Jump to content

Seala

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I agree . I could kick my self for not taking my phone up the shops because If I had taken a photo I could have easily proved it. Very disappointing that some shops acknowledged the grid lock and then said they do not want to get involved. This is amoral .
  2. That is what has occurred. That is correct ,it is in fact a frustration of the contract. Unfortunately POPLA just went along with Nexus,s drivel about cars leaving one per minute but no time specification given ( could be one a minute at a later time) . My appeal has been approached with complete disinterest to the facts.
  3. Thank you for all your help. still waiting for security guard to get back to me. I was also thinking …..that if this matter goes to court they will have to show flow time of vehicles leaving for the specific time I said it was grid locked. POPLA accepted arguments vehicles were leaving at rate of one per minute but this was much later and after I walked back to retrieve my vehicle. If they can make representations to POPLA for a later time why couldn’t they do it for the time I claimed gridlock .
  4. Thankfully the security guard that was on duty that night totally agreed with everything I said . He said they do not normally get involved but my representations were accurate. Nexus impugned that cars were able to leave . True at a later time but it appears POPLA we’re totally disinterested in the facts of the matter. The security guard is emailing the owners of the site. My regret is I left the house without my phone and could have taken photos. I did not expected everyone to close ranks. The shops are not doing themselves any favours as I will be reluctant to shop where I could receive a heavy sanction for being trapped in a car park for no fault of my own. It is apparent that on seasonal times this is not an isolated occurrence as I have now found out. people are being given short shrift and put through a system that really does not want to remedy the situation. Sheriff of Nottingham comes to mind. I am now very cynical and agree with all comments . Just received an Email from POPLA ( How did we do ) ????! Just about reply …. guess what …. emailed could not be opened …. I rest my case
  5. Thank you all so much . I will follow this up. POPLA have made no sense and have ignored the heart of the argument. I would not walk home in the pouring rain with my shopping on a whim. I was freezing cold and soaking wet. I can get met office report for that night in respect to weather conditions. It would not have been rocket science for POPLA to work that out. Nexus have been very tight lipped knowing or ought to know that the car park at seasonal times can be overwhelmed. I now share your cynicism in a broken corrupt system not fit for purpose. I am happy to be taken to court where perhaps common sense will prevail. I am now convinced ombudsman system is not fit for purpose. thank you all once again .
  6. 1 Date of the infringement 22/12/2021 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 30/12/2021 3 Date received 04/01/2022 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? Yes Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes Decision Unsuccessful Assessor Name Bethany Young Assessor summary of operator case The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle stayed longer than the allowed maximum stay period. Assessor summary of your case The appellant’s case is that when they tried to leave the car park, it was gridlocked due to Christmas shopping. They say the barrier between Tesco and the adjoining car park was closed, which reduced the flow of traffic. They say they sat in the traffic for 45 minutes around 17:00 to 17:30 and had no choice but to park again and walk home. They returned later to pick up their vehicle. They say there was no car park staff to assist or direct traffic in or out. The appellant says the cameras at the site, or the shops will verify the situation. They say they did not have a camera to hand to gather evidence. The appellant reiterates their grounds in their comments and states it was an unpleasant experience. They say emergency services would not have been able to access the site if there had been an accident. Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant has indicated that they were the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “3 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY… If you park you agree to pay a Parking Charge of £100 which may be issued if the following… Maximum stay of 3 hours”. The PCN was issued as the vehicle stayed longer than the allowed maximum stay period. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the motorist’s vehicle, entering the car park at 15:13, and exiting at 19:14, totalling a stay of 4 hours and 1 minute. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided photographic evidence of multiple signs installed around the site. I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant explains that when they tried to leave the car park, it was gridlocked due to Christmas shopping. They say the barrier between Tesco and the adjoining car park was closed, which reduced the flow of traffic. They say they sat in the traffic for 45 minutes around 17:00 to 17:30 and had no choice but to park again and walk home. They returned later to pick up their vehicle. They say there was no car park staff to assist or direct traffic in or out. It is not within POPLA’s remit to allow an appeal if a contract was formed, and the motorist did not comply to the terms and conditions. The operator has provided a list of the ANPR exit times of other vehicles from 17:00 onwards on the day in question. It shows several vehicles exiting the site per minute. Therefore, without evidence to dispute this, I cannot conclusively accept the traffic was gridlocked and the appellant was unable to exit the site within the required timeframe. The operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which has a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership. Section 13.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that if the car park only permits a maximum period of parking, this would be considered as a parking event. In this instance, a grace period would need to be added to allow the driver to exit the site before issuing the PCN. The BPA states amount of time given will vary dependant on the size and type of the site, but it must be a minimum of 10 minutes. Section 13.6 of the BPA Code of Practice states that a grace period is not a period of free parking and should be used for its intended purpose of exiting the site only. This means that the motorist is not entitled to complete any other activities during this time. There is no requirement to offer an additional allowance on top of a grace period. As the motorist’s vehicle remained parked on the site for a further 1 hour and 1 minute than was authorised, I am satisfied that they did not use this grace period for its intended purpose of leaving the car park and therefore the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant says the cameras at the site, or the shops will verify the situation. They say they did not have a camera to hand to gather evidence. The car park is monitored by automatic number plate recognition cameras. As there is no evidence to suggest the site is monitored by CCTV, an assumption cannot be made that there is CCTV footage of the site being in complete gridlock. Further to this, it cannot be assumed that the parking operator would own or have the right to access the CCTV footage. My role requires assessing all evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator at the time the appeal is submitted and concluding from this evidence whether the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Any time after the submission, no further evidence can be requested to support the case of either party. This includes evidence such as CCTV, valid permits, disabled blue badges or other photographic evidence. The appellant reiterates their grounds in their comments and states it was an unpleasant experience. They say emergency services would not have been able to access the site if there had been an accident. POPLA’s remit does not have any governance over the operator’s process. If the appellant wishes to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they will need to contact the operator or the British Parking Association directly. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the motorist stayed longer than the allowed maximum stay period, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. 7 Who is the parking company? Give answer here 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Park Forestfach Retail Park Swansea For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Wrote to GroupNexus appeals ( turned down) They then stated to go to POPLA In summary POPLA do not accept that tithe car park was grid locked . Yet everyone I speak to say it was awful.
  7. Went to local shops with three hour limit on December 22 nd 2021. Tried to leave but it was grid locked. Stuck for 45 mins . Locked car and set out on foot with bags of shopping. live 1/2 mile away. Very bad weather that night only had a short jacket. I am a grandmother with disabled husband. Got home soaked. POPLA would not accept car park grid locked .Car park dark and badly lit did not have phone to take photos. Visited shops to speak to managers who all acknowledge car park grid locked that day but nothing to do with them. Spoke to car park security person on duty that day totally agreed with me . Nexus group keep saying I breached contract but I couldn’t leave the car park. A barrier was down between another car park and the security man said that it was problematic. I asked for footage but nothing . Has anyone wales experienced this.
×
×
  • Create New...