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.
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