Is it worth the POPLA appeal - Parking Eye 2X PCN's **WON BOTH**

[beatthesystem]

I believe the address to be:

73 Rochdale Road

Manchester

M4 4HY

 

This address is also that of the Marble Arch Public House which is adjoining the car park.

 

On the PE evidence it is given as the following

Hallmark Developments Ltd

Rochdale Road Car Park

73 Rochdale Road

Manchester

M4 4HY

 

I previously found under the Manchester council list of properties getting small business relief rate dated 1st Dec 2015 (after the date), this address is under Euro Car Park (Euro Car Parks were the previously parking company that ran this car park about 2 years ago).

 

Will try the council under the planning permission route but any more help you can give would be much appreciated.

 

Cheers.

[armadillo71]

You have to address the inadequate signage. Add your pictures to show what the location is actually like when you parked, and point out that the car park number is barely visable for the ringo app.

There own evidence shows that you were paying for the wrong car park and were not there for four days, yet you only have two charge notices! this highlights that the ANPR is not fit for purpose.

Also Ringo should be refunding you your money or at least giving it to PE... But I suspect the Ringo small print covers that.

 

 

And make clear that you wish to see, through sight of an unredacted contract with the landowner, that PE have lawful authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices at this site.

[beatthesystem]

I've done a little digging around on the Manchester council website and found details of the planning permission and some other interesting stuff.

Temporary permission given in Dec 2010 and permission expired Dec 2013. There are no further 'planning permission' details after the 2010 one.

 

Key thing is that a number of the set out conditions have not been met, eg:

4) Within four weeks of this permission hereby approved, one of the fifteen parking

bays approved within the car park shall be appropriately demarcated for the sole

use by a disabled driver. Written confirmation that the appropriate surfacing and

demarcation have taken place shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

City Council as Local Planning Authority once the works have been carried out.

The car park shall then be retained as such thereafter at all times whilst the site is

occupied.

Reason - To ensure that parking space is allocated for use by a disabled driver

pursuant to policy T2.6 of the City Council's Unitary Development Plan.

 

5) Within four weeks of this permission hereby approved, a scheme for the

adequate and uniform lighting of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the City Council and shall be implemented in accordance with the

approved details within 2 months of being approved. If when the lighting units

hereby approved are illuminated they cause undue glare or light spillage to the

detriment of any nearby properties, baffles and/or cut-offs shall be installed on the

units and adjustments shall be made to the angle of the lighting units and the

direction of illumination, which shall thereafter be retained in accordance with

details which have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning

Authority.

 

Reason - In the interests of amenity, crime reduction and the personal safety of

those using the proposed development in order to comply with the requirements of

government guidance in Policies T1.8, H2.2 and E3.5 of the Unitary Development

Plan for the City of Manchester.

 

Also Greater Manchester Police also stated in 2009 that lighting should be provided to the car park to an adequate and uniform level as defined in BS5489 so as not to allow areas of pooling/shallowing.

 

I've attached a few of the docs, please have a look through and see what you can find.

 

Cheers.

73 Rochdale Rd plans on Manchester Council.pdf

More Rochdale Rd info.pdf

73 Rochdale Rd planning permission consent.pdf

73 Rochdale Rd planning application.pdf

[ericsbrother]

good work, that should be sent to POPLA and state forcefully that as the PP has expired then there is no locus standi for PE in this matter as they cannot offer and you cannot enter into a lawful contract whist failing to comply with planning law.

[beatthesystem]

Hello everyone,

 

Sorry to be a pain but could you kindly look through the below which I'm going to send to POPLA as additional comments in reply to the evidence pack sent by PE. Apologies for the lateness but the 7 day period is up tomorrow and I held back on this as I was awaiting a response from Manchester city council on whether the PP has definitely expired (still not got it,grrr!)

As well as these comments, I'll attach a copy of the aforementioned PP which I attached on here previously.

I'd be grateful if you could let me know if there's anything I should remove or add to make the case as strong as possible.

 

'On further investigation with Manchester City Council it would seem the planning permission given on the 10th December 2010 was in fact only temporary and expired 10th December 2013 with no further permission applied for or accepted.

As the planning permission has expired then there is no locus standi for Parking Eye in this matter as they cannot offer and you cannot enter into a lawful contract whilst failing to comply with planning law.

 

The landlord of this property has also failed to comply with the written conditions of the planning permission ie. Conditions 4&5 as stated on the attached copy of the planning permission.

