POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Great stuff @bingley blue.

Please take the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

1. DVLA.
Ask the DVLA to stop providing keeper details to the PPC for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement that they have no authority to operate on this land.

2. BPA.
Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to the PPC in view of the POPLA statement.

Copy your POPLA decision, emphasise the statement that no authorisation exists, to both the DVLA and the BPA.

Well done on your successful appeal. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Link to your original thread with the details when received.

It's imperative we stop these outfits in their tracks if they are flouting requirements placed on them by the BPA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding, neither the BPA nor DVLA will do tap all!

Here's another thread where the OP got stuck into this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69199071#Comment_69199071

ampersand

-and please urge your MPs to support this EDM [ separate Thread started by parkrage]

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/458
[I believe it merits being included here. Will delete if most opinion disagrees]

henrysquire

Hi guys,

Just received a parking charge notice today (12th October) for an offence on the 22nd September. I parked in private car park of a Future Inn to make an urgent phone call. I didn't exit the vehicle and parked right in the corner, away from the main entrance. There were plenty of other spaces for 'authorised vehicles' to occupy. In total I spent 25minutes there. I have a charge of £100 or £60 if I pay within 14 days. It seems really excessive considering I spent such little time there and made no attempts to visit some other place.

Do I have any grounds to appeal this? Or should I just pay the early fee. Can't really afford this sort of unexpected charge with three little kids to look after.

trisontana

henrysquire wrote: »

Hi guys,

Just received a parking charge notice today (12th October) for an offence on the 22nd September. I parked in private car park of a Future Inn to make an urgent phone call. I didn't exit the vehicle and parked right in the corner, away from the main entrance. There were plenty of other spaces for 'authorised vehicles' to occupy. In total I spent 25minutes there. I have a charge of £100 or £60 if I pay within 14 days. It seems really excessive considering I spent such little time there and made no attempts to visit some other place.

Do I have any grounds to appeal this? Or should I just pay the early fee. Can't really afford this sort of unexpected charge with three little kids to look after.

You you please start your own thread. This one is reserved for POPLA decisions.

Mike172

My first win against UKCPM with Ombudsman:

Email to say;

UK Car Park Management 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.


BOOOOOOOO!!!! Come on make an effort. HTH. Anyone know the cost to a PPC when appealing to Ombudsman?

g0wfv

Why are they still bothering to ticket your car, Mike?!

Umkomaas

g0wfv wrote: »

Why are they still bothering to ticket your car, Mike?!

Quite simply explained by this timeless definition:

'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

There you go!

MrHarry

Thanks very much everyone for taking the time to help out. Keep on fighting the cowboys!

/showthread.php?t=5328692


The victory email from Popla:

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxx.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Smart Parking 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Team[/FONT]


=================================

Tonofun

My POPLA appeal letter (credit to MISTERBARLOW's appeal, which this is based off), against New Generation parking Management Ltd (NGP Ltd):

(Some of the formatting has been lost in translation from Word/PDF to the forum post, and there were a bunch of photographs attached and labelled after the body of the letter)

Dear POPLA assessor,

I am the keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXXXXXX
On 20/08/15 I received by mail a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper (PHOTO 1) from New Generation Parking Ltd (to be referred to following as NGP) alleging a parking “offence” on 09/08/15, at “Penarth Marina CF64”, and demanding a Charge.

My original appeal on 25/08/15 to the operator NGP directly was rejected and I was supplied with a POPLA verification code. I have visited a I]possible site[/I of the alleged offence to gather information and photographs (see point 1(a) in the box-out below as to why I state a I]possible site[/I), and I contend that as the vehicles’ registered keeper I am not liable for the alleged Charge for the following reasons:-

1. A non-compliant, and erroneous Notice To Keeper (NTK), failing to meet the conditions of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability.
2. The signage on the I]possible site[/I (see 1(a)below) is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed.
3. The lack of NGP’s proprietary interest in the land at the I]possible site[/I and no contractual authority from the landowner.
4. Unreasonable and unfair terms.
5. The Charge levied is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty.


1. A non-compliant, and erroneous Notice To Keeper (NTK), failing to meet the conditions of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability.

As the keeper, I have not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle. As the keeper of the vehicle, I can only be held liable for the Parking Charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied. The Notice To Keeper (NTK) from NGP, dated 13/08/2015 fails to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

It fails to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(a) of the Act, on two counts. Para 9(2)(a) states that a notice must: “…specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates”

Firstly, the Notice To Keeper allegedly states the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked as “Penarth Marina CF64”. This purely and simply is totally incorrect! This is not even a valid and fully-formed address and fails to specifically identify the alleged location and/or the land of the supposed parking event and subsequent Charge. This point alone invalidates their Notice To Keeper (NTK) for lacking clear and concise information relating to the alleged parking event eliminating their right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

The single (tiny!) photograph they have supplied does seem to show the rear of my vehicle, with two other vehicles flanking either side, but with zero clear indication whatsoever of its actual location. How can they demand any charges, without resounding proof that my vehicle was parked on land that they are legally and contractually responsible for? One of their staff could have taken this photograph of the rear of my vehicle anywhere. A cursory glance at some mapping software reveals that “CF64” covers a vast area, stretching from Penarth south-westerly until almost reaching Barry, approximately 6 miles. Indeed even “Penarth Marina” appears to be a sizeable area covering tens of different roads and streets.

BOX OUT SECTION
(a) For clarity, as I do not know the location of the alleged site of the parking event due to NGP’s Notice To Keeper failing to specifically identify it, for the remainder of this letter I will refer to the unknown site as the [possible site], which I have identified at the following location:

Co-ordinates: 51.445082, -3.170124, Penarth Portway, Penarth, CF64 1SQ

This is the only parking site in the area of Penarth marina which I could find as being managed by NGP. However, I could be mistaken. For the record, I have never personally parked here.
END BOX OUT

Secondly, the Notice To Keeper issued does not specify a “period of parking”, it merely denotes a single point of time (15:32hrs) of the alleged parking event and charge issue. This does not constitute “proof of parking”, and also does not fulfil Paragraph 9 (2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, again invalidating their right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.


2. The signage on the I]possible site[/I (see 1(a)below) is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed.
The British Parking Associations’ Code Of Practice (BPA’s CoP) at Appendix B (version 5 as it applied at the time and date of the alleged parking event) sets out the strict requirements for entrance signage:

"The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead" and "There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material...''

Upon arrival to the I]possible site[/I, NGP have failed to make it adequately clear that parking on this site is subject to a parking management. The signs on this site are small and sparse in number (2, with a 3rd separate sign detailing conditions for the separate ‘Loading Bay’ area) considering the size of the site, which is over 105 metres in length. See PHOTO 2 below for a view arriving at the western side of the site, and PHOTO 3 for the view arriving at the eastern side of the site. See PHOTO 4 for a view at the approximate midway point of the site facing eastwards. They are also positioned at angles that would require the driver of a vehicle to look away from the road and upwards, due to the height of them. Their background colour of blue is one specifically referenced as “not easy to read” in the BPA’s CoP referenced above. The font used on the signs’ terms and conditions is of a very small nature, disadvantaging those whose sight is supported by spectacles e.g. the elderly. The signs are not lit or reflective (as per the BPA’s CoP) and are not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen among the myriad clutter of signs, information and architecture in the busy marine area. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of them and agreed. See PHOTO 5 below to compare the size of one sign in relation to a parked vehicle next to it, showing its small scale and tiny font, and its’ lack of any lighting. Also see PHOTO 6 for the signs’ general disregard for the text in the BPA’s CoP concerning sign design.

One sign (see PHOTO 6) makes the statement ‘By parking on this private land you are entering into a contract with NewGeneration Parking Management ltd (NGP)’; however there can be no possibility of a contract since no consideration can flow between a driver and a site agent. No money/offer/promise/permit or any other tangible nor implied nor executory consideration was capable of being exchanged with NGP in this case.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal). Lord Denning continued:

“The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling”

3. The lack of NGP’s proprietary interest in the land at the I]possible site[/I and no contractual authority from the landowner.

NGP do not own the land at the I]possible site[/I vaguely indicated in their Notice to Keeper to myself and have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or vehicle keeper. I require NGP to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner to either myself or POPLA as I believe it would not be compliant in accordance with the British Parking Associations’ (BPA) Code Of Practice (COP) Section A, sub-section 7 and without it, NGP have no legal standing nor authority at the I]possible site[/I which could impact on future visiting motorists. In the event that NGP should produce a ‘witness statement’, I would contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. I would contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

4. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms

The Charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:

“18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.”

It goes on to state:

“Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a ‘disguised penalty’, that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.”

Confusing, ambiguous, poorly placed, and contradictory signage is far from transparent or obvious to drivers, as is disguising a penalty as a tariff. Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)

"Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."

Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that:

"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer"

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that:

"A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

Additionally, the European Court case of “Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya” provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test established in this case is whether the contract would have been agreed if both parties had sat down with lawyers to negotiate the terms.

"With regard to the question of the circumstances in which such an imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, having regard to the sixteenth recital in the preamble to the directive and as stated in essence by the Advocate General in point 74 of her Opinion, the national court must assess for those purposes whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations."

5. The Charge levied is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty.

This operator must prove the Charge to be a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss(es) that arose directly from the alleged parking event, and not a penalty. Having since visited the I]possible site[/I of the alleged parking event (see point 1(a) above) and examined its location and the poor and sparse signage, it is clear to myself due to its close proximity to the marina and seaport, that both the landowner and NGP want the notices to be prohibitive in nature to prevent all parking excepting those who are ‘Berth Holders’ and any alleged losses NGP claim, are merely a disguised penalty!

NGP’s own appeal rejection letter to me states:

2.1.1 “Our business model is based on receiving small fees from members of the public using our car parks in return for a service, such as a fee paid at a pay and display machine, or the price paid for a parking permit…..”
2.1.2 “It is in order to protect this revenue stream that it is necessary to issue a Parking Charge Notice…..”
2.2.1 “Our parking charge notices represent liquidated and ascertained damages. The measure of their damages is the loss of its revenue (for example the pay and display ticket not paid for) plus the cost of recovering that sum.”
2.2.3 “The terms and conditions are clearly advertised throughout the parking locations and make it clear that a Parking Charge Notice may be issued for a breach of contract

However, I argue that NGP are making the claim that the Charge is due to a contractual breach and thus the Charge must represent a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss. I also argue that NGP should not be taking any potential ‘recovery costs’ into account calculating their Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, as those costs have not and indeed may not ever be incurred. Other than the above statement (2.2.1), I have received no proof of how they calculate their Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss and/or how it relates to the amount of the Charge levied in the illegitimate Parking Charge Notice To Keeper.

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ may have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this Charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

To Conclude:
In summary, in light of my points above I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on illegitimate notices not adhering to statute, with inaccurate or incomplete information, to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum which is nothing more than a disguised parking penalty with zero relationship to any supposed genuine pre-estimate of losses caused, by a vehicle allegedly parked on land which may or may not be within the legal remit of the operator to manage with signage so poor and so completely out of line with the recommendations of the operators’ trade associations’ CoP.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

And here follows the e-mail from Popla declaring victory (though I do wish just a little that the assessor was the one to kick them into touch) after they tucked tail and ran:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

New Generation Parking Management 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

Realstokebloke

bingley_blue wrote: »

good news on our Parking Eye appeal to POPLA. We heard this week that our appeal was successful and the charge has been cancelled. Big thanks to everyone who helped me put the appeal together, really glad i came across the site!

(Appellant)-v ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 061637/347061
arising out of the presence at Aire Street, on 20 June 2015, of a vehicle
with registration mark xxxxxxx
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and a
parking charge notice was issued after it was detected by the operator’s
ANPR system as parked beyond the expiry of the period paid for.
The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only
necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that
the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices
in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the
operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not
provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to
enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The contract produced
by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority to enforce charges
has been granted as the legible portion makes no reference to the
enforcement of issued parking charges.. Accordingly, I cannot find that the
operator had sufficient rights in the land to enforce contracts in respect of it.
Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In
the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the
appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor

Hi BB,

just trawling and saw your successful appeal - well done !

I am also up against PE & have had their evidence pack through, so was interested in your successful appeal on the grounds of a lack of a valid contract with the landowner.

Did they send you anything in their pack claiming they had such a contract?

I ask as I have had what looks like a 'stat of a 'stat of some scrawl on an agreement - in other words, it is very far from clear if this is kosher or acceptable. Did you have similar & POPLA rejected it or was there no such attempt to include same in their pack?

Thanks.