@morrisons Parking Eye PCN PAPLOC - Morrisons store Car Park **CANCELLED BY MORRISONS+GIFT VOUCHER**

[bosun69]

Hopefully I'm not repeating anything here which belongs in another thread.

 

My wife received a pcn from parking eye at the Reigate Branch of Morrisons back in March, for exceeding the time allowed.

 

 

Having previously ignored (sounds familiar?) successfully and being unaware of the changes, we did same again.

On this occasion, they did not shop at Morrisons so we have no receipts for the day. We are of course now, much wiser.

 

She received

1) the initial demand,

2) a reminder,

3) a notice to keeper, although it was not formally identified as such, followed by

4) a supposed LBCCC, to which we have replied (I drafted the letter disputing the charge and stating that the letter did not comply with the court PD. My wife signed it),

based on information which I have obtained from this forum and also from the MSE Forum.

 

I have written to Morrisons to complain and saying that the terms and conditions are unenforceable and requesting the charge be cancelled.

 

Proof of posting has been obtained for all letters sent.

 

Contrary to my expectation, PE have not replied to our response to the LBCCC with a form letter,

but with what appears to be a specific response, albeit very brief and surprisingly not threatening.

I am currently drafting a reply to this.

 

The LBCCC also appears to be of an updated format from those I have seen previously. (and the envelope even has a first class stamp on it!).

Although it refers to an ADR, it doesn't actually specify what it might be, but attempts to dismiss the possibility of going back to POPLA.

 

I'll attach redacted copies of the correspondence including and after the LBCCC as the content may also be of interest, when I've found out how to do it.

 

An interesting aspect to this is that the planning approvals for the car park in question ( I have enquired of the local planning dept)

seem to require the car park to be available as a "shoppers car park", which I contend means that

Morrisons cannot restrict use of the car park only to their customers, yet part of the PE signage, (which is clearly legible),

states;

 

"Parking for customers only. For use only whilst shopping on site".

 

I'm not sure at this stage how useful this particular information may be in relation to defending proceedings if PE continue.

 

Amy comments or advice would be most welcome.

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

so you have a court claim form?

 

 

dx

[bosun69]

, Letter before County Court Claim. ?

[Bazooka Boo]

So you have 'appealed' and they haven't issued you with a POPLA code yet?

 

I do believe they have 35 days in which to issue you one, or any claim is discontinued.......but ericsbrother, dragonfly will be better suited to

confirm this.

 

I'm still trying to get my teeth into the murky world of PPC's!

[DragonFly1967]

The way I'm reading the timeline is that no contact was made with ParkingLie and no appeal was submitted. Is that correct?

 

If that is right, it'll make life slightly harder in court as the judge could take the view that you had not explored all of the options that were available to you. ie, appeal to ParkingLie followed by an appeal to POPLA if (or rather when) your appeal to ParkingLie was rejected. But no matter, all is not lost, and you may be able to defeat them on other grounds such as planning laws as you've already started to explore.

 

You may want to go back to the council planning department and ask if ParkingLie have the necessary planning permission for their 'advertisements', as without that planning permission, the signs would be there contrary to law and any "contract" (supposedly) formed would be null & void as a contract cannot be based on an illegal act.

 

You might also want to explore more fully what they mean by "A shoppers car park" and enquire as to whether this is for the exclusive use of shoppers at Morrisons, or for use by shoppers to the area in general. Looking at the area in Google maps (and a google search of planning applications) would lead me to believe that it may be the latter. Google Maps link. Interesting planning matter.

 

You'll need to double check with the council to see if that matter was resolved.

 

You might also want to check with the council to see if either Morrisons or ParkingLie have planning permission for the erection of ANPR cameras/additional CCTV cameras.

 

There's also a matter of business rates. They are zero in a free car park but are payable if people are to be charged to park there. If either ParkingLie or Morrisons have changed the terms & conditions of parking unilaterally, business rates may well be payable on what is effectively (now) a pay to park car park.

 

Every avenue is worth exploring.

[DragonFly1967]

Also perhaps worthy of note is that Morrisons is NOT the landowner of the car park. They do hold a freehold, but the landowner is Reigate & Banstead Borough Council. Might be another avenue of attack (in court) if the ParkingLie contract says (or if they say in court) that they have the permission of the landowner.

