Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 137
    • DD1A
    • By DD1A 31st Aug 17, 1:52 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    DD1A
    Popla stage win - Eureka Ashford Kent - PTL
    Original thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5651546

    PCC - Parking Ticketing Ltd (PTL)

    Location - Eureka Park, Ashford, Kent

    POPLA assessment and decision
    20/07/2017
    Verification Code

    ******

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name *******
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is as follows: • Lack of signage, unclear signage and markings: • The appellant was not the driver on the day in question: • No contract with driver and no adequate notice of the charge: • The operator has not shown that the individual is in fact the driver: • No evidence of landowner authority: • No photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle being parked in a disabled bay. The appellant has attached a document which expands on his appeal where he lists links to EBay, BlogSpot and Signazone. He has also supplied images to support his appeal. The appellant includes a copy of the letter from the operator stating that his case had been sent to debt collection with extra charges added. He has also included a copy of the email from the operator apologising for this error. He states that the full terms cannot be read from a vehicle before parking. He also states that it is not clear which bays are for disabled drivers, and he states that the operator has not provided proof that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. However, on reviewing the evidence, the appellant has named himself as the driver when submitting his appeal to the operator. On submitting his appeal to POPLA however, he states that he could not leave the section blank and as he did not want to name the driver, he entered his own details. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant is in fact the driver and I have no requirement to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012). While the appellant raises several grounds for appeal, my report will focus on the points raised by the appellant in that the operator has not provided any evidence of him being parked in a disabled bay. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator the terms and conditions state, “Vehicles parked in disabled bays must clearly display a valid Blue Badge in the windscreen”. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. The appellant does not dispute seeing the signage, but states that the disabled bays are not clearly marked and that the operator has not supplied an image of where he was parked. The operator has provided images labelled F to F10, which it states are images of the appellant’s vehicle parked on the day of the contravention. From these images, I can see that there is no Blue Badge displayed. However, from these images, I am unable to establish if the appellant has indeed parked in a disabled bay. A disabled bay is typically, marked by a cross hatched area, either side of the bay and the universal wheelchair symbol on the ground. While the appellant may have parked in a disabled bay, it is the duty of the operator to provide clear evidence to POPLA of the contravention. From the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the operator has provided such evidence. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Aug 17, 1:57 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. However, on reviewing the evidence, the appellant has named himself as the driver when submitting his appeal to the operator. On submitting his appeal to POPLA however, he states that he could not leave the section blank and as he did not want to name the driver, he entered his own details. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant is in fact the driver and I have no requirement to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012).
    Proof that PTL's appeal page prejudices registered keepers.

    POPLA actually concluded this means the appellant must be the driver!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 31st Aug 17, 2:47 PM
    • 6,997 Posts
    • 6,063 Thanks
    The Deep
    He could have put "not applicable" "A.N. Other", "M Mouse" or something similar.


    However, in this instance, the adjudicator seems to have misdirected himself.


    The more of these errors adjudicators commit, the less credibility has PoPLA. This should go back for reconsideration.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • jorge_gills
    • By jorge_gills 4th Sep 17, 3:56 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    jorge_gills
    Original thread: hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5667651
    PPC: WY Parking
    Location: Bradford

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a permit in the vehicle.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. She states that there was neither contract nor agreement on the parking charge and that there was no opportunity to read the terms involving the huge charge. The appellant has raised the Beavis case, stating that the signage should display the charge in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background, and that the terms should be legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. The appellant has said that there are no entrance signs displayed and that the signage at this site was unclear. The appellant has also said that there is no evidence of landowner authority and that the notice to keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When parking on private land, 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. Therefore when deciding to park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with these when deciding to park. The signage at this site states, “WARNING PRIVATE PROPERTY, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY… CONTRACT TO PARK”. Additionally, it states “A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED TO ALL UNAUTHORISED VEHICLES USING THIS SITE. A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE MAY BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY OR BY POST… PARKING CHARGE £90”. This car park is patrolled by a parking attendant. The parking operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in this car park on the date of the event. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to display a parking permit. Whilst I am aware that the appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal. I will focus solely on the appellant’s concerns regarding the landowner’s authority to operate on this land and issue charges. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    Last edited by jorge_gills; 05-09-2017 at 3:50 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 17, 7:00 PM
    • 14,476 Posts
    • 22,758 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done @OP

    As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
    As POPLA has stated this, complain to the BPA that the PPC is operating without authority on this land and therefore sanctions should be immediately applied.

