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 142
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 28th Nov 17, 10:07 PM
    • 7,942 Posts
    • 8,063 Thanks
    pogofish
    Hi there

    Sorry if I’m asking an obvious question or have missed something.
    Originally posted by Dottys28
    You have - You clearly agreed not to hijack threads as part of your signup - This is not a POPLA decision and there is no prospect of one on your timescale, so you should not be posting here.

    You need to read the Newbies Sticky and Start your own thread!
    • kaych
    • By kaych 6th Dec 17, 2:11 PM
    • 334 Posts
    • 189 Thanks
    kaych
    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Gemma West
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
    Operator Name Private Parking Solution (London)

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant ha raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. • They state no contract was entered into between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. • The appellant states the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • The appellant has questioned keeper liability requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act. • They say the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge. The appellant has provided a lease document and a court judgement within their submission to POPLA.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I note the appellant’s grounds of appeal in relation to this PCN. However, the operator has failed to provide any evidence for my consideration. Because of this, the operator has failed to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant’s grounds of appeal do not require any further consideration. I must allow the appeal.

    Thread
    • AIMINGHIGH123
    • By AIMINGHIGH123 6th Dec 17, 6:42 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    AIMINGHIGH123
    My appeal to popla has been unsuccessful.
    What is the next step?

    Parking eye didn't even provide a case summary.

    Here's what was said by the assessor:

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant advises that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. He states that a contract was not entered into between the operator and the motorist. The appellant has also disputed the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking Tariffs Apply. Up to 3 hours…£16.00. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 13:32 and exited at 15:34 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and one minutes. A copy of its whitelist payment lookup has also been provided, showing that the motorist did not make a payment to park at the site that day. The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012. The appellant advises that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. He states that a contract was not entered into between the operator and the motorist. 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 upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of PoFA 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability and is able to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has disputed the operator’s authority to issue PCNs on the land. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 copy of its supply agreement with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice’s requirements. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session, they have failed to adhere to the site’s terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 6:47 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    there is no "next step" (people are always looking for a next step as if there are an infinite number of "steps")

    its either pay up or be taken to court

    if you wish for further advice, then ask for it in a thread of your own in this forum, referring back to this decision in your own thread

    PE have 6 years to take you to court for enforcement , using MCOL
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 8th Dec 17, 6:34 PM
    • 611 Posts
    • 1,574 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    POPLA making up their own new rules on company vehicles - WTF
    This oddball POPLA ParkingEye assessment needs to be read in conjunction with the following statements in the FAQs section of POPLA's website.

    It is not the role of the assessor to collect evidence or contact witnesses. They will look at the evidence that is provided to them from both parties and make a decision based on this alone”.

    Your appeal will be independently reviewed by one of our professional assessors taking into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice”.

    It must also be noted that nowhere in PE's evidence pack did they suggest that they were seeking to hold the hirer (company ABC Ltd) liable on the basis that the driver was an employee or agent of ABC Ltd. As it happens, the driver was not an employee of ABC Ltd.


    "Decision: Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name: XX

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator’s case is that the appellant did not purchase parking time for the time on site.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is on long term lease and they confirm that [ABC Ltd] is the hirer and for the purposes of the corresponding definition under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) they set out below why it is not liable for this PCN.

    * The appellant states that the operator failed to comply with the strict requirements of POFA 2012:
    * The appellant states that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park:
    * The appellant states that the car park signage was inadequate:
    * The appellant states that the sum of £100 claimed by the operator is extravagant and unconscionable and contrary to Department of Health rules on NHS parking. The appellant has supplied a document expanding on the above as evidence to support the appeal. They have also supplied a copy of another POPLA assessment.

    Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision

    In this case, the appellant is a company, ABC Ltd (ABC), and the driver of the vehicle is using the vehicle as a company vehicle. Companies are responsible for the actions of their agents. As this is a company vehicle provided to the driver for the purposes of carrying out their duties, I will be considering whether ABC is responsible for the charge as principal on behalf of their agent, who was driving the vehicle and is not known.

    This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator…………………

    [the usual POPLA template copy and paste stuff about Beavis etc.]

    …………… The appellant states that the operator failed to comply with the strict requirements of POFA 2012. While I appreciate you have indicated that the requirements of PoFA 2012 have not been met, we consider ABC responsible as principal rather than as hirer. Accordingly, we do not consider a failure to follow PoFA 2012 as relevant to our present reasoning. ABC has provided the company vehicle to the driver. We consider the company has, authorised their drivers to do what is necessary to carry out their duties using their company vehicle, which includes entering parking contracts. As such, we hold ABC responsible for the PCN as principal.

    While I acknowledge the additional documents the appellant has supplied, this does not exempt the driver from complying with the terms of the site. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site.

    Therefore, from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly".



    I take particular issue with the assessor's statement that "we consider ABC responsible as principal rather than as hirer". ParkingEye did not seek to hold ABC responsible as the driver's employee / principal so what gives POPLA the right to do so.

