IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

POPLA Decisions

12467455

Comments

  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Quote:

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, as to their role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

    Am I being cynical in thinking a change in the CoP might be on the cards sometime soon?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Chris Adamson

    Date: Thursday, 09 May 2013


    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Appellant)
    -v-
    UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Crawley Leisure Park, on XX January 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
    Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
    
    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space’. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state,
    “Park only within marked bays”.
    The appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
    displayed.
    It is the appellant’s case that:
    a) The appellant was parked within a marked bay according to the terms of parking displayed.
    b) The £100 parking charge does not reflect any loss caused.
    The appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The operator has not addressed this submission.
    The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a “Failure to comply” with the terms of parking. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The operator has produced no evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is, in fact, a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to justify the charge in any other way.
    Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable, as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I need not decide any other issues.

    Chris Adamson
    Assessor
  • 7 May 2013
    Reference: xxxxxxxxx
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    xxxxxxxx
    -v-
    Combined Parking Solutions (Operator)
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxx, on 23 January 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.
    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
    The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.
    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination :
    It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘No permit’.
    The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state, “Clearly displayed valid CPS permits only”.
    The appellant does not dispute that he failed to display a valid permit.
    It is the appellant’s case that:
    a) The terms of parking were not sufficiently well signed.
    b) The building which was located inside the car park, next to which the appellant parked, appeared to be derelict.
    c) It is unclear whether the operator has authority to issue parking charge notices in this location.
    d) The wording used on the back of the parking charge notice is strange and unclear.
    e) The date given on the parking charge notice is 22 January 2013. The appellant submits that his vehicle was not parked in the location in question on that date.
    The operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the appellant that the appellant would display a valid permit or face liability for a parking charge. For such a term to be included in the agreement, it must be ‘incorporated’ into the agreement.
    The only relevant method of incorporation, in this case, is by notice. This means that the appellant must have been made aware of the term, before the agreement was made, in order for it to be deemed part of the agreement. The appellant will be deemed to have been made aware of the term if the operator had taken reasonable steps to bring the term to the appellant’s attention. The usual method by which an operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying clear signs around the site advertising the terms of parking.
    Once an appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.
    The appellant submits that there were only two signs displaying the terms of parking at the location in question.
    The operator has produced a photograph of the appellant’s vehicle which shows that a large, clear, sign displaying the terms of parking was located on the wall, very close behind the appellant’s vehicle. Accordingly, on the evidence before me, I find that the operator had taken reasonable steps to being the terms of parking to the attention of the appellant.
    The appellant has submitted that the building, next to which he parked, was derelict. Although it appears from the photographs provided by the operator that the building next to which the appellant parked was, in fact, derelict, this is not of relevance to the parking agreement. The signs displaying the terms of parking were themselves clear and clear, and there was no indication that they did not apply.
    The appellant has questioned the authority of the operator to issue parking charge notices at this site. Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the control and enforcement of parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
    However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.
    The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner which indicates that the operator has been granted authority to issue parking charge notices at this site in accordance with the terms of parking displayed. Consequently, I find that the operator has demonstrated that it has authority to issue parking charge notices at this site.
    The appellant has submitted that the wording on the back of the parking charge notice is unclear. The operator has produced a copy of the wording; it appears that the text on the back of the parking charge notice details how the motorist may pay the parking charge, and the appeals procedure available. Accordingly, it seems clear that the wording has no relevance to the parking charge notice itself, and so is not a reason for which I have the discretion to allow an appeal.
    The appellant submits that the parking charge notice states that its date of issue is 22 January 2013. The operator disputes this, and submits that the parking charge notice was correctly issued, on 23 January 2013. The operator has produced a close-up copy of the parking charge notice.
    The date of issue appears to be 23 January 2013, although the line of the box in which the date is to be entered, and the ink of the ‘3’ in ’23 January, appear to overlap and so it appears at first glance that the date of issue may be 22 January; however, on closer inspection it seems clear to me that the date of issue given was 23 January 2013.
    The appellant does not dispute that his vehicle was parked on this date, and the operator has produced photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site without displaying a permit, prior to the issue of the parking charge notice. Taking together all the evidence before me, it appears that the parking charge notice was issued in the correct manner.