    Ask that they investigate and report back to you on what they discover and what actions they now propose. Time for you to put the PPC through similar sh*t to what they caused you!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 4th Sep 17, 10:21 PM
    • 10,176 Posts
    • 9,302 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Well done @OP


    As POPLA has stated this, complain to the BPA that the PPC is operating without authority on this land and therefore sanctions should be immediately applied.

    Ask that they investigate and report back to you on what they discover and what actions they now propose. Time for you to put the PPC through similar sh*t to what they caused you!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Don't agree. The PPC probably does have authority but failed to produce it. If they are threatened with sanctions and possible restrictions on their KADOE, they just might make more effort with future appeals.

    Let sleeping dogs lie and others can continue to benefit from their tardiness.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 17, 10:53 PM
    • 14,476 Posts
    • 22,758 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Don't agree. The PPC probably does have authority but failed to produce it. If they are threatened with sanctions and possible restrictions on their KADOE, they just might make more effort with future appeals.

    Let sleeping dogs lie and others can continue to benefit from their tardiness.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    Why do they not show it then?

    One cannot assume anything in this game. There are too many of them not showing their (supposed) landowner authority, to be just written off as tardiness on their part. They will quite happily produce reams of copies of signage, of site maps, VRM plates, of a tyre slightly on a white line, of a missing ticket/permit/BB, yet never a landowner authority. Why?

    Even if they show it, there will likely be other appeal points to win on. If it was such a slam dunk for them, you'd be certain it would find its way into an Evidence Pack. But why shouldn't posters, who've been through the mill dealing with this crap, return a bit of the misery?

    Even if 90% of them come back and start showing them, 10% will be caught out and hopefully sanctioned. Unless we fight back (via those who have had a dodgy PPC attempt to scam them), who ever will?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • tdtm500
    • By tdtm500 5th Sep 17, 11:55 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    tdtm500
    So POPLA rejected my appeal for a parking ticket I got for parking IN MY OWN SPACE in my office car park. What do I do now?

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameAlexandra Wilcock
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The appellant failed to display a valid parking permit in his vehicle.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the signage on the site is not clear from all the parking spaces. He says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant advised that the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate landowner authority. The appellant states the charge is unconscionable and is a penalty. He says the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease, as decided by Jopson V Home Guard Services.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state “Vehicles must clearly display a valid permit fa e up in the front windscreen at all times. If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant failing to display a valid parking permit in his vehicle. The operator has provided time and date stamped photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site. The evidence provided illustrates that the appellant parked on site without clearly displaying a valid parking permit in his vehicle. I can see that the appellant supplied the operator with an image which shows that his permit was obstructed by other documents on his document. This confirms that at the point of issuing the PCN the appellant could not see the permit. The appellant states the charge is unconscionable and 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the 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 decision, 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 signage on the site is not clear from all the parking spaces. He says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. In response to this the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. The evidence provided illustrates that there is clear signage located around the site in question. As previously stated I am satisfied that the signage on site complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant advised that the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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”. The operator has provided a landowner contract which confirms that the operator has the appropriate landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question; and complies with Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. He says the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease, as decided by Jopson V Home Guard Services. I note the appellant’s comments however, Jopson was a tenant of the premises on site and had provided a lease agreement which confirmed that she had the appropriate authorisation to park on site. In this instance, the appellant was parking on his works car park in which he is not a tenant for and does not own a lease agreement. Therefore, he is not exempt from the terms and conditions and should comply with the parking restrictions displayed on the signage. Furthermore, POPLA is an evidenced based service and we access appeals based upon the evidence provided. The operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant parked on site without displaying a valid parking permit however, the appellant failed to provide a lease agreement or any evidence to demonstrate that he was exempt from displaying a valid permit. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that a valid permit must be displayed. As the appellant remained on site without displaying a valid parking permit, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Sep 17, 2:28 PM
    • 14,476 Posts
    • 22,758 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    o POPLA rejected my appeal for a parking ticket I got for parking IN MY OWN SPACE in my office car park.
    You didn't come soon enough to the forum to get the advice to be able to put together a strong enough POPLA appeal it seems.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5702432

