Tweet
Hello, I am new to this forum and was wondering if anyone can provide some advice.
I was working on a site where staff needed a permit to park. This was by way of a virtual permit, not a paper one. The site manager emailed concierge requesting a permit on day 1. I don't know what this email said so on day 2 a second email was sent by a different manager. The request was for a permit to be issued but unfortunately in this email no dates were mentioned. On day 3 I received a charge. On day 4 another email was sent to concierge requesting a permit to the end of the month. I appealed to UK Parking Control stating that their reason for issuing a charge was that there was no permit displayed and I stated the above adding that no physical permits existed for this site.
They refused my appeal so I appealed to POPLA. UKPC's response was the same but in addition they provided screenshots of their online system. My response stands in that their reason for issuing etc. I also countered that UKPC's evidence that a permit was not in force is really only evidence that a permit had not been entered onto their system. Unfortunately, I do not know what the first email said and the second did not refer to dates so it is only the third email which was clear as to the dates. At no point in my time of working on this site did I display a physical parking permit. And at no other time did I receive a PCN.
POPLA's decision was in favour of UKPC. Below is POPLA's response:
"The appellant has been identified as the driver, as such I will be considering his liability for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic images of the signage which states: “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING …TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES.” The signage also states: “Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice being issued to the vehicle’s driver…a valid XXX Sales permit must be clearly displayed at all times.” The operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle parked in the car park. The images are time stamped 16:45 on 1 March 2019 and show that there is no permit on display. The operator has provided a white list which shows that that no permit was requested or authorised for 1 March 2019. In this case the appellant has advised that that he had started work at XXX on 27 February 2019 and on that day a member of XXX emailed YYY Concierge requesting a permit be issued. The appellant says that this was actioned because he did not receive a ticket that day, the next day another email was sent to the site manager and confirmation was received that a permit had been issued. The appellant advises that on 1 March a PCN was raised despite this being the third day that the permit had been active. The appellant explains that this site has digital and not physical paper permits. The appellant says that the PCN has been issued for not displaying a permit which is not possible for this site. In response to the appellant’s comments I have reviewed the operator evidence and I can see that the signage does refer to the motorist displaying a valid permit. The operator has also enclosed copies of the relevant permits that would displayed within the car park. The appellant has argued that this site does not issue permits only digital ones, but he has not provided any evidence in support of this only an email dated 28 February 2018 which requests a permit be issued. The operator in this case has however also provided evidence in the form of a white list which shows that no permit was issued to the appellant’s vehicle on 1 March 2019 nor was the vehicle added to any exemption list. The operator has also photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle without a permit on display. Therefore, I am satisfied the appellant by remaining parked was immediately in breach of the terms and conditions for this site. I can see that the appellant has provided a copy of an email referring to a permit request made on 28 February 2019. However, this does not invalidate the PCN because I can see that this was sent to a third party which issues the permits and not the operator. Therefore, had any error been made with processing and issuing of the permit would lie with third party YYY Concierge and not the operator. POPLA is unable to investigate issues that have stemmed from a third party he may wish to therefore wish to raise a complaint with YYY Concierge about this issue. However, on this occasion I am satisfied for the reasons noted above that the PCN was issued correctly."
Should I pay the charge or risk being taken to court?
Thank you
I was working on a site where staff needed a permit to park. This was by way of a virtual permit, not a paper one. The site manager emailed concierge requesting a permit on day 1. I don't know what this email said so on day 2 a second email was sent by a different manager. The request was for a permit to be issued but unfortunately in this email no dates were mentioned. On day 3 I received a charge. On day 4 another email was sent to concierge requesting a permit to the end of the month. I appealed to UK Parking Control stating that their reason for issuing a charge was that there was no permit displayed and I stated the above adding that no physical permits existed for this site.
They refused my appeal so I appealed to POPLA. UKPC's response was the same but in addition they provided screenshots of their online system. My response stands in that their reason for issuing etc. I also countered that UKPC's evidence that a permit was not in force is really only evidence that a permit had not been entered onto their system. Unfortunately, I do not know what the first email said and the second did not refer to dates so it is only the third email which was clear as to the dates. At no point in my time of working on this site did I display a physical parking permit. And at no other time did I receive a PCN.
POPLA's decision was in favour of UKPC. Below is POPLA's response:
"The appellant has been identified as the driver, as such I will be considering his liability for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic images of the signage which states: “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING …TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES.” The signage also states: “Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice being issued to the vehicle’s driver…a valid XXX Sales permit must be clearly displayed at all times.” The operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle parked in the car park. The images are time stamped 16:45 on 1 March 2019 and show that there is no permit on display. The operator has provided a white list which shows that that no permit was requested or authorised for 1 March 2019. In this case the appellant has advised that that he had started work at XXX on 27 February 2019 and on that day a member of XXX emailed YYY Concierge requesting a permit be issued. The appellant says that this was actioned because he did not receive a ticket that day, the next day another email was sent to the site manager and confirmation was received that a permit had been issued. The appellant advises that on 1 March a PCN was raised despite this being the third day that the permit had been active. The appellant explains that this site has digital and not physical paper permits. The appellant says that the PCN has been issued for not displaying a permit which is not possible for this site. In response to the appellant’s comments I have reviewed the operator evidence and I can see that the signage does refer to the motorist displaying a valid permit. The operator has also enclosed copies of the relevant permits that would displayed within the car park. The appellant has argued that this site does not issue permits only digital ones, but he has not provided any evidence in support of this only an email dated 28 February 2018 which requests a permit be issued. The operator in this case has however also provided evidence in the form of a white list which shows that no permit was issued to the appellant’s vehicle on 1 March 2019 nor was the vehicle added to any exemption list. The operator has also photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle without a permit on display. Therefore, I am satisfied the appellant by remaining parked was immediately in breach of the terms and conditions for this site. I can see that the appellant has provided a copy of an email referring to a permit request made on 28 February 2019. However, this does not invalidate the PCN because I can see that this was sent to a third party which issues the permits and not the operator. Therefore, had any error been made with processing and issuing of the permit would lie with third party YYY Concierge and not the operator. POPLA is unable to investigate issues that have stemmed from a third party he may wish to therefore wish to raise a complaint with YYY Concierge about this issue. However, on this occasion I am satisfied for the reasons noted above that the PCN was issued correctly."
Should I pay the charge or risk being taken to court?
Thank you
Comment