PCN for Overstay at a Cinema and Restaurant

[HeinrichJ]

It was unfortunate that I only had seven days to answer and had to go away so had to put my reply in before I left. As they were so sure that their system could not fail I pointed out that several reasons could cause their time to be wrong. I also pointed out there are numerous known failures of ANPR systems.
As they had added the two letters demanding money after my POPLA appeal had been auctioned, I added that there was also a letter from their debt collection agency that had been sent even though the POPLA process was still in progress.

Now I guess I just have to wait.

Interestingly, they also mentioned the Landlord who they were employed by that I was previously unaware of.

[charitynjw]

It

Interestingly, they also mentioned the Landlord who they were employed by that I was previously unaware of.

Is that the landowner?
If not,what does the landowner/landlord contract say?

A subordinate cannot assume rights (& therefore pass on those rights) if the senior contract does not grant them said rights. (Unless there is an agreed variation to that contract.)

[HeinrichJ]

Well apparently the landlord is Savills.

[charitynjw]

Well apparently the landlord is Savills.

We work closely with owners of all sizes of estates, whether they comprise 50 acres or thousands of acres, helping to efficiently manage their business.

https://www.savills.co.uk/services/p...anagement.aspx

If this is them, they are not the owner.
So now there will be a chain of agreements, with a superior & subordinate ones.
If it were me I'd be asking for all of them.
How else can you verify that subordinate ones have the authority & blessing of the landowner?

Bet you don't get them, though!

[HeinrichJ]

Here is the information they supplied.

[charitynjw]

I wonder why they redacted the signature boxes?

[HeinrichJ]

No idea.
Now waiting on POPLA.

Certainly not sure why MET jumped the gun with their harassing letters.

[charitynjw]

No idea.
Now waiting on POPLA.

Certainly not sure why MET jumped the gun with their harassing letters.

Something else to highlight should this end up in county court.

[HeinrichJ]

So now I guess I wait for the POPLA verdict. Are things likely to end up at a County Court?

[charitynjw]

So now I guess I wait for the POPLA verdict. Are things likely to end up at a County Court?

POPLA adjudication is only binding on the parking co, not the driver/registered keeper.
& I've seen some atrocious POPLA decisions in recent times.
You may well think that it's because POLPLA/Approved Trade Assn is dependent on parking co's money for their existence.
I, of course, couldn't possibly comment......!

[HeinrichJ]

Appeal to POPLA unsuccessful, so what next?
For sure, I will not be using that cinema or restaurant again but that aside, what is my next step.

Here is the information.

The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability as the driver. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:38 and leaving the site at 20:26. Based on these photographs, the vehicle remained on site for a period of five hours and 48 minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “5 Hours Maximum Stay … Terms and Conditions apply … See notices in car park for details”. Signs within the site itself clearly state: “5 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY … BREACH OF ANY OF THE ABOVE TERMS OR CONDITIONS WILL RESULT IN THE DRIVER BEING LIABLE FOR A: £100.00 PARKING CHARGE”. The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. The appellant states that he visited the cinema and restaurant on site and was unaware of any infraction. He has provided copies of his cinema and restaurant receipts. I accept that the appellant appears to have been a genuine customer of the businesses on site on the date in question, however I do not accept that this meant he was entitled to park on site for longer than the maximum period clearly stated on the signs installed on site. Furthermore, the legality of parking charges was considered in a high-profile court case, Parking Eye v Beavis. This case was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court which concluded that: “… the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both Parking Eye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of Parking Eye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” The charge in this instance, while it may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, is in the region of the £85 charge decided upon by the Supreme Court, and I am satisfied therefore that it is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The appellant states that he did not enter the site at the time claimed by the operator. The operator’s evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:38 and the appellant has provided no compelling evidence to suggest that this evidence is inaccurate. One of his receipts shows a food purchase within the cinema at 15:41, however this does not prove that the appellant arrived on site shortly before this time. Furthermore, I note that when appealing to the operator directly the appellant stated that he had “on this occasion […] arrived earlier to ensure [he] could find parking”, that it “took some time to find a space” and that “[he] had a delay in the cinema and so […] did not get into the screen at the advertised time due to them being short staffed”. I am satisfied from the evidence available that the appellant did arrive on site at the stated time. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear. I am also satisfied that the appellant breached the terms by remaining on site for longer than the maximum period allowed. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

[HeinrichJ]

So really need to know what my next move is.

[HeinrichJ]

Only irregularity been abler to find is different addresses. On the letters to me, There is a PO Box address, the contract with Savills the address is with an EC2Y 5AL postcode and on the Companies House website it is WC1X 8RW.

Not sure if this is going to be of any help.

[charitynjw]

Only irregularity been abler to find is different addresses. On the letters to me, There is a PO Box address, the contract with Savills the address is with an EC2Y 5AL postcode and on the Companies House website it is WC1X 8RW.

Not sure if this is going to be of any help.

pt2537

Peridot

jaguarsuk

R0b

See post #20 - Savill/MET contract.
The registered address stated for MET is incorrect.
Any idea whether that would invalidate it?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05468096

[R0b]

Highly unlikely.

The address for MET on that document would have been correct at the time of execution, and indeed when you look at the filing history on Companies House it confirms that their previous address was 125 London Wall. The other point to note is that the document records MET's company number and that doesn't change so they are clearly identifiable as being a party to the contract.