POPLA Decisions

Hello, my POPLA appeal was upheld (search for thread "Luton Airport PCN - draft POPLA appeal letter" for background - it won't let me post a link). It was against APCOA at Luton Airport. Here's POPLA's decision:

Operator NameAPCOA Parking
Operator Case Summary
Terms and conditions of parking are signposted throughout restricted areas and on the entrance/exit of private grounds; stating vehicles must be parked in a valid car park or bay.
No stopping to drop off/pick up OR waiting is allowed outside of the said areas which includes bus lanes/stops, laybys etc, at any time.
Any driver parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions will be issued a Parking charge notice containing evidence from our on-site CCTV enforcement equipment.
APCOA are an approved operator of the BPA; under which guidelines the notice will be issued

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameLauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a restricted area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to establish keeper liability. The appellant has stated that the signs at the site are not clear. Further, the appellant has stated that the landowner does not have the authority of the landowner to operate at the site. The appellant has stated that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system does not show a parking event.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As a result, the appellant is being pursued as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the PoFA 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that: “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”. It is from my reading of these sections of PoFA 2012 that I conclude, if statutory provision exists that imposes a liability in respect of parking on the land, PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability for any charges incurred from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. I note, from the operator’s response that it does not work, issue or seek payment under PoFA 2012 as the airport is covered by Byelaws. As a result, I have had to consider the relevant Byelaw information that the operator has provided. The operator has quoted Section 3.6 “No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait, leave or park a vehicle: (c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles”. As a result, I consider that the Byelaws applicable on this land, impose a liability in respect of parking vehicles on the land. As such, the operator is not able to use PoFA 2012 to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. As the Byelaws only relate to the person contravening the Byelaws as quoted above and in the absence of any further mention in the Byelaws of who can be held liable for a contravention of the Byelaws in place, I do not consider that any other person than the driver of the vehicle can be pursued for the parking charges currently outstanding in relation to this parking event. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

NFFCFAN wrote: »

I note, from the operator’s response that it does not work, issue or seek payment under PoFA 2012 as the airport is covered by Byelaws. As a result, I have had to consider the relevant Byelaw information that the operator has provided. The operator has quoted Section 3.6 “No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait, leave or park a vehicle: (c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles”. As a result, I consider that the Byelaws applicable on this land, impose a liability in respect of parking vehicles on the land. As such, the operator is not able to use PoFA 2012 to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. As the Byelaws only relate to the person contravening the Byelaws as quoted above and in the absence of any further mention in the Byelaws of who can be held liable for a contravention of the Byelaws in place, I do not consider that any other person than the driver of the vehicle can be pursued for the parking charges currently outstanding in relation to this parking event.

A correct finding but yet another bizarre line of reasoning from a New POPLA assessor. If APCOA are not pursuing the keeper under POFA then thats the end of it as the driver is unknown the appeal must be upheld. For the assessor to then go on about what the Bylaws have to say about keeper liability is irrelevant. Even if the Bylaws said keeper liability applied it would not be in respect of a private parking charge but of an offence to be prosecuted in the Magistrates Court.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yay, a satisfying win after APCOA tried this trashy accusation in your case: APCOA stated: "By not disclosing the name of the driver on the day in question, the appellant (the registered keeper) is seen to be concealing information which results in perverting the course of justice. Having not provided a named driver, the responsibility therefore remains with the registered keeper."


Good to know that Luton Airport is confirmed by POPLA (rightly) as not relevant land. If anyone was perverting the course of justice it was APCOA by citing keeper liability at an Airport, where they know it's not relevant land - they admitted that they were not seeking keeper liability under the POFA and they don't use a POFA version NTK.

Yet they still tried the above rubbish lies. I HATE LIARS.

Please could we have the POPLA 10 digit number to quote and the date of the decision? You are safe to put it here now it's cancelled and the POPLA number will help others as they can cite it.

:T

Of course, the number is 0513085036 and date of the decision was 07/03/2016.

APCOA's lie was even worse than that. In their evidence, they wrote, "An appeal was made to APCOA stating the parking charge was unlawful; the driver does not dispute the contravention taking place." The driver was never identified. An outright lie.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5402803

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a residents parking area without clearly displaying a valid residents parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he hired a vehicle and parked it in his designated parking bay with a valid parking permit on display. The appellant states that the signage is inadequate and the charge is not Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant also states that the operator does not have authority to pursue charges and there is no contract between the driver and the operator.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a residents parking area without clearly displaying a valid residents parking permit. The appellant states that he hired a vehicle and parked it in his designated parking bay with a valid parking permit on display. The appellant states that the signage is inadequate and the charge is not Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant also states that the operator does not have authority to pursue charges and there is no contract between the driver and the operator. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the location with the PCN attached to the windscreen. Within the windscreen appears to be a UKPC parking permit. The wording of the parking permit is not clear in the operator’s photograph. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “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.” The operator has provided photographs of signage at the location, however the wording of the signage is not visible within the photograph and as such, I cannot ascertain if it would make motorists aware of the terms and conditions of parking at the site. How a £90 ‘fine’ can arise from a resident’s vehicle being parked in that same resident’s allocated parking space, without being unlawful, is beyond me. As the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the PCN was issue correctly, I must allow this appeal. I have not considered any other grounds of appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision.