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
    • 8,123 Posts
    • 8,361 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
    • 345 Posts
    • 197 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: !!!8226; The appellant has questioned the operator!!!8217;s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. !!!8226; They state no contract was entered into between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. !!!8226; The appellant states the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. !!!8226; The appellant has questioned keeper liability requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act. !!!8226; 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!!!8217;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!!!8217;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
    • 17 Posts
    • 21 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
    • 17,320 Posts
    • 21,707 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
    • 655 Posts
    • 1,714 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.

    !!!8220;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!!!8221;.

    !!!8220;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!!!8221;.

    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!!!8217;s case is that the appellant did not purchase parking time for the time on site.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant!!!8217;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!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;

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

    !!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230; 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!!!8217;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
    • 16,645 Posts
    • 26,027 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!!!8217;d bottomed out in terms of quality of decisions and there were signs that a number of assessor!!!8217;s were starting to !!!8216;get it!!!8217;.

    I can!!!8217;t believe that the above rational (oh dear, they still remain in the dunce!!!8217;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
    • 17 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
    • 18 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!!!8217;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 !!!8220;WELCOME TO BLUE BOAR 24 HOUR PAY & DISPLAY!!!8221;, !!!8220;CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES!!!8221;.

    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, !!!8220;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!!!8221;.

    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
    • 16,645 Posts
    • 26,027 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!!!8221;.

    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!!!8217;t they submit it, unless, of course, they don!!!8217;t have it. And if they don!!!8217;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.
    • granola
    • By granola 20th Dec 17, 7:41 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    granola
    POPLA has messed up the on-line presentation of their adjudication on my appeal. On their web portal and below, they say I was unsuccessful. At the bottom of the supporting rational the assessor says the appeal has been allowed.

    I queried it. POPLA’s Adele Brophy emailed back: “After looking at this I can see that your appeal has been allowed and the online website was amended.” She said she would post a copy of it.

    The web portal has not been amended, neither has the narrative below when I looked at it a short time ago.

    The appeal succeeded on the failure of the PPC to issue a compliant notice to keeper, which allowed the assessor to not consider the other points.

    They are listed below. The principal CoP non-compliance was that there were no date and time stamps on the images on the NTK. The PPC also sent a redacted landowner authority contract, not the unredacted contract asked for.

    PPC
    Britannia Parking, DEX MSCP, Newcastle
    Decision
    Unsuccessful (actually, successful. See above and below)
    Assessor Name
    Gemma West
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant. He says the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. He explains that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible and lastly no evidence of landowner authority.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “£100 Parking Charge Notice may maybe issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to make a valid payment. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 13:10 and exiting at 14:59, totalling a stay of one hours and 49 minutes. Within the appellant’s response, he states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant. As the appellant in this case has not been identified as the driver, I must consider if the operator has met the requirements of PoFA in its attempt to hold them, as the registered keeper, liable for the charge. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN issued to the appellant Schedule 4 of the PoFA, Paragraph 9 states: (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,”. In this instance, I can see the PCN states “You are warned that if, after 28 days, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper”.

    As a result, the Notice to Keeper does not state the correct timescale. Therefore the operator has not complied with the requirements of PoFA in attempting to transfer liability to the keeper, meaning the PCN has not been issued correctly.

    I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised additional grounds of appeal; however as I have allowed the appeal on the above basis, I have not considered them.

    My thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73595538#post73595538
    • parcaal
    • By parcaal 28th Dec 17, 6:23 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    parcaal
    Just received my unsuccessful decision. My tread and case info can be found here:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5702728

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining at the car park for longer than authorised or without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the parking operator did not observe a grace period on site. They say that the operator does not have the authority to issue PCNs at the site and is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Further the appellant says that the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing for the charge. In addition the appellant says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is not reliable or accurate and that the time on site is not parking time. The appellant says that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant states that the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, as such, liability cannot be transferred. 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 the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012, therefore the liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, was captured entering the site at 19:44 and exiting at 20:15. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 30 minutes. The terms and conditions at the site state “20 Minutes Max Stay”. “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. 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. 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 for remaining at the car park for longer than authorised or without authorisation. The appellant states that the parking operator did not observe a grace period on site. They say that the operator does not have the authority to issue PCNs at the site and is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Further the appellant says that the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing for the charge. In addition the appellant says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is not reliable or accurate and that the time on site is not parking time. The appellant says that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. 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”. In response to this I have reviewed a copy of the witness statement provided by the operator. From this I can see that authority was given to cover a period between 13 June and 13 December, 2017. As the alleged contravention took place on 2 July, 2017 I am satisfied that the operator had the required authority to issue PCNs. Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. However, if a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and the motorist must only decide not to park, and take no other action, whilst at the site. Within their submission the appellant has not given any reason to support the reason for the delay in leaving the site. As such, I am not able to consider grace period as a valid ground for appeal. The appellant says that the signage at the site is unclear and not legible. 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 the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. 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. POFA 2012 defines “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, 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. From the operator’s evidence I can see that it has met the minimum requirements set out within the BPA Code of Practice. 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”. ANPR cameras are used to capture images of vehicles when they enter and exit a site. This then calculates the length of the vehicle’s stay. Unless sufficient evidence can be given to dispute that a vehicle was not onsite for the recorded time, this is deemed a reliable way to monitor a vehicle’s stay. As such, photographs of a parked vehicle are not necessary. As the appellant has not rebutted the operator’s evidence I am unable to consider this point. 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. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered as they remained parked beyond the maximum stay. If the appellant was is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or felt that the terms and conditions could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Dec 17, 9:35 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    ParkingEye seem to have POPLA in their pocket in some POPLA decisions.
    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.

    • Ruff-Diamond
    • By Ruff-Diamond 2nd Jan 18, 9:31 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    Ruff-Diamond
    Successful appeal
    A victory!

    Note the PCN was issued by P4Parking and the NTK by TNC Parking Services

    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Linda McMillan

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without having a visible valid permit clearly on display.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is as follows: • The appellant states that parking was permitted by the landlord and the driver complied with these terms. He states that the driver reported to the concierge’s hut opposite the entrance to the site upon arrival. He states that a temporary parking permit was issued. He states however, that the permit had fallen into the gap between the dashboard and the windscreen and was not visible. He states that this is not relevant as there was a contract in place. • He states that there was no loss to the landlord and the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • The appellant states that the signage does not satisfy the requirements as set out in Beavis. He states that the permit did not advise the holder to read any signs. He states there is no sign at the entrance to the site and the closest sign was some 20 feet away. He states that the other sign is too small to read. • The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority to allow the operator to manage and purse charges. • He states that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued too late and that he was not the driver on the day in question. The appellant has supplied a word document expanding on the above and a copy of the permit he obtained.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the NTK sent. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “The notice must – f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”. Having reviewed the NTK, I note the wording does not mention any of the above. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012. I can only conclude that on this occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, and has submitted other documents, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Jan 18, 9:39 AM
    • 16,645 Posts
    • 26,027 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Good result @Ruff-Diamond, well done

    Your original thread for other newbies to see how you phrased your appeal to POPLA (but the GPEOL route is no longer one to follow).

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5698522
    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.
    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 3rd Jan 18, 10:47 AM
    • 48 Posts
    • 26 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    Original thread for completeness - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73647354

    POPLA assessment and decision
    02/01/2018

    DecisionSuccessful

    Assessor NameAshlea Forshaw

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant overstayed the maximum stay period.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal. These grounds are as follows: • Insufficient grace periods. • The operator has not shown who is liable for the charge. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Inadequate signage.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states, “Customer only car park, for use only whilst shopping on site”. Additionally, it states, “1 ½ hour max stay, no return within 1 hour… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of £85”. The car park is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras have captured the vehicle entering the site at 19:29 and exiting at 21:11, totalling a stay of one hour and 42 minutes. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for overstaying the maximum stay period. The appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal. However, I will focus solely on the concerns regarding grace periods. The site only permitted the appellant to park for one hour and 30 minutes. The appellant has remained on site for an additional 12 minutes. The appellant has said that it had taken the driver eight minutes to enter the site, look for a parking space and park the vehicle. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. I am satisfied that the eight minutes to read the terms and park, falls in line within a reasonable grace period. The appellant then states that it had taken four minutes to depart the site. Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice 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. Therefore, given that the appellant has left the car park four minutes after the parking contract has ended, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable period to depart the car park. As such, I do not consider the operator to have allowed the motorist a reasonable grace period and so, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal on this reason alone, I did not need to consider the other grounds raised.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 3rd Jan 18, 4:38 PM
    • 128 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    azz007
    UNSUCCESSFUL - Looks like the assessor agrred with everything Minster Baywatch supplied so looks like they have all bases covered ie signage, landowner etc. Driver wasnt identified too

    Original Thread
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5745311&highlight=azz007#2

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name Gemma W
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant states the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. • He says that the amount requested is a penalty. • The appellant states the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is liable for the parking charge. • He explains that the images provided by the operator show the date and time-stamp inserted at the bottom and therefore requests the original images. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. • The appellant has questioned the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) accuracy and compliance.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “Mecca Bingo and Bank Top Tavern patrons: Vehicles must be included on the authorised user list…By failing to comply with any of these you are contractually agreeing to pay the parking charge of £100”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked without authorisation. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have captured the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:57 and exiting at 13:45, totalling a stay of 48 minutes. The appellant states the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.2 states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.” 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.” The operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the car park in question. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, upon review of the signage, the PCN amount clearly states in large red lettering “Parking Charge “£100”. I am satisfied sufficient notice of the sum is provided on the signage. He says that the amount requested 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 BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (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, 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 operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is liable for the parking charge. As the appellant in this case has not been identified as the driver, I must consider if the operator has met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in its attempt to hold them, as the registered keeper, liable for the charge. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper that has been issued, and I am satisfied that this meets the full requirements of PoFA. He explains that the images provided by the operator show the date and time-stamp inserted at the bottom and therefore requests the original images. The operator has provided images of the appellant’s vehicle entering and exiting the site. I appreciate the appellant’s comments that the evidence provided shows the date and time-stamp displayed underneath the photograph, I am satisfied this is sufficient evidence to confirm the vehicle remained on site for 48 minutes. Furthermore, the appellant has not supplied any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was not parked on site. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. The operator has produced a contract statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. I note the appellant’s comments that the contract is redacted; however, an operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system for, as the car park has a maximum permitted stay, it has not had an impact on the motorists ability to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park. The operator has provided a whitelist lookup, which confirms the appellant was not authorised to park on site. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant parked without authorisation and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Jan 18, 6:36 PM
    • 6,940 Posts
    • 9,033 Thanks
    beamerguy
    "The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system"

    On what basis does this assessor think ANPR is
    accurate ..... WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM ???

    I seem to recall that this POPLA assessor has said
    rubbish in the past

    When will POPLA train their staff to a acceptable level ?
    Last edited by beamerguy; 03-01-2018 at 6:40 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • azz007
    • By azz007 3rd Jan 18, 11:58 PM
    • 128 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    azz007
    "The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system"

    On what basis does this assessor think ANPR is
    accurate ..... WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM ???

    I seem to recall that this POPLA assessor has said
    rubbish in the past

    When will POPLA train their staff to a acceptable level ?
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    No idea what made them conclude that. But I suppose they can't allow the appeal just based on that one Point as everything else they agreed with literally everything the operator said even though I rebutted it all. The assessor didn't bother even acknowledging what the appeallant even said. Makes you wonder how and what trianing these peopel at POPLA have. The decision has really annoyed me but nothing else can be done I guess.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 12:14 AM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    True but that's not to say you should pay the scam thing!
    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.

    • azz007
    • By azz007 4th Jan 18, 8:52 AM
    • 128 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    azz007
    might just have to pay. to avoid getting bombarded with letters as there are others still outstanding. save me from drowning in these priceless pieces of paper.
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

524Posts Today

5,996Users online

Martin's Twitter