    What do I do now?
    Well, there's no obligation on you to pay it as a result of an unsuccessful appeal. So you just ride this out for 6 years. Come back (in plenty of time) if you get a LBA or MCOL claim.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • tdtm500
    • By tdtm500 5th Sep 17, 2:33 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    tdtm500
    Yeah, first mistake was identifying myself as the driver in their online systems.

    I had assumed that one I showed evidence of a permit in my car on the day of issue that the ticket would have been withdrawn and appealed immediately without seeking advice. Hope this serves as a lesson to future appellants!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 4:36 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yeah, first mistake was identifying myself as the driver in their online systems.

    I had assumed that one I showed evidence of a permit in my car on the day of issue that the ticket would have been withdrawn and appealed immediately without seeking advice. Hope this serves as a lesson to future appellants!
    Originally posted by tdtm500
    It's only MET though, looking at your thread. No court history and not a big player.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Splad
    • By Splad 9th Sep 17, 9:46 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Splad
    Cedar Lane Car Park
    Original Thread See: Cedar Lane Car Park Frimley

    Decision Successful - CEDAR LANE CAR PARK FRIMLEY

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXX7573.

    Civil Enforcement have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Sep 17, 10:01 AM
    • 14,476 Posts
    • 22,758 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done.

    Standard CEL capitulation to a well worked POPLA appeal. Always best to kill off CEL tickets at POPLA, because if thus opportunity is missed, CEL will commence the process of suing in the small claims court.

    This isn't to say it will get to the court, but it will involve the motorist in a whole pile of tedious work to head them off proceeding.

    Glad you've got this out of your life Splad.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • AJ16
    • By AJ16 9th Sep 17, 10:17 AM
    • 80 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    AJ16
    POPLA appeal unsuccessful
    original thread here-

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73071766#post73071766

    Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name Adele Brophy
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining in the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, these are: Keeper Liability not established – The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with various section of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 No Landowner Authority the appellant has advised that no evidence has been provided that the operator has the right to pursue parking charges on the land, and they require proof that the operator has complied with Section 7 of the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. BPA Code of Practice the appellant has further advised that the operator has not complied with section 20.5A non-compliance, also the operator has not allowed a grace period. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate the appellant advised that as keeper they cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out. Lack of legible signage no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in Protection Of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that, the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The terms and conditions of the site are, “90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY. This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay 90 minutes. Parking Charge: Up to £100”. The site operates an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The appellant’s vehicle registration number, Y841 OAE, was captured entering the site at 08:41 before exiting at 11:07 totalling a stay of two hours 26 minutes. The operator issued a PCN due to remaining in the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. The appellant has advised that that no evidence has been provided that the operator has the right to pursue parking charges on the land, and they require proof that the operator has complied with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this the operator has provided a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner, after reviewing this I am satisfied that the operator has landowner authority and that the requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice have been met. BPA Code of Practice the appellant has further advised that the operator has not complied with section 20.5A non-compliance, also the operator has not allowed a grace period. Section 20.5 A of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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”. After reviewing the ANPR images provided by the operator I am satisfied that these meet the requirements set by the BPA. The appellant has stated the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate the appellant advised that as keeper they cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions. The car park is an ANPR controlled car park. Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. Furthermore, section 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents”. The signage displayed within the car park displays a logo associated with ANPR. From this evidence, I consider the terms and conditions of the signage are compliant with section 21.1 and 21.3, I consider this signage sufficient to have informed the appellant that the data captured would be used to issue a PCN where there is a breach in the terms and conditions. The appellant has advised that they require the operator to provide records with dates and times of when the ANPR cameras were last calibrated to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. The appellant has advised that this information is vital to prove that their system differs from the flawed ANPR system in the court case ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 November 2013. I note the appellant’s comments, however POPLA works on a case-by-case basis. Any outside factors, such as previous similar contraventions or other on-going appeals have no bearing on our decision making. There is no requirement for the operator to provide this information, in the absence of any evidence that casts doubt on the images captured by the ANPR cameras, I can only assume they are an accurate reflection of the vehicles entry and exit times. Lack of legible signage no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period. 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 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 decision, 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 BPA Code of Practice section 13.4 states: "you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the period should be a minimum of ten minute. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle remaining on site in excess of the maximum allowed duration by 56 minutes. After considering all the evidence and comments provided by both the appellant and the operator, I consider 56 minutes to be in excess of a reasonable grace period. When parking on private land, a motorist forms a contract with the operator by parking their vehicle on the site. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the site. In this case, the appellant’s vehicle has remained in excess of the maximum allowed duration, the terms and conditions of the contract have not been met. As such, I conclude that on this occasion the operator has issued the PCN correctly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 17, 11:31 AM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,340 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Same as I said about another MET one, where someone said who was driving:
    It's only MET though, looking at your thread. No court history and not a big player.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Lost POPLA appeals are just a stage in a process that usually goes nowhere fast.

