POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas · 6 February 2018 at 2:49PM

Paul25 wrote: »

Hi are these 2 emails up to date as I intend to complain to DVLA and BPA and the ICO relating to Britannia

I want to know how Britannia are allowed to request registered keeper details when to do so they have to affirm to the DVLA that they adhere to the BPA CoP which they clearly do not so in my opinion rightly or wrongly they are illegally asking for registered keeper details in breach od data protection laws

Well they were when I wrote that yesterday!

Bowler01 · 6 February 2018 at 3:03PM

Thanks Umkomaas Just wanted to check in case it had been copied from an earlier post

The_Deep · 6 February 2018 at 5:13PM

MUI that they have a right to request your details to ask the name of the driver, bur must not pass them to a third party.

BTW, none of this is illegal, but it may be unlawful. Consider a claim for a data breach, and or harassment.

Have you read this. if not you should

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

This is exactly the sort of behaviour that Sir Gregg's Bill hopes to eradicate, a robust complaint to your MP would be in order.

isudds · 9 February 2018 at 10:48AM

This is the response to appeal for PCN at Seel St. Liverpool

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal.

These are as follows: • The appellant says that they believe the signage at the site fails the test of large lettering and prominence. They say that the terms are not readable to drivers before they park. • They say that the car park is in total darkness and the signs are not independently lit and the driver was not aware that it was privately owned. They state that when passing at a later date, the driver noticed that the payment machine was positioned behind a container and was in total darkness. • The appellant says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras only capture the vehicle entering and exiting the site and it has not taken into consideration the actions of the driver having to drive around or finding a space. • They say they do not believe that the parking operator owns the land and it has not provided them information about their policy with the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a payment being made for parking. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says that the car park is in total darkness and the signs are not independently lit and the driver was not aware that it was privately owned. They state that when passing at a later date, the driver noticed that the payment machine was positioned behind a container and was in total darkness. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in Appendix B, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.” From the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 03:47 and exited the site 04:01. As such, the vehicle was on site during the hours of darkness. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site. However, all the images provided have been taken during the hours of daylight and I am unable to determine that the signage is sufficiently lit during the hours darkness. As I am unable to determine that the site is sufficiently lit during the hours of darkness, I cannot confirm that the driver of the vehicle had the opportunity to see, read and understand the terms and conditions of the car park and I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

Coupon-mad · 9 February 2018 at 10:53AM

I can see that the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 03:47 and exited the site 04:01. As such, the vehicle was on site during the hours of darkness. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site. However, all the images provided have been taken during the hours of daylight

ParkingEye must be so proud of what they do...dreadful.

Well done on the win!

robberbutton · 9 February 2018 at 1:04PM

Decision Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to 'no ticket'.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant's case is that she purchased a parking ticket and clearly displayed it on the dashboard by the steering wheel. The appellant explains that the photos of her vehicle do not show the full dashboard, and she feels the photos have been taken from an angle to deliberately obscure the ticket. The appellant has provided evidence of a photo of the ticket along with photographs to show where it was displayed. In addition, she has provided a witness statement from xxx who was with her on the day.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, 'Pay and display' All vehicles must display a valid ticket, permit or scratchcard, Tickets, permits or scratch cards must be clearly displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle'. The signs say a PCN of £100 will be issued for failure to comply. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle, parked at the site at xxxx on xxxx January 2018. The appellant has provided a photograph to demonstrate where the ticket was displayed on her dashboard, and evidence of the ticket itself showing it was purchased at xxxx on the day in question. In response to the appellant's points the operator states, 'Although I understand the point the appellant is making, unfortunately, I am unable to take the mitigating circumstances into account'. I do not consider the appellant has provided mitigating circumstances to be taken into account. She has clearly stated the ticket was visible, and the warden has taken photos from an angle. This is not mitigation. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out requirements of operators, and states within Section 20.5a that, 'When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered'. Section 20.5b continues, 'In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows'. Reviewing the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am not satisfied the photos demonstrate that a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows has taken place, as per the guidance by the BPA. I consider if it had, the ticket would have been visible to the parking warden. Upon consideration of the evidence, I do not consider the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

---

So pleased with this as I came to the forum late and didn't make any of the usual arguments! Your advice was invaluable at the POPLA comments stage though, so thank you all.

Original thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5776991

Coupon-mad · 9 February 2018 at 1:10PM

Reviewing the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am not satisfied the photos demonstrate that a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows has taken place, as per the guidance by the BPA.

I consider if it had, the ticket would have been visible to the parking warden.

Sensible decision by POPLA there. Which PPC? Do you have a link to your thread?

robberbutton · 9 February 2018 at 1:17PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sensible decision by POPLA there. Which PPC? Do you have a link to your thread?

Have added the link. Thanks Coupon-Mad for all your encouragement and advice! :beer:

Umkomaas · 9 February 2018 at 2:16PM

In response to the appellant's points the operator states, 'Although I understand the point the appellant is making, unfortunately, I am unable to take the mitigating circumstances into account'. I do not consider the appellant has provided mitigating circumstances to be taken into account. She has clearly stated the ticket was visible, and the warden has taken photos from an angle. This is not mitigation.

Ha ha! Gemini clearly don't understand what 'mitigation' means, only that it's a word/excuse to turn down an appeal. 'Mitigation, innit'!

Dunces' corner for Gemini on this one!

MikeHammer · 13 February 2018 at 1:53PM

Operator: Euro Car Parks
Decision: Successful on the grounds ECP did not wish to contest the appeal.
Original thread located here.

Presumably 21 days wasn't enough to read my somewhat lengthy appeal document

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free