 

4) Within four weeks of this permission hereby approved, one of the fifteen parking

bays approved within the car park shall be appropriately demarcated for the sole

use by a disabled driver. Written confirmation that the appropriate surfacing and

demarcation have taken place shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the

City Council as Local Planning Authority once the works have been carried out.

The car park shall then be retained as such thereafter at all times whilst the site is

occupied.

Reason - To ensure that parking space is allocated for use by a disabled driver

pursuant to policy T2.6 of the City Council's Unitary Development Plan.

 

5) Within four weeks of this permission hereby approved, a scheme for the

adequate and uniform lighting of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the City Council and shall be implemented in accordance with the

approved details within 2 months of being approved. If when the lighting units

hereby approved are illuminated they cause undue glare or light spillage to the

detriment of any nearby properties, baffles and/or cut-offs shall be installed on the

units and adjustments shall be made to the angle of the lighting units and the

direction of illumination, which shall thereafter be retained in accordance with

details which have received the prior written approval of the Local Planning

Authority.

Reason - In the interests of amenity, crime reduction and the personal safety of

those using the proposed development in order to comply with the requirements of

government guidance in Policies T1.8, H2.2 and E3.5 of the Unitary Development

Plan for the City of Manchester.

In addition to condition 5 as above, Greater Manchester Police also stated in 2009 that lighting should be provided to the car park to an adequate and uniform level as defined in BS5489 so as not to allow areas of pooling/shallowing.

 

The complete lack of independent lighting for this car park is a key factor in why I’d misread the ‘Pay by Phone’ identification number on the inadequate signage.

What Parking Eye have done is send you images of the signage as visible in clear daylight and not in any way a true representation of the pitch black signage and payment machines I encountered at 07.00am on a pitch black November morning.

With no car park lighting and overgrown weeds blocking visibility of signage, the terms & conditions and more importantly the ‘Pay by Phone’ identification number which is over 10ft in the air (almost twice my height) and in a miniscule font size of less than an inch, becomes almost impossible to read, unless of course you are wearing infra red night vision goggles which also provide magnification.

It would seem that Parking Eye are looking to make additional money from those with eyesight or mobility issues, as we can also see by the failure to adhere to allocating a disabled bay as requested in the written conditions of the planning permission.

I also take great offence to the way Parking Eye have doctored the ANPR images of the entry of the vehicle to make it appear that it appeared in brighter light conditions. As you can see by the photographs I attached in my appeal, it is clearly of a pitch black nature at 07.00am in November.

This is tantamount to criminal fraud by Parking Eye.

The ANPR has already been proven to be unfit for purpose as I actually parked in this car park 5 times whilst paying bona fides for the SIP car park but only received 2 PCN’s.

 

I would also re-iterate my initial statement , that the appellant does not believe that Parking Eye has a contract with the landowner where the landowner assigns the right to Parking Eye to make claims and take legal action in their own name and demands strict proof by sight of this contract between the landowner and Parking Eye.'

 

Hope you can help please.

[armadillo71]

Send it....

[beatthesystem]

Good news, it was worth the POPLA appeal.

Both appeals successful.

 

Paste of POPLA findings below.

 

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor NamePaul Thompson

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis of not paying the appropriate parking time or by remaining in the car park for longer than permitted.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant disputes that the operator has the relevant authority to operate on the private land. The appellant also considers the signage was inadequate in the dark conditions due to poor lighting and overgrown weeds.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has provided footage from the ANPR cameras showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 07:21 and exiting at 17:21 on 11 November 2015. The total time of the stay was 9 hours and 59 minutes. The appellant disputes that the operator has the relevant authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The appellant also considers the signage inadequate in dark conditions, due to poor lighting and overgrown weeds. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.

 

&

 

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor NameSamuel Connop

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant had not paid for his time at the site.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the lighting for the signage was insufficient, the small print is difficult to read, over grown plant obscured the signage, no illumination for the screen and pad and has questioned the landowner authority.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While the appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal, my report will focus solely on land owner authority, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. “Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires Operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land.” As the Operator has failed to provide any sufficient evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. As such I have no requirements to take into consideration other points made by the appellant.

 

Thanks for all your help.

[dx100uk]

yes!!

[honeybee13]

Well done, that's a great result everybody.

 

HB

[armadillo71]

Well done!

 

Now spread the word about fighting these [problematic]...

[ericsbrother]

They fell at the first hurdle. Well done for you

However, they should now stop issuing any tickets as they have no authority to be there but they wont and nor will they ever get done for it.