleged contravention occurred.
The Parking Charge Notice states that the alleged contravention occurred at 11:58.
However, every photograph made available by the operator is timestamped 11:48.
There is therefore a 10 minute discrepancy between the photographic evidence and the alleged contravention time.
In my initial appeal, I specifically requested:
the Civil Enforcement Officer's contemporaneous notes;
the observation period;
the time first seen;
the observation start and finish times;
details of any observations undertaken between 11:48 and 11:58; and
an explanation of how the alleged contravention time of 11:58 was determined.
The operator has ignored my requests. Instead, it issued a generic rejection which failed to address these questions entirely.
2. The driver was not improperly parked. The location on PCN is different from the location where the car was actually parked. The operator has failed to prove that the vehicle was parked at the location stated on the Parking Charge Notice.
The Parking Charge Notice identifies the location as:
The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway, London E16 1AZ.
However, the photographs supplied shows location Seagull lane.
Screenshots attached.
It is for the operator to prove that the alleged breach occurred at the location specified.
I raised this issue during my initial appeal.Again, the operator failed to answer this point and supplied no evidence confirming the precise location of the vehicle.
3. The vehicle was engaged in active commercial deliveries and was not parked in the ordinary sense.
At the material time the vehicle was undertaking Amazon parcel deliveries to multiple buildings within the development, including:
Alder House;
Salus House; and
The Oxygen.
Proof of these deliveries is enclosed.
The vehicle was present only for the period reasonably necessary to complete these deliveries before departing. It was not left for general parking purposes.
The vehicle also displayed Amazon delivery identification, which is visible in the operator's own photographic evidence.
The operator therefore knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the vehicle was engaged in active delivery duties rather than ordinary parking.
This distinction is recognised in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (Oxford County Court, Appeal, 2016), where His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC held that temporary stopping for the purposes of loading or unloading is fundamentally different from parking. The judgment recognised that activities such as deliveries require vehicles to stop temporarily and that such stopping does not fall within the ordinary meaning of "parking".
The vehicle was present only for the period reasonably necessary to complete those deliveries.
The rejection letter entirely ignores this fact.
4. Extreme circumstances prevented the driver from parking correctly.
Construction works affected the availability of alternative stopping locations.
At the relevant time, extensive construction works were taking place immediately beyond the location where the vehicle stopped.
These works are clearly visible in the operator's own photographs.
The construction significantly restricted access and removed the availability of alternative locations where delivery drivers could safely stop while undertaking deliveries within the development.
This was specifically explained in my original appeal.
The operator has failed to address this point
5. Failure to properly consider the appeal
My original appeal raised several specific factual and evidential issues, namely:
the discrepancy between the photographic timestamps and the alleged contravention time;
the apparent mismatch between the location stated on the Parking Charge Notice and the location shown in the photographs;
the fact that the vehicle was undertaking Amazon deliveries;
the surrounding construction works restricting alternative stopping locations; and
a request for the Civil Enforcement Officer's contemporaneous notes and observation records.
The operator's rejection failed to address any of these points.
6. BPA Code of Practice
As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme, the operator is required to comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
The Code requires operators to act fairly, consider representations properly and maintain appropriate evidence when enforcing parking charges.
In this case, the operator has failed to explain the discrepancy between the evidence and the alleged contravention time, failed to provide the requested observation records, and failed to engage with the substantive issues raised in my appeal.
I respectfully submit that this falls short of the standards expected under the BPA Code of Practice.
7. Poor handling of personal data
The photographic evidence supplied by the operator contains the registration numbers of unrelated vehicles that have not been redacted or obscured.
Vehicle registration numbers constitute personal data where they relate to identifiable individuals.
As a data controller, the operator is required to process personal data in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018, including the principles of lawful processing and data minimisation.
Whilst I acknowledge that POPLA is not responsible for determining data protection complaints, the operator's failure to redact unrelated personal data demonstrates poor handling of evidence and raises concerns regarding the overall care taken in preparing its case.
Evidence enclosed:
Copy of the Parking Charge Notice.
Copy of my original appeal to the operator.
Copy of the operator's rejection letter.
Amazon proof of delivery records.
Screenshots showing delivery locations and timestamps.
Copies of the operator's photographs showing the Amazon delivery identification, construction works and timestamp discrepancy.
Any additional photographs or maps demonstrating the actual location of the vehicle and the surrounding roadworks."