[ericsbrother]

What was the time allowed?

 

 

I believe that the store is an ex-Summerfield and should be 3 hours as that is what was put on the planning application for most of these stores.

 

 

PE lost a battle over the Caterham store parking rights big time and Morrisons were supporting them at the time

 

 

so it may be worth having a go at Morrisons again as they have booted PE out of many of their premises over the numbar of complaints they get.

 

 

The bit about Morrisons customers only wont wash but there again PE are not arguing that so was it over 3 hours you were there?

[bosun69]

Thanks for all the various comments, very helpful, especially regarding the past history of the car park. I'll try and fill in the gaps.

 

 

1 - No appeal was lodged, due to ignorance regarding way to respond to these pcns. I hadn't realised that the law had changed so we just ignored it as it worked before.

 

 

2 - I have already enquired with the Council and they have confirmed that planning permission is not required for the cameras due to their size. I suspected this as I work for a local authority running their own Town Centre CCTV system. However the question I actually asked them was do they have planning permission to use ANPR equipment. Probably the same answer but that wasn't what they said.

 

 

3 - I have also asked the Council about the planning consents and conditions relating to the car park itself. The reply was not wholly unambiguous, it referred to the use of the car park as being made available for "short term shopper's parking" but no explanation as to what this actually intended to mean, either in terms of what a shopper was, nor what was considered short term. I guess it depends on whether the intention was to prevent business parking or parking by shop workers from using it, or whether it was to allow users of local shops to use it. I suspect that the latter would have been the principle reason, otherwise it would be referred to as a customer car park, but the Council so far have not confirmed this. I will have another go at them.

 

 

4 - My wife was driving and it was her car, so she is the registered keeper. My daughter was a passenger and they went shopping in another shop in the town. They stayed just over 3 hours.

 

 

5 - PE's signage states 2 hours, but its possible to both enter the car park and leave it without actually seeing a sign with the writing large enough to be clearly seen. No surprise there I guess.

 

 

DragonFly1967's comment about land ownership is interesting and I will ask the Council this, but I'm a bit baffled as to how you can have a freehold but not be the land owner. I thought that that was what a freehold was.

 

 

I don't see how they could reasonably enforce the car park as Morrisons customers only unless they had someone following all the car park users around to see if they left the site, but then if the planning permission required them to make the car park available for shopping in the town they couldn't enforce this anyway or they would be in breach of the planning consents.

 

 

I'll follow all these up, but my main focus now is to respond to their letter. As I had previously told them their previous letter headed Letter Before County Court Claim was not compliant with the Practice Directive, I now have to respond explaining why.

 

 

One final question someone may be able to answer. PE's signage says (if you get close enough to read it or have a telescope) that they will share personal information collected with the BPA. Can anyone explain why this might be necessary, because otherwise they could be in breach of the Data Protection Act.

[DragonFly1967]

My apologies, I meant leasehold. I've no idea what the term is though. And as far as I can make out, that only applies to the car park, the actual building being on freehold land.

 

I'd imagine (though don't take this as gospel) that the sharing of information with the BPA would be to do with POPLA. Though quite why, as they are supposed to be independent of the BPA is anyones guess. I can't see any other reason that they'd need to share your information.

[bosun69]

Their signage says that data will be shared with " the BPA, POPLA, mail service providers, credit reference agents, collection agents or solicitors". So BPA is listed separately from POPLA. And mail service providers? Hmmm.

 

 

More to the point, I've just checked online with the land registry for details of ownership and apparently the owner of the land is Safeway Stores Ltd.

[DragonFly1967]

I was obviously looking a document that was incorrect then, apologies.

 

Safeway Stores Ltd is now owned by Morrisons.

[i hate bailiffs]

I had one of those letters I made no payment and waiting for a claim months mabe a year or so have passed and nothing

 

However in your case I would be getting back in touch with Morrison's formal complaint to CEO all in writing

Create a fuss give them a headache over this

Not how they should be treating customers

They must want you to shop elsewhere

[ericsbrother]

You should respond to PE's letter so there is a paper trail should they decide to take it further. The position of the signage is important so if you cant read the signs entering the car park you cannot have "offer and consideration" so take a few photos from the driver of the vehicle's perspective and look at other threads where that point has been made. PE and others have lost a good few claims because the signage was inadequate, even where they had numerous signs as all of the information must be there for you to consider at the point of entry. If the sign refers to other signs or webste terms and conditions then it is not a contract but an invitation to treat and you cant then be sued for breach of contract.

However, what a judge decides on the day is a bit of a lottery with that so make sure that you chase up other points and that should include sight of the contract between Morrisons and PE.

[bosun69]

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

 

I have photos of the signage and this will be a key part of my evidence. Also the fact that it is becoming increasingly obvious to me (just need a bit more confirmation from the Council) that the attempts to limit the car park usage to customer only, when it should be for the benefit of the town as a shoppers car park, means that they are in contravention of the planning permission for the site. (which is a criminal offence).

 

 

I'm going through the BPA Code of Practice, (which leaves things to be desired in a number of areas) as well to make sure I understand all the processes, in particular around how and when appeals can be made and matters referred to POPLA (as a possible means of alternative dispute resolution which the Court Practice Document expects to have been attempted).

 

 

I would be interested in views on the matter of agreements with the landowner, which PE must have. The actual Landowner listed in the land registry I now know is Safeway. Although Morrisons own Safeway, does this mean that the agreement to manage the car park must still be with Safeway and even if PE do actually have an agreement with Morrisons, this would not be valid?

 

 

It is possibly a very technical point of law and not expecting proper legal advice obviously, but what do people think?

 

 

One further question, my wife has not yet admitted to being the driver. Is it still possible that in admitting now to being the driver, this could re-set the POPLA clock anyway and require PE to follow the "normal" appeal procedures?

[armadillo71]

If the drivers name and serviceable address was given to PE, if different to the RK, then the RK would be absolved of liability under the POFA 2012...

[ericsbrother]

The limiting of time by PE will by necessity have to have the agreement of Morrisons and you should clrify the Planning permission aspect with the council because they may have a different viewto PE, based on submissions for planning and not just in the consent. This is a bit like looking at "Hansard" to determine the will of parliament when people look for loopholes in legislation.

The point about shoppers only is a bit of a red herring in your case as you are not accused of not being a shopper but the argument about an unlawful term making the entire contract repugmant is worth further investigation but dont hang all of your hopes on it as PE may well claim they realise that it cant form PART of a contract and havent tried to enforce that condition.

As for resetting the clock with POPLA- yes, naming the driver any time prior to court proceedings been entered into is OK and then you can use POPLA so if you want to go down that road go for it and save the other arguments for her POPLA appeal. If they say too late then they will get an almighty seeing to in court for wasting the court's time as they will have known that their is no basis for claim. Get your response off pronto so they cant claim that they didnt know in time to stop things.

[bosun69]

Just thought I'd update on this.

 

 

My letter to Morrisons was a good idea. They have replied today advising that the charge has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.

 

 

They also advised that if my wife needed additional time to shop there, to advise their customer services in store and they would make a note of it. 10/10 for Morrison's customer service and common sense.

 

 

A weasly letter from PE also arrived, advising same, but no reference to the fact that Morrison's would have told them to cancel.

 

 

I suggest anyone who gets a parking charge writes to the store to complain about the way the PPC's operate and to let them know that as customers it's not acceptable to be treated in such heavy handed intimidating way. I have every sympathy with the problems stores may have with parking in some locations but I wonder if they are really aware of the consequences of using PPC's under the current regime. This needs changing. The BPA Code of Practice is not fit for purpose and the introduction of the FOI clauses has allowed PPCs to refer to legislation in their threats which adds to the intimidation factor.

 

 

Thanks to all for contributions.

[i hate bailiffs]

Good result getting on to Morrison's

Did they include a gift card to persuade you to shop there in future

There gesture of good will should cover your time and stress!

 

Won't be long until they rid there sites of parking lie

[Bazooka Boo]

Excellent outcome, well done, common sense prevails!

[SabreSheep]

Title edited to reflect outcome

 

Congrats