POPLA rejected our PCN Appeal
Discussion
So what now, just pay it?
Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd, Liverpool
Ticket: ANPR parking at local dentist, wife had appointment but didn't register her car.
We appealed with copies of the appointment, a letter from the dentist and the fact that it had only just been introduced, it was raining on the day and the wife ran for the door with the kids, so didn't notice the new signs. It was introduced on 22nd Feb, appointment was 14 March. She'd also only passed her test a few days before, so i guess she learnt a quick lesson.
Do we have a case in court? Fine was 60 quid, and now 100. Seems harsh as she was there legitimately with an appointment and the paring was introduced to stop locals using the car park without an appointment.
Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd, Liverpool
Ticket: ANPR parking at local dentist, wife had appointment but didn't register her car.
We appealed with copies of the appointment, a letter from the dentist and the fact that it had only just been introduced, it was raining on the day and the wife ran for the door with the kids, so didn't notice the new signs. It was introduced on 22nd Feb, appointment was 14 March. She'd also only passed her test a few days before, so i guess she learnt a quick lesson.
Do we have a case in court? Fine was 60 quid, and now 100. Seems harsh as she was there legitimately with an appointment and the paring was introduced to stop locals using the car park without an appointment.
syl said:
Was it raining so hard that the signs weren't visible?
I took her with me on the 15th Feb before parking enforcement, naturally we parked and walked straight in. So she wasn't expecting any parking issues.It was raining pretty hard, so she got the 3yo and 1yo out the back and walked with her head down to the entrance.
So yes, in a way it was. Such is life.
Is the car park owned by the dentist? - if so get them to write to parking company cancelling the ticket
Do they have planning permission for the signs? If not see various threads on Parking Prankster and Pepipoo. I can't recall exactly, but I think you let them take you to court and hit the court with "Signs are illegal" but do read the threads
Do they have planning permission for the signs? If not see various threads on Parking Prankster and Pepipoo. I can't recall exactly, but I think you let them take you to court and hit the court with "Signs are illegal" but do read the threads
blueg33 said:
Is the car park owned by the dentist? - if so get them to write to parking company cancelling the ticket
Do they have planning permission for the signs? If not see various threads on Parking Prankster and Pepipoo. I can't recall exactly, but I think you let them take you to court and hit the court with "Signs are illegal" but do read the threads
It is. I got a letter from the dentist confirming the appointment and sent it to the parking company. That got rejected so it went to popla. Popla rejected our appeal as the contract was between us and the parking enforcement, not the dentist.Do they have planning permission for the signs? If not see various threads on Parking Prankster and Pepipoo. I can't recall exactly, but I think you let them take you to court and hit the court with "Signs are illegal" but do read the threads
blueg33 said:
I don’t mean you sending a letter written by the dentist, but the dentist as landowner telling it contractor directly to cancel the ticket.
They told me they don't have the authority as the car park is now managed by the parking company as per their contract? Not sure how true that is. I'll call their head office on Monday.jimPH said:
They told me they don't have the authority as the car park is now managed by the parking company as per their contract? Not sure how true that is. I'll call their head office on Monday.
If they have contracted the parking the company they are 100% liable for the parking company's actions. Don't pay but it keep all paperwork.
If it was me, I would speak to the dentist and tell them to instruct the ticket issuer to cancel the ticket or you will no longer be a customer of theirs.
Our office car park was handed over to Parking Eye to be managed, and sometimes visitors/clients to our office would enter their Reg number wrongly on the reception terminal, or not enter it al all, and a penalty ticket would be issued to them.
When it happened, we just phoned up Parking Eye and told them to drop it, and they always did.
If they made any noises about not dropping it, we would tell them that we would just sign up with a different parking management company next time.
There was no way we would allow our visitors to be issued with parking tickets, and I would be surprised if your dentist would allow it to happen to one of his customers.
Our office car park was handed over to Parking Eye to be managed, and sometimes visitors/clients to our office would enter their Reg number wrongly on the reception terminal, or not enter it al all, and a penalty ticket would be issued to them.
When it happened, we just phoned up Parking Eye and told them to drop it, and they always did.
If they made any noises about not dropping it, we would tell them that we would just sign up with a different parking management company next time.
There was no way we would allow our visitors to be issued with parking tickets, and I would be surprised if your dentist would allow it to happen to one of his customers.
This is the one issue I have with PPC's.
They are employed and earn a living from other peoples parking issues. When the person employing them requests they cancel a charge, they should do so without question. If I were the PPC I would want to keep my customer happy so would do so.
It is very unlikely the person employing them is going to request the cancellation of a charge for someone who was parked without permission and is part of the problem they have.