    The assessor's statement that "we do not consider a failure to follow PoFA 2012 as relevant to our present reasoning" is rather ominous. I wonder if this new "reasoning" is the result of pressure from the BPA.

    I suspect that this may not be a one-off dodgy assessment and that POPLA may have moved further down the slippery slope towards parity with the IAS.
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 08-12-2017 at 6:39 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Dec 17, 7:15 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,778 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I suspect that this may not be a one-off dodgy assessment and that POPLA may have moved further down the slippery slope towards parity with the IAS.
    I thought they’d bottomed out in terms of quality of decisions and there were signs that a number of assessor’s were starting to ‘get it’.

    I can’t believe that the above rational (oh dear, they still remain in the dunce’s corner for spelin!) is the output of a single assessor working off their own initiative on this. The reasoning is too complicated for a one-off from a new assessor randomly flexing their muscles.

    There was another case earlier today where, despite PE stating they were not pursuing under PoFA, POPLA found the keeper liable.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5702135
    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.
    • Ben-XL
    • By Ben-XL 13th Dec 17, 12:52 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Ben-XL
    Link to my thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5727080

    Parking company was Parking Ticketing Limited in Birmingham

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name XX
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to display a valid permit.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that a notice to keeper was never served, as such no keeper liability can apply. In addition the appellant says that the operator has not identified the individual it is pursing. The appellant says that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all of the parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant says that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to pursue charges in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Further, the appellant says the operator breached section 18.7 of the BPA Code of Practice and failed to provide a POPLA code.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions at the site state “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY IN CORRECT MARKED BAYS, SEE NOTICES IN CAR PARK FOR FURTHER DETAILS”. “VEHICLES PARKED IN THIS AREA MUST PARK IN THE CORRECT MARKED BAY AND CLEARLY DISPLAY A VALID P.T.L. PERMIT IN THE WINDSCREEN”. There are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. There is a helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site. 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”. Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice States “The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement” I can see that not all of the requirements set out in the strict guidelines of the BPA Code of Practice have been adhered to. I accept that the contract is in date however, the boundaries to the site have not been defined, nor have the vehicle types for restrictions been identified or the hours of restriction for enforcement and control. In addition there is no reference to who is responsible for maintaining the signs. As such, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. All other submission points will not be considered within this appeal response. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Billco
    • By Billco 13th Dec 17, 8:39 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Billco
    Original Thread
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73539430#post73539430

    Parking company was Euro Car Parks - In The Blue Boar, Billericay.

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Eileen Ioannou
    Assessor summary of operator case: The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display ticket/permit was purchased.

    Assessor summary of your case: The appellant is appealing the PCN as the registered keeper of the vehicle stating they are not liable for the charge.

    They state that the driver and three passengers attempted to pay at the site, after a period of 20 minutes they established that the machine was broken and entered the site to report the broken equipment.

    The appellant states that the driver was advised that the machine failure was a regular occurrence and no alternative payment option given.

    They state that they require proof that the machine was working on the date.

    They state that the signage is insufficient; there is no evidence that the operator has authority to operator on the land.

    Further, the appellant says that the signage is not compliant with section 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision: The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).

    The appellant’s vehicle registration, LM14 OFB, was captured entering the site at 14:10 and exiting at 16:51.

    The appellant remained at the site for a period of two hours and 41 minutes.

    The terms and conditions at the site state “WELCOME TO BLUE BOAR 24 HOUR PAY & DISPLAY”, “CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES”.

    There are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered.

    There is a helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site.

    The operator issued a PCN to the appellant as no valid pay and display ticket/permit was purchased.

    The appellant is appealing the PCN as the registered keeper of the vehicle stating they are not liable for the charge.

    They state that the driver and three passengers attempted to pay at the site, after a period of 20 minutes they established that the machine was broken and entered the site to report the broken equipment.

    The appellant states that the driver was advised that the machine failure was a regular occurrence and no alternative payment option given.

    They state that they require proof that the machine was working on the date.

    They state that the signage is insufficient; there is no evidence that the operator has authority to operator on the land.

    Further, the appellant says that the signage is not compliant with section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage advertised at the car park.

    When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered.

    It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking.

    By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions The appellant has stated that they do not believe the operator has the authority to pursue charges or form contracts at this car park.

    Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    In this case the operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal.

    As such, I am not satisfied that the operator had the authority to issue this PCN.

    I note that the appellant gave additional grounds for appeal in their submission.

    As I have considered the lack of landowner authority for the site I will address the additional grounds.

    Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Dec 17, 8:57 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,778 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    In this case the operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal.

    As such, I am not satisfied that the operator had the authority to issue this PCN.
    If they had that authority, why wouldn’t they submit it, unless, of course, they don’t have it. And if they don’t have it, how many others have been caught out there and paid the penalty?

    Time for a complaint and an investigation into this site by both the BPA and DVLA. Do please fire a complaint off and get the two agencies giving a similar dose of grief to ECP that they were happy enough to give to you in order to gouge £100 out of your pocket.

    steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

    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.
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

206Posts Today

1,280Users online

Martin's Twitter