POPLA appeal againts Premier Park - Success
Discussion
The `Invoice` was issued in june last year, my POPLA appeal was started in October and the appeal was finished 03/02/2016, I was thinking they had forgotten about us.
The basis of my appeal was that the owner was being contacted not the driver, they seemed to ignore this, also where the signs were there was no lighting at night.
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Blah Blah
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has issued the appeal stating that the PCN does not comply with POFA as it has been sent to the registered keeper and not the driver, the appellant states the signage is not visible and states the parking charge is disproportionate and does not represent a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park on 12 June 2015 at 18:52 and leaving at 19:19, following a stay of 27 minutes. The appellant states that the signage was too small. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”. The operator states it has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not registered with the hotel. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the entrance to the hotel which states that the car park is for patrons only. There is a smaller sign next to this, which is not visible from the photographic evidence provided. As such, I am unable to determine if the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, if it provides instructions on how to register the vehicle with the hotel, or if it correctly informs motorists that terms and conditions may apply, or that a Parking Charge Notice may be issued for contravention of the associated regulations. On this basis, I am not able to conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly On the basis that the appeal has been allowed due to the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I have not commented on the appellants other grounds for appeal.
The basis of my appeal was that the owner was being contacted not the driver, they seemed to ignore this, also where the signs were there was no lighting at night.
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Blah Blah
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has issued the appeal stating that the PCN does not comply with POFA as it has been sent to the registered keeper and not the driver, the appellant states the signage is not visible and states the parking charge is disproportionate and does not represent a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park on 12 June 2015 at 18:52 and leaving at 19:19, following a stay of 27 minutes. The appellant states that the signage was too small. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”. The operator states it has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not registered with the hotel. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the entrance to the hotel which states that the car park is for patrons only. There is a smaller sign next to this, which is not visible from the photographic evidence provided. As such, I am unable to determine if the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, if it provides instructions on how to register the vehicle with the hotel, or if it correctly informs motorists that terms and conditions may apply, or that a Parking Charge Notice may be issued for contravention of the associated regulations. On this basis, I am not able to conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly On the basis that the appeal has been allowed due to the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I have not commented on the appellants other grounds for appeal.
TooMany2cvs said:
So the appeal was granted SOLELY on the basis of the operator not sending a photo of that sign, so it couldn't be determined whether it was compliant or not - and no comment has been made either way on any of your other claims.
Try not to get too jubilant in your victory...
If someone gave you the best cake in the world you'd still find reason to complain. I bet you're a right hoot in real life Try not to get too jubilant in your victory...
Well done on your victory OP, enjoy
TooMany2cvs said:
So the appeal was granted SOLELY on the basis of the operator not sending a photo of that sign, so it couldn't be determined whether it was compliant or not - and no comment has been made either way on any of your other claims.
Try not to get too jubilant in your victory...
Christ Almighty, what's the matter with you? Why do you have to constantly ruin threads with your miserable posts?Try not to get too jubilant in your victory...
Osinjak said:
Why do you have to constantly ruin threads with your miserable posts?
I'm terribly sorry if a dose of reality "ruins" things for you. You must be very delicate.The fact is that the OP's success at appeal had nothing to do with any of the grounds he actually appealed on. The ONLY reason it succeeded was because they didn't send one photo.
Would it have succeeded if they sent that photo? We just don't know. It might've, it might not've. The assessor has explicitly not made any comment.
anothernameitist said:
its upto the Parking company to supply evidence, if they can't be bothered to supply that evidence to a good standard then its a victory
^ This bit is right. It's a victory, the ticket has been quashed - but it's not a victory on any of the grounds that the OP submitted. It's entirely the parking company's cockup in not supplying evidence. Did they not supply it because they knew the sign didn't conform? Or did they simply forget that photo? We don't know.ssray said:
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
The one thing we DO know is that their JPGs were acceptable to the assessor - although I'd presume the OP's "mobile pics" were also JPGs...?TooMany2cvs said:
Osinjak said:
Why do you have to constantly ruin threads with your miserable posts?
I'm terribly sorry if a dose of reality "ruins" things for you. You must be very delicate.The fact is that the OP's success at appeal had nothing to do with any of the grounds he actually appealed on. The ONLY reason it succeeded was because they didn't send one photo.
Would it have succeeded if they sent that photo? We just don't know. It might've, it might not've. The assessor has explicitly not made any comment.
anothernameitist said:
its upto the Parking company to supply evidence, if they can't be bothered to supply that evidence to a good standard then its a victory
^ This bit is right. It's a victory, the ticket has been quashed - but it's not a victory on any of the grounds that the OP submitted. It's entirely the parking company's cockup in not supplying evidence. Did they not supply it because they knew the sign didn't conform? Or did they simply forget that photo? We don't know.ssray said:
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
The one thing we DO know is that their JPGs were acceptable to the assessor - although I'd presume the OP's "mobile pics" were also JPGs...?blueg33 said:
Err, part of the ops appeal was about inadequate signage. This has been upheld, so it has been quashed on grounds that the op submitted.
Not quite. The assessor did not say the signage was definitely inadequate - especially not on the OP's claimed grounds of illumination. The assessor is quoted as saying that he couldn't judge whether it was adequate or not, because no photo was submitted of one sign.TooMany2cvs said:
blueg33 said:
Err, part of the ops appeal was about inadequate signage. This has been upheld, so it has been quashed on grounds that the op submitted.
Not quite. The assessor did not say the signage was definitely inadequate - especially not on the OP's claimed grounds of illumination. The assessor is quoted as saying that he couldn't judge whether it was adequate or not, because no photo was submitted of one sign.The fact is that the appeal inspector had no evidence to demonstrate suitable signage, that is much the same as no evidence to show any signage.
blueg33 said:
Much the same in effect. After all the appellant can't state in his appeal that the PCN will submit inadequate photo's.
The fact is that the appeal inspector had no evidence to demonstrate suitable signage, that is much the same as no evidence to show any signage.
Sure, it's the same end result - the OP doesn't pay the charge.The fact is that the appeal inspector had no evidence to demonstrate suitable signage, that is much the same as no evidence to show any signage.
But for the next person to park there and appeal, it's not the same at all. The parking company (probably) won't forget to send that pic next time. If they do send it, then that's the OP's sole grounds for victory straight out the window, and the actual adequacy of the signs, together with the strength of the other grounds, might even get considered.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 10th February 11:46
ssray said:
The operator has provided photographic evidence showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park on 12 June 2015 at 18:52 and leaving at 19:19, following a stay of 27 minutes.
The operator states it has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not registered with the hotel. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the entrance to the hotel which states that the car park is for patrons only.
So were you a patron of the hotel or not?The operator states it has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not registered with the hotel. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the entrance to the hotel which states that the car park is for patrons only.
TooMany2cvs said:
blueg33 said:
Much the same in effect. After all the appellant can't state in his appeal that the PCN will submit inadequate photo's.
The fact is that the appeal inspector had no evidence to demonstrate suitable signage, that is much the same as no evidence to show any signage.
Sure, it's the same end result - the OP doesn't pay the charge.The fact is that the appeal inspector had no evidence to demonstrate suitable signage, that is much the same as no evidence to show any signage.
But for the next person to park there and appeal, it's not the same at all. The parking company (probably) won't forget to send that pic next time. If they do send it, then that's the OP's sole grounds for victory straight out the window, and the actual adequacy of the signs, together with the strength of the other grounds, might even get considered.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 10th February 11:46
It is an individual case and an individual decision, not a law setting precedent. Much the same as most appeals
TooMany2cvs said:
Osinjak said:
Why do you have to constantly ruin threads with your miserable posts?
I'm terribly sorry if a dose of reality "ruins" things for you. You must be very delicate.The fact is that the OP's success at appeal had nothing to do with any of the grounds he actually appealed on. The ONLY reason it succeeded was because they didn't send one photo.
Would it have succeeded if they sent that photo? We just don't know. It might've, it might not've. The assessor has explicitly not made any comment.
anothernameitist said:
its upto the Parking company to supply evidence, if they can't be bothered to supply that evidence to a good standard then its a victory
^ This bit is right. It's a victory, the ticket has been quashed - but it's not a victory on any of the grounds that the OP submitted. It's entirely the parking company's cockup in not supplying evidence. Did they not supply it because they knew the sign didn't conform? Or did they simply forget that photo? We don't know.ssray said:
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
The one thing we DO know is that their JPGs were acceptable to the assessor - although I'd presume the OP's "mobile pics" were also JPGs...?You're a dull and repetitive poster on this site, constantly belittling people, generally miserable and with zero generosity of spirit. Don't flatter yourself and think you ruin anything for me but your incessantly trite and immature posting style is so obvious that it's difficult to ignore. Do us all a favour and find another site would you? There's a good chap/girl.
Osinjak said:
The mark of a smart man, attack the man and not the content
A fair point, perhaps, although one that might be perceived as a tad hypocritical considering both the post that it was in reply to and the content of the rest of that post... That aside, you may wish to consider whether your initial reaction was to shoot at the messenger because you didn't like the message.My sincere apologies if you found a suggestion of delicacy so upsetting.
ssray said:
The `Invoice` was issued in june last year, my POPLA appeal was started in October and the appeal was finished 03/02/2016, I was thinking they had forgotten about us.
The basis of my appeal was that the owner was being contacted not the driver, they seemed to ignore this, also where the signs were there was no lighting at night.
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Blah Blah
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has issued the appeal stating that the PCN does not comply with POFA as it has been sent to the registered keeper and not the driver, the appellant states the signage is not visible and states the parking charge is disproportionate and does not represent a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park on 12 June 2015 at 18:52 and leaving at 19:19, following a stay of 27 minutes. The appellant states that the signage was too small. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”. The operator states it has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not registered with the hotel. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the entrance to the hotel which states that the car park is for patrons only. There is a smaller sign next to this, which is not visible from the photographic evidence provided. As such, I am unable to determine if the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, if it provides instructions on how to register the vehicle with the hotel, or if it correctly informs motorists that terms and conditions may apply, or that a Parking Charge Notice may be issued for contravention of the associated regulations. On this basis, I am not able to conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly On the basis that the appeal has been allowed due to the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I have not commented on the appellants other grounds for appeal.
Good news mate, how much did these clowns try and charge you for your 27 minutes in the car park?The basis of my appeal was that the owner was being contacted not the driver, they seemed to ignore this, also where the signs were there was no lighting at night.
I took mobile pics during the early evening showing that you could not read them without some form of lighting, the company submitted its own pics, I questioned if as they were jpeg they would stand up in court.
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Blah Blah
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has issued the appeal stating that the PCN does not comply with POFA as it has been sent to the registered keeper and not the driver, the appellant states the signage is not visible and states the parking charge is disproportionate and does not represent a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park on 12 June 2015 at 18:52 and leaving at 19:19, following a stay of 27 minutes. The appellant states that the signage was too small. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”. The operator states it has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not registered with the hotel. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the entrance to the hotel which states that the car park is for patrons only. There is a smaller sign next to this, which is not visible from the photographic evidence provided. As such, I am unable to determine if the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, if it provides instructions on how to register the vehicle with the hotel, or if it correctly informs motorists that terms and conditions may apply, or that a Parking Charge Notice may be issued for contravention of the associated regulations. On this basis, I am not able to conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly On the basis that the appeal has been allowed due to the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I have not commented on the appellants other grounds for appeal.
Also, does that mean it's done and finished now or can the parking company appeal and supply more evidence?
TooMany2cvs said:
Osinjak said:
The mark of a smart man, attack the man and not the content
A fair point, perhaps, although one that might be perceived as a tad hypocritical considering both the post that it was in reply to and the content of the rest of that post... That aside, you may wish to consider whether your initial reaction was to shoot at the messenger because you didn't like the message.My sincere apologies if you found a suggestion of delicacy so upsetting.
Blaster72 said:
Good news mate, how much did these clowns try and charge you for your 27 minutes in the car park?
Also, does that mean it's done and finished now or can the parking company appeal and supply more evidence?
Sorry to steer away from the bickering, there was me thinking that this may help somebody else.Also, does that mean it's done and finished now or can the parking company appeal and supply more evidence?
The wanted £60(reduced rate) full price £100
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff