POPLA Decisions

Good result @Ruff-Diamond, well done :T

Your original thread for other newbies to see how you phrased your appeal to POPLA (but the GPEOL route is no longer one to follow).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5698522

UNSUCCESSFUL - Looks like the assessor agrred with everything Minster Baywatch supplied so looks like they have all bases covered ie signage, landowner etc. Driver wasnt identified too

Original Thread
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5745311&highlight=azz007#2

---

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name Gemma W
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant states the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. • He says that the amount requested is a penalty. • The appellant states the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is liable for the parking charge. • He explains that the images provided by the operator show the date and time-stamp inserted at the bottom and therefore requests the original images. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. • The appellant has questioned the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) accuracy and compliance.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “Mecca Bingo and Bank Top Tavern patrons: Vehicles must be included on the authorised user list…By failing to comply with any of these you are contractually agreeing to pay the parking charge of £100”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked without authorisation. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have captured the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:57 and exiting at 13:45, totalling a stay of 48 minutes. The appellant states the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.2 states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.” Furthermore section 18.3 of the 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 a number of photographs documenting the signage at the car park in question. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, upon review of the signage, the PCN amount clearly states in large red lettering “Parking Charge “£100”. I am satisfied sufficient notice of the sum is provided on the signage. He says that the amount requested is a penalty. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye 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.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the 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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. The appellant states the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is liable for the parking charge. As the appellant in this case has not been identified as the driver, I must consider if the operator has met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in its attempt to hold them, as the registered keeper, liable for the charge. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper that has been issued, and I am satisfied that this meets the full requirements of PoFA. He explains that the images provided by the operator show the date and time-stamp inserted at the bottom and therefore requests the original images. The operator has provided images of the appellant’s vehicle entering and exiting the site. I appreciate the appellant’s comments that the evidence provided shows the date and time-stamp displayed underneath the photograph, I am satisfied this is sufficient evidence to confirm the vehicle remained on site for 48 minutes. Furthermore, the appellant has not supplied any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was not parked on site. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. The operator has produced a contract statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. I note the appellant’s comments that the contract is redacted; however, an operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system for, as the car park has a maximum permitted stay, it has not had an impact on the motorists ability to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park. The operator has provided a whitelist lookup, which confirms the appellant was not authorised to park on site. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant parked without authorisation and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.

beamerguy wrote: »

"The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system"

On what basis does this assessor think ANPR is
accurate ..... WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM ???

I seem to recall that this POPLA assessor has said
rubbish in the past

When will POPLA train their staff to a acceptable level ?

No idea what made them conclude that. But I suppose they can't allow the appeal just based on that one Point as everything else they agreed with literally everything the operator said even though I rebutted it all. The assessor didn't bother even acknowledging what the appeallant even said. Makes you wonder how and what trianing these peopel at POPLA have. The decision has really annoyed me but nothing else can be done I guess.

might just have to pay. to avoid getting bombarded with letters as there are others still outstanding. save me from drowning in these priceless pieces of paper.

cant keep track of all them for 6 years, have too many on the go so may help to be more manageable.