parking eye anpr capture - POPLA appeal

[Gordito]

Hi guys,

 

Today I got the result of my POPLA appeal from an incident from October 2015.

 

I've lost the appeal, here is what they have said:

 

The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was captured by ANPR entering the site at 17.14.24, exiting at 17.27.00. The appellant was at the site for a period of 12 minutes and 36 seconds. The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that the appellant’s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event.

 

The operator confirms that the site is a paid parking car park which is clearly stated on the signage at the site. The operator confirms that there are 15 signs, placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. The signage at the site is in full compliance with Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice with particular reference to Section 18.3 which states “signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to read and understand”.

 

The signage on site states that, “By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with this Parking Contract and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions. If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the "Parking Charge").” Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association states “you should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”.

 

The operator confirms that it has a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.

 

These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose. The appellant states that he was dropping a relative at the train station and went across the road to get change for parking. He states that he wanted to stay for more than an hour but as it was a Saturday it was a fixed charge so decided to go and park at the train station car park instead.

 

The appellant says that there was no indication on the signs about how long he could stay before a fine is implemented and the writing was too small. I acknowledge the comments from the appellant however, if you decide to remain at a car park site you must have the means to stay, a grace period is given in order to establish the terms and conditions at the site and should not be used to obtain the means to remain.

 

By leaving the site to obtain the means is an acceptance of the terms and conditions of contract at the site. if the appellant had considered the terms and conditions prior to establishing if he had the means to remain there would have been sufficient time to leave prior entering into a contract with the operator.

 

On this occasion the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

 

Accordingly this appeal should be refused.

Edited March 15, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Gordito]

What are my options now? I feel like this is an injustice

[honeybee13]

Hello Gordito.

 

I've edited some paragraphs into your post. If you could add them in the future please, it would help people to advise you.

 

HB

[armadillo71]

Who is the PPC please?

 

If you had asked for advice here first, the charge would almost certainly have got cancelled at POPLA.

[dx100uk]

is this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460423-Lidl-Athena-parking-notice

[Gordito]

No, this is a earlier one

[Gordito]

It is Parking eye

[armadillo71]

is this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460423-Lidl-Athena-parking-notice

 

Can't be dx. Athena moved to the IPC Sep 2015 so no POPLA.

 

Athena ANPR Limited17/09/2015

http://www.athena-anpr.com

 

http://www.theipc.info/aos-members

[ericsbrother]

well, the wording of the contract is contradictory, firstly they say that the contract is basically formed before you read the signs and later they say that by parking you are in breach.. Well, if you didnt park you arent in breach which creates a problem of whether you are obliged to pay a charge or not as you could be in breach for otherwise remaining but there is no specific charge for that, just the parking event.

Going to get change for the meter is part of the consideration and that has been decided at PATAS on appeal so POPLA would then have to explain why the circumstances are the same but the law is apparently different for a private operator. I would suspect that a court would have to consider the PATAS appeal judgement as a suitable CoP if it was raised and that could damage POPLA as they offer no appeals other than ADR should the operator want to take the matter to a court.

[armadillo71]

It is Parking eye

 

I suggest you get photos of the signage and read up on the legal points that you will need to use in response to an LBA from PE.

 

What does the car park service?

[Gordito]

Nothing, It's a generic car park in the center of Leeds. Near to the train station but not of it

[Gordito]

I took photos for my appeal to POPLA

[armadillo71]

I took photos for my appeal to POPLA

 

 

Do you think you could post them up so we can have a look at them please?

[Gordito]

I'd be happy to but I'm not sure how to on this?

[dx100uk]

upload

[Gordito]

Here are the photos I sent to POPLA

[ericsbrother]

If one assumes that the black sign is the one that is ajacent to the public highway

then the other signs are not the core contractual terms.

 

 

The black sign does not say that other terms apply nor that a penalty charge or contractual condition

to say that you must pay a fixed fee of £100 if you cannot find change to pay the meter.

 

It suggests that PE have taken over the running of the car park from someone else

and this is good news for you as they are unlikely to have planning permission for their new(er) signs.

 

Phone up the council and ask them whether PE have planning permission for their signs

under the Town and Counttry Planning Act advertising display hoardings regs.

If not then the signs are there illegally and PE cannot create a contract.

 

 

Dont be in a hurry to tell PE that you have found this out

but if it is so kick up a big fuss with the council and get them to make PE either apply for planning consent

or remove their signs and machinery.

 

 

When they apply for consent object to it on the grounds that they have made money illegally

and should refund all of that.

 

 

point out that this is a regular thing for them

and you would wish that the Proceeds of Crime Act is considered

to recover the ill gotten gains.

 

 

Council will think you have gone mad but stick to your guns,

they have the powers but generally dont use them against large corporations like Capita, PE's owners

as they deal with the payroll and pensions of their staff.

 

 

Another stick to beat them with via a FOI request about outsourcing and conflict of interest.

[armadillo71]

Hi guys,

 

Today I got the result of my POPLA appeal from an incident from October 2015.

 

I've lost the appeal, here is what they have said:

 

The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was captured by ANPR entering the site at 17.14.24, exiting at 17.27.00. The appellant was at the site for a period of 12 minutes and 36 seconds. The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that the appellant’s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event.

 

The operator confirms that the site is a paid parking car park which is clearly stated on the signage at the site. The operator confirms that there are 15 signs, placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. The signage at the site is in full compliance with Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice with particular reference to Section 18.3 which states “signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to read and understand”.

 

The signage on site states that, “By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with this Parking Contract and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions. If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the "Parking Charge").” Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association states “you should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”.

 

The operator confirms that it has a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.

 

These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose. The appellant states that he was dropping a relative at the train station and went across the road to get change for parking. He states that he wanted to stay for more than an hour but as it was a Saturday it was a fixed charge so decided to go and park at car park instead.

 

The appellant says that there was no indication on the signs about how long he could stay before a fine is implemented and the writing was too small. I acknowledge the comments from the appellant however, if you decide to remain at a car park site you must have the means to stay, a grace period is given in order to establish the terms and conditions at the site and should not be used to obtain the means to remain.

 

By leaving the site to obtain the means is an acceptance of the terms and conditions of contract at the site. if the appellant had considered the terms and conditions prior to establishing if he had the means to remain there would have been sufficient time to leave prior entering into a contract with the operator.

 

On this occasion the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

 

Accordingly this appeal should be refused.

 

 

And where on the signage does it state that?

 

You would have won at POPLA if you had rebutted their evidence.

[Gordito]

And where on the signage does it state that?

 

You would have won at POPLA if you had rebutted their evidence.

 

This was the very core of my argument against PE. This is why I feel it is a bit of an injustice when it is not stated that I have 10 minutes grace.

[Gordito]

Thanks for the advice

[ericsbrother]

so chase up the planning consent and you have them by the short and curlies if they dont have it. Anything else is then just grist to the mill.

[dx100uk]

The appellant says that there was no indication on the signs about how long he could stay before a fine is implemented and the writing was too small. I acknowledge the comments from the appellant however, if you decide to remain at a car park site you must have the means to stay, a grace period is given in order to establish the terms and conditions at the site and should not be used to obtain the means to remain.

 

 

does their reply really use that word?

[Gordito]

so chase up the planning consent and you have them by the short and curlies if they dont have it. Anything else is then just grist to the mill.

 

I've sent an email to Leeds city council, thanks for your advice. I'll keep you updated on precedings

[Gordito]

The appellant says that there was no indication on the signs about how long he could stay before a fine is implemented and the writing was too small. I acknowledge the comments from the appellant however, if you decide to remain at a car park site you must have the means to stay, a grace period is given in order to establish the terms and conditions at the site and should not be used to obtain the means to remain.

 

 

does their reply really use that word?

 

I pasted their reply word for word

[ericsbrother]

after Beavis it doesnt matter aboyut the wording as it has been decided that a penalty can be applied as long as it is within the means of a high court judge on over £200k a year to pay it.

Our arguments should be about whetehr it has been correctly applied and without PP it never can be regardless of the interpretation of the signage or whehter POPLA ignore the parking tribunals appeals decisions, which in my mond create an accepted code of practice (otherwise how else can the act of parking be determined?)