    She says in her view, MET NTKs are POFA compliant, but I doubt it!

    Do what we all did here for years, before POPLA existed! Ignore them and only take seriously a court claim (no updates about debt collector demands, please spare us, and search the forum instead). I've ignored debt letters re a fake PCN several times (before POPLA) and nothing happened.

    MET are not known for small claims, just daft letters.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sidvinnon
    • By sidvinnon 12th Sep 17, 4:20 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    sidvinnon
    Original thread here

    Operator: Parking Eye

    Location: ASDA @ Brighton Marina

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name XXX
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible; there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not demonstrated the person they are pursing is the driver of the vehicle. The operator has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The site is new car park to Parking Eye, no signs warning of the new restrictions and no advertising consent for new signs. Signs fail to warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras data will be used for, which the appellant states is a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The signage at the site states, “3 hours max stay. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The site operates ANPR, the motorist’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, was captured entering the site at 19:00, exiting at 22:43; the period of stay was three hours 43 minutes, an over stay of the maximum permitted time of 43 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and operator and the BPA Code of Practice. When assessing an appeal the burden of proof lies with the operator and it is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s statement. Section 18.11 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect the operator to provide evidence that demonstrates that the signage was in place before the alleged contravention and evidence that the appellant has been allowed a reasonable grace period to become familiar with the changes. The operator has provided a series of photographs from the site, they have been date and time stamped, however this appears to have been added after the photographs have been taken, accordingly I am uncertain the signage was in place on the day of the contravention. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Sep 17, 6:10 PM
    • 14,476 Posts
    • 22,758 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The operator has provided a series of photographs from the site, they have been date and time stamped, however this appears to have been added after the photographs have been taken, accordingly I am uncertain the signage was in place on the day of the contravention.
    Not much different to UKPC then!

    Even the POPLA assessor suspects these photos have been doctored by PE.

    Maybe @sidvinnon you should report this to David Dunford of the DVLA and ask him to investigate. Altering of evidence to attempt to affect the outcome of your appeal is serious business.

    david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • FancyPants
    • By FancyPants 19th Sep 17, 10:24 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    FancyPants
    From thread 'Hove station, Indigo appeal rejected, now at POPLA stage'



    Dear <FirstName Surname>



    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXX7237.



    Indigo Solutions have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.



    Yours sincerely



    POPLA Team




    To the frequent posters of this forum and all those who help:
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Sep 17, 10:28 AM
    • 14,476 Posts
    • 22,758 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Indigo really don't want POPLA kicking out a station parking case on 'not relevant land' or the alternative that a private organisation cannot issue fines or penalties. Rock and a hard place for them otherwise!

    Well done on seeing this through.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,093Posts Today

8,458Users online

Martin's Twitter