    I find that, by failing to display a valid permit, the appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.
    Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.
    Christopher Adamson
    Assessor
  • Stroma
    Stroma Posts: 7,971
    Uniform Washer
    Forumite
    Good luck in getting money off the motorist perky, we know that popla decisions are not binding on us. And would love to see this particular case in front of a small claims judgeч.
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    :beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,787
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Excuse my scepticism but this report of a POPLA loss for the motorist is the first post on this forum from "marcus lowry" & in a first for a PPC at POPLA "The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner". Please can we see the contract that CPS produced? PE have produced documents purporting to be such a contract but are nothing of the sort.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,624
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    nigelbb wrote: »
    Excuse my scepticism but this report of a POPLA loss for the motorist is the first post on this forum from "marcus lowry" & in a first for a PPC at POPLA "The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner". Please can we see the contract that CPS produced? PE have produced documents purporting to be such a contract but are nothing of the sort.


    Totally agree, shame the appellant never bothered with questioning who issued that 'ticket' (CPS' modus operandi does include allegedly untrained self-ticketing by random people - not employees - incentivised by a 'bounty' to rush out and slap these on cars).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Aaron_Aadvark
    Aaron_Aadvark Posts: 238 Forumite
    edited 13 May 2013 at 11:04AM
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Chris Adamson

    Date: May 2013

    Reported:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79026

    Successful Grounds: Interest in Land/Contract

    PPC: UK Parking Control Ltd

    Reference: <<REF>>
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    <<APPELLANT>> (Appellant)
    -v-
    UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number <<XX>> arising out of the presence at <<XX>>, on <<XX>>, of a vehicle with registration mark <<XX>>.

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Vehicle parked on yellow lines/ hatched area’. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that, “All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”.

    It is the appellant’s case that:

    a) The operator does not have sufficient interest in the land to offer a contract for parking.
    b) There was no contract formed between the appellant and the operator due to a lack of consideration and incorporation of terms.
    c) The area in which the appellant parked appeared to be a marked bay.
    d) There were no signs indicating that the area in question was for family parking only.
    e) The operator has failed to justify the level of the charge.

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

    The operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, any contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an appellant, it is for the operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

    Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

    Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

    I need not decide any other issues.

    Chris Adamson
    Assessor
    Je suis Charlie
  • Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Shona Watson

    Date: May 2013

    Successful Grounds: Visited site twice in one day - first in-last out error

    PPC: Highview Parking Ltd

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    On 7 February 2013, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 26 January 2013 the vehicle with registration mark xxx was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Yate Shopping Centre Main Car Park for 5 hours 45 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 4 hours.

    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed within the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced and state that there is a 4 hour maximum stay. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

    The Appellant made representations, submitting that he had visited the site twice on the date in question, but that the automatic number plate recognition system had not registered his vehicle leaving and then returning to the site. The Appellant produced photographs and receipts that he submits show that the vehicle was elsewhere between 10.30 and 15.49. The photographs are not time or date stamped.

    The Appellant’s original representations states that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him.

    It is noted that the Appellant states that although the Operator’s evidence pack is dated 22 March 2013, it was only sent to him by email on 25 March 2013. However there is no dispute that he received the evidence in good time for this hearing.

    It should also be noted that CCTV evidence was sent to us on an unrecognised file format and therefore could not be viewed.

    The Operator rejected the representations, as stated in the notice of rejection they sent, because they believe the timings stated on the parking charge notice are correct, and they were unable to accept the Appellant’s claim that he has superpowers. The Operator produced images that appear to show the vehicle entering the site at 10.10 on 26 January 2013 and exiting at 15.55 the same day.

    However the Operator has not responded to the Appellant’s submission that although he did enter the site at 10.10, he left the site before returning again later in the day and then leaving for the second time at 15.55. For example, the Operator could have provided a search for all the images of the vehicle with registration mark xxx taken on the date in question. The Operator received a copy of the Appellant’s submissions and therefore has had the opportunity to produce evidence to refute them.

    It is noted that the Operator has produced representations made by the Appellant in relation to two other parking charge notices, however I am only considering evidence relating to this parking charge notice, number yyy.

    I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not produced any evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that he visited Yate Shopping Centre twice on the date in question and therefore did not overstay the maximum stay. I have therefore not been satisfied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Shona Watson
    Assessor
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
  • Stroma
    Stroma Posts: 7,971
    Uniform Washer
    Forumite

    The Appellant’s original representations states that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him.



    The Operator rejected the representations, as stated in the notice of rejection they sent, because they believe the timings stated on the parking charge notice are correct, and they were unable to accept the Appellant’s claim that he has superpowers.

    Lovely stuff :rotfl:
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    :beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,624
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Cheered me up no end!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards