POPLA Decisions

Thanks everyone for your assistance.

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Samuel Connop

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that appellant had remained on site for longer than permitted.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedom’s Act 2012. The appellant believes the photographs provided by the operator are not compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The appellant does not believe the Automatic Number Plate Recognition images are accurate. The appellant does not believe that the operator has no landowner authority. The appellant claims signage is insufficient and therefore no contract was formed. The appellant believes the charge amount is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. The BPA Code of Practice under, section 7.1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” Within the evidence, the operator has provided a copy of the contract in place between themselves and the landowner. However, the effective date has not been filled in. While the operator may have an active agreement in place with the landowner, I am unable to confirm whether the agreement was in place on the date of the parking event. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period, however, the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that it had the required authority to operate on the land at the time of the parking event. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

Good result.

Now, time to complain to the DVLA and the BPA that the PPC is operating without landowner authority, as confirmed by POPLA (via an independent assessment of the evidence) and the DVLA should ban the PPC from pursuing any more charges at that site and the BPA should issue sanction points.

Did the PPC acquire your details from the DVLA? If so there's the possibility of you making a claim against the PPC for a breach of the DPA. Early days in this strategy against PPCs, but keep abreast of developments via this forum, PePiPoo and the Parking Prankster's blog and see how they progress.

There's no rush - you have 6 years to issue a claim. Current rate could be between £250 and £750, but see what emerges.

Received from POPLA today, thanks to all for the help :

Decision Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, or that there is sufficient notice of the charge. They say that the charge is out of proportion in relation to the Beavis judgement. The appellant says that there the operator has not provided evidence that they are liable for the charge. The appellant says that there is no evidence that the operator has authority from the landowner. The appellant says that the PCN does not clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving the car park. The appellant says that the signs do not specifically warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for, which breaches the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “Customer Car Park: 60 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY: By parking in this car park you are entering into a contractual agreement and agree to comply with the Terms and Conditions of Use. You also accept liability to pay a Parking Charge of £100 (reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days) if you fail to comply with them. The operator’s case is that the PCN was issued because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), the appellant’s vehicle registration XXXX XXX was captured entering the site at 09:23, exiting at 11:16. The total period of stay was one hour and 43 minutes. The appellant’s case is that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, or that there is sufficient notice of the charge. They say that the charge is out of proportion in relation to the Beavis judgement. 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.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, the charge is allowable, as long as this is sufficiently brought to the motorist’s attention through the clear wording of the signage. Upon review of the photographic evidence of the signage, I am not satisfied that the charge has been sufficiently advertised to motorists. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The photographs provided by the operator show that the charge is printed in small writing along with other information. The main condition of the fact the site is a 60 minute maximum stay is in a reasonably sized font, however the charge is a lot smaller. The operator has provided actual images of the signage at the site and PDF files of the site. After reviewing the actual signage at the site, I cannot conclude that the wording of the notices to be clear, and cannot determine that the charge is conspicuous or legible. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal on this ground I do not need to look at these. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.


This was a 'MET' PCN for parking over 60 minutes at McDonalds near Heathrow : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589916

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nice! MET deserved that decision for this narky paragraph in their evidence pack:

Cheeky gits. Seems that POPLA are now (very slowly) getting to grips with some of this stuff.

Perhaps nail technician training has more going for it than I gave due credit!