DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13842--------------------------------------------------
PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: summer day
Date: January 16, 2024, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A friend was helping me move into my house and got this ticket,
so I am trying to help with it.
I'd really appreciate a response to POPLA now that Elite has
uploaded their evidence.
PCN
HTML https://imgur.com/a/QbNE8K3
Parking Signs
HTML https://imgur.com/a/6zsaEse
The blown up Elite parking sign has open parking still
referenced on it, and a sticker to change some information.
This is what I sent in the POPLA appeal
I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) issued by Elite Car Parking Management on the
grounds of inadequate signage, lack of grace period, improper
ticketing method, and potential non-compliance with the British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
1. Inapplicability of Grace Period Clauses:
The PCN cites a single contravention at a specific time,
implying a breach of a "parking contract." However, the BPA Code
of Practice regarding grace periods (specifically clauses 13.2
and 13.4) is intended for situations where a driver consciously
enters into a contractual agreement with the parking operator.
In this instance, I was legally parked in a marked bay on a
public street, not within a defined car park where such a
contract would be established.
2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Reasonable Opportunity:
The BPA Code of Practice emphasises providing drivers with a
reasonable opportunity to understand parking restrictions and
make informed decisions. However, Elite Car Parking Management
failed to fulfil this obligation due to the following
significant shortcomings in signage:
(a) Excessively High and Illegible Signage:
Entrance signs are absent from the street and not visible from
the parking bays. I only discovered them later, positioned
excessively high with tiny fonts. Reading these terms requires
extensive effort, like photographing and zooming, effectively
negating any potential grace period.
ParkingEye v Beavis established that the penalty law is in play
for parking charges and that a charge of £85 was not a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. It would not be a penalty or unfair
consumer contract however if the charge was clearly brought to
the attention of the motorist. In the Beavis case this was
achieved by the £85 charge being in the largest font on the sign
and in contrasting colours.
I submit a copy for comparison.
Figure 1. Beavis Sign Figure 2. Elite Parking
Management SIgn
In contrast the £100 charge here is buried in the small print.
As ParkingEye v Beavis is binding case law I submit the charge
must be found to be either a penalty or an unfair consumer
charge. I refer to the following paragraphs of the judgement to
support this.
Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters
at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within
it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for
overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of
parking there.”
Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts,
were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they
could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently
proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you
will pay £85”
Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85
(reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of
a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car
park agree to the scheme by doing so.”
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one
of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms
should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no
concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be
given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the
customer.”
Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness
allows the court to address considerations other than the size
of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact
that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of
both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the
charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not
unconscionable.
(b) Confusing and Contradictory Information:
The presence of multiple parking companies' logos and
information, including references to OpenParking.co.uk alongside
Elite Car Parking Management, creates a misleading and confusing
environment. This raises concerns about legitimacy and
compliance, hindering informed decision-making within a
reasonable timeframe.
(c) Lack of Transparency Regarding Enforcement Methods:
The omission of any mention of ANPR on the signage constitutes a
lack of transparency regarding enforcement methods. Drivers have
a right to be informed about such practices.
(d) Incapable of Forming a Legally Binding Contract:
Due to the aforementioned shortcomings, the signage fails to
meet the standards set in the Beavis case. This renders it
incapable of forming a legally binding contract. Therefore, no
contract exists with the driver to pay the demanded amount, and
any additional punitive charges are invalid.
3. Lack of Clarity Regarding Landowner's Permission and Legal
Standing:
The PCN fails to provide any clarity regarding the landowner's
permission for Elite Car Parking Management to enforce parking
restrictions on this public street. Additionally, there is no
information about the legal standing of Elite Car Parking
Management to act on behalf of the landowner in issuing PCNs.
4. Conclusion:
In light of the aforementioned issues, I respectfully request
that the POPLA adjudicator overturn this PCN. The combination of
factors, including:
Inapplicability of grace period clauses due to the absence of
a parking contract.
Inadequate signage, lack of transparency, and a lack of
reasonable opportunity to comprehend parking restrictions.
Unclear landowner permission and legal standing of Elite Car
Parking Management.
warrant a thorough review of the PCN's validity. I am confident
that a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence will
support the overturning of this unfair charge.
I heard from POPLA yesterday that Elite have uploaded their
evidence and I had 7 days to respond.
Elite's Evidence is attached below
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 13874--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: summer day
Date: January 17, 2024, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone help with this? I only have 5 days to reply
[member=103]DWMB2[/member], [member=428]H C Andersen[/member],
[member=634]Nosy Parker[/member] @Hippocrates
#Post#: 13875--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 17, 2024, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The seven days includes the day you were notified by POPLA, so
if that was the day before yesterday (15 January) the deadline
is 21 January. I'm sorry but I don't have time to look at this
before the deadline. I hope one of the other regulars can help
#Post#: 13880--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 17, 2024, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll see if I can take a look at this in more detail later, but
in the comments stage, your job is to essentially comb through
the evidence Elite Parking Management have provided, and draw
attention to any points that you made in your appeal that they
have failed to address in their evidence, as well as any
evidence they have adduced that supports your case. You cannot
use the comments to advance any new arguments not previously
made, so stick to reinforcing these.
From a quick glance, I'd say their own photos of the signage
support your point that it is insufficient. Their photos show
that the sign is so high up as to be illegible from street
level, and the £100 charge is certainly not prominently
displayed. Their photos of the vehicle also seem to support the
point that there is no particularly prominent signage near where
the vehicle was parked, such that a motorist would be aware he
was parking in a space to which restrictions applied.
#Post#: 13993--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: summer day
Date: January 19, 2024, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this OK for my comment response
Elite Parking's evidence includes photos of signage they claim
are present at the location. However, these photos do not
accurately reflect the actual signage situation. Specifically:
The sign marked left on entering the street in their photos is
entirely absent in reality. This raises concern about the
completeness and accuracy of their signage strategy.
Their photos fail to show any signs visible from the specific
bay where my vehicle was parked. This lack of readily visible
signage in the immediate vicinity of the parking space
significantly weakens their case.
The signage in their photos differs significantly from the
actual appearance and placement of the signs on-site. This
discrepancy casts doubt on the reliability of their evidence and
the overall effectiveness of their signage strategy.
The inconsistent, ambiguous, and potentially misleading nature
of the signage creates an unfair and confusing situation for
drivers
Based on the discrepancies and flaws in Elite Parking's evidence
and signage strategy, I respectfully request that POPLA overturn
the issued PCN. The lack of clear, prominent, and consistent
signage renders the parking restrictions unenforceable in this
instance. I was not adequately informed of the regulations, and
it is unfair to penalise me for navigating misleading and
confusing information.
#Post#: 14007--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 19, 2024, 9:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I was not adequately informed of the regulations, and it is
unfair to penalise me for navigating misleading and confusing
information."
Is this a case where the keeper has admitted driving or it
doesn't make a difference because POFA has been correctly
engaged by the NTK?
If not change to:
"The signage is inadequate, and it is unfair to penalise the
motorist for the consequences of misleading and confusing
information."
#Post#: 14008--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: summer day
Date: January 19, 2024, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The keeper has not admitted driving.
Is it a POFA NTK, as the warning doesn't warn about keeper
liability?
Also Elite are referring to para 8(2)(b) when it should be para
9(2)(b) for a postal NTK.
#Post#: 14018--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 19, 2024, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
..almost as if in passing when IMO it is key.
The appeal waffles on about internet-derived snippets when IMO
it should focus on the objective evidence:
The PCN states that 'You are notified under paragraph 8(2)(b)
etc.... So why not play a straight bat and not trawl the
internet? Sorry, but it's a beef of mine.
Dear Adjudicator,
The PCN states that I have been notified under paragraph 8(2)(b)
....which I have now had the opportunity to examine and I note
that the PCN omits the following............
Consequently, it fails to comply with Schedule 4 and as this is
a precedent condition for pursuing the keeper for the driver's
alleged breach I, as keeper, have no liability and I look to the
assessor to notify the creditor accordingly. I would also add
that as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA it necessarily follows
that it also fails to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of
Practice which is a precedent condition of having Landowner
Authority.
But it's probably too late for all of the above.
#Post#: 14019--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: summer day
Date: January 19, 2024, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was working with the information I was able to gather.
I have already submitted the POPLA appeal with no reference to
the NTK, As I was informed I can't introduce anything new, does
that mean I can't use this?
#Post#: 14022--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
Parking Management
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 19, 2024, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where's the keeper's appeal to Elite?
Has the keeper named the driver?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page