They are employed and earn a living from other peoples parking issues. When the person employing them requests they cancel a charge, they should do so without question. If I were the PPC I would want to keep my customer happy so would do so.
It is very unlikely the person employing them is going to request the cancellation of a charge for someone who was parked without permission and is part of the problem they have.
S11steve will be along at some point no doubt. He is definitely one of the more experienced people on here when it comes to dealing with these parasites.
I’ve not been caught by any of these PPC myself but I would always appeal (as you have done) and then refuse to pay until it goes to court. My understanding is most of these companies just bluff and posture but rarely actual go to court.
I’ve not been caught by any of these PPC myself but I would always appeal (as you have done) and then refuse to pay until it goes to court. My understanding is most of these companies just bluff and posture but rarely actual go to court.
Extract from appeal (i didnt say a week before, i said a few weeks before)
In support of their appeal the appellant has supplied POPLA with evidence of their appointment card, along with a letter from their dentist confirming the appointment. The appellant has supplied copies of text messages referencing appointments at the site. I acknowledge the appellant’s evidence and do not dispute that they had a legitimate reason to be at the site as they were attending a pre-planned appointment. I note that the appellant says that they had visited the dentist the week prior to receiving the PCN and there was no signage. Section 18.11 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. The operator has advised that they began managing the site in February 2019 which was one month prior to the contravention occurring. I therefore consider that as the signage is dated, 22 February 2019 and the PCN was issued on 14 March 2019 there was sufficient notice for those regular visitors to the site to be made aware that enforcement was in force.
l am satisfied that the signage at the site meets the requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. Within their appeal the appellant says that the staff in the Dentist did not tell them about the new parking arrangements. However, it is important to note that the staff working within the establish are not employed by the parking operator so are not permitted to give advice on the parking conditions at the site. As a motorist, it is their responsibility to be aware of any signage at the site prior to parking. As the appellant has entered the car park and remained for a period of time, they have implied their acceptance of the contract offered by the parking operator. It should be noted that for the period of time that appellant remained parked at the site they were gaining utility from the facilities offered. Each motorist is responsible for reviewing and agreeing the terms and conditions at a car park prior to leaving their vehicle. However, based on my assessment of this case I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly as a breach of the terms that occurred. Accordingly, this appeal is refused.
In support of their appeal the appellant has supplied POPLA with evidence of their appointment card, along with a letter from their dentist confirming the appointment. The appellant has supplied copies of text messages referencing appointments at the site. I acknowledge the appellant’s evidence and do not dispute that they had a legitimate reason to be at the site as they were attending a pre-planned appointment. I note that the appellant says that they had visited the dentist the week prior to receiving the PCN and there was no signage. Section 18.11 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. The operator has advised that they began managing the site in February 2019 which was one month prior to the contravention occurring. I therefore consider that as the signage is dated, 22 February 2019 and the PCN was issued on 14 March 2019 there was sufficient notice for those regular visitors to the site to be made aware that enforcement was in force.
l am satisfied that the signage at the site meets the requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. Within their appeal the appellant says that the staff in the Dentist did not tell them about the new parking arrangements. However, it is important to note that the staff working within the establish are not employed by the parking operator so are not permitted to give advice on the parking conditions at the site. As a motorist, it is their responsibility to be aware of any signage at the site prior to parking. As the appellant has entered the car park and remained for a period of time, they have implied their acceptance of the contract offered by the parking operator. It should be noted that for the period of time that appellant remained parked at the site they were gaining utility from the facilities offered. Each motorist is responsible for reviewing and agreeing the terms and conditions at a car park prior to leaving their vehicle. However, based on my assessment of this case I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly as a breach of the terms that occurred. Accordingly, this appeal is refused.
blueg33 said:
jimPH said:
They told me they don't have the authority as the car park is now managed by the parking company as per their contract? Not sure how true that is. I'll call their head office on Monday.
That is possible. Look up the planning permission stuff.
The problem you have is you appealed on common sense grounds, when you would have stood a far better chance appealing on technicality points. I.e. not driver, notice to keeper not being correct etc.
These companies don’t care that you had an appointment, they are there to make money. Popla only looked at the black and white issue you raised, which is you didn’t register your car.
I guess you have let them know who the driver is now too, so you are limited in your defence if you let them take you to court.
These companies don’t care that you had an appointment, they are there to make money. Popla only looked at the black and white issue you raised, which is you didn’t register your car.
I guess you have let them know who the driver is now too, so you are limited in your defence if you let them take you to court.
jimPH said:
blueg33 said:
jimPH said:
They told me they don't have the authority as the car park is now managed by the parking company as per their contract? Not sure how true that is. I'll call their head office on Monday.
That is possible. Look up the planning permission stuff.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff