POPLA Decisions

bod1467

This is normal modus operandi for CEL ... even for court cases.

Oneintheeye

Thanks for all the advice on this forum I received notification today that my appeal against a Parking Eye PCN had been successful as Parking Eye did not provide a response.

The appeal was against a PCN issued at Leisure World Southampton. The basis of my appeal was :

Parking Eye have not established keeper liability through failure to abide by the terms of POFA 2012 as notice to keeper was received more than 14 days after the alleged incident.
Southampton Leisure World is not “relevant land” for the purpose of establishing keeper liability under POFA 2012.
Parking Eye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers nor to pursue charges. Flawed landowner contract.
The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there could be no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, signage and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Ralph-y

well done .... :j

have you and all your friends signed the petition in the newbies thread ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5365003

again well done

Ralph:cool:

Ignatius1

Please see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5312341 for further details.

So, after originally submitting the POPLA appeal on 05/10/15, the 'operator' responded with their 'evidence pack' on 19/10/15. I provided my comments or rebuttal to it within the seven days on 26/10/15.

In the meantime, I had complained to the 'BPA' about this 'operator'. I complained about seemingly digitally altered imagery, the NtK in relation to PoFA 2012 etc. and signage. Several mails were exchanged with a 'Compliance Manager'. On 06/11/15, I received an email from the 'Compliance Manager' basically stating that the 'operator' has "investigated" with their IT having looked into it, and that they have agreed to cancel the 'parking charge' due to the error. I responded asking if the 'Compliance Manager' could go back to the 'operator' and ask that the 'parking charge' isn't cancelled (because I wanted to wait for [new] POPLA's decision). It wasn't part of their remit so I completed a contact form on a website of the 'operator's'.

I've telephoned POPLA a few times over the last eight weeks or so as I expected POPLA to respond maybe a smaller number of weeks after my comments were added on 26/10/15.

Today, I have finally received a response. Here's what is on the portal now:

"Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Carly Law

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was parked without a valid permit clearly on display.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. These are as follows:

• Lawful occupier of the land – No contract has been entered into, as the vehicle does not need permission to park within the bay.

• No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

• Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement.

• The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between JD Parking Consultants and the driver.

• The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

• The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has been identified as the Driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The Operator is therefore pursuing the Appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

For the Operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the Driver of the vehicle, to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The Operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the Appellant. As the Driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012.

While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4 section 9 (2) (d) of PoFA 2012 states that the notice to keeper must “Specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is (i) specified in the notice: and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper”.

Having reviewed the notice to keeper provided to me by the operator, I am not satisfied that this provision set out in PoFA 2012 has been met, as it does not state the full amount of the charge. It only states the reduced amount of the charge, which the keeper will be liable to pay if the driver is not named.

As such, I cannot determine that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

Coupon-mad

Good! Now we know that (like old POPLA) 'new' POPLA are not allowing any IAS-style assertions that a keeper might have been a driver and that the Assessor will look closely at NTK wording if the appellant spells it out.

Sinsity

Appealed 11th Jan and today 26th Jan I received this:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 4363495727.

NCP Ltd 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


All that is left for me to say is:

Absolutely chuffed to bits.
The advice and support on this forum has been priceless.
In particular, my special thanks and gratitude go to Salmosalaris who has done an incredible job by taking the time to help me when I really did not expect it- exceeded my expectations so I really really appreciate it Salmosalaris. Thanks a million.

Finally- congratulations to this forum- i will highly recommend to anyone and everyone should they require help in the future.

Thanks all.

bunkersoldier

Many thanks to all who have contributed to this and the Newbies thread which was invaluable. I was surprised to be informed today, only 3 days after submitting my appeal, that Euro Car Parks do not wish to contest my appeal!

I appealed using the POPLA online form, selecting one of the four main categories ( not improperly parked) and 'Other'. I've copied my form details in case it is of use to others:

Appeal details

Ground for appeal

The vehicle was not improperly parked

Please write a short summary of this ground of appeal

The vehicle was parked in darkness and the only parking sign within view did not indicate any time restriction or provide terms and conditions.

Appeal clarification

The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed

Why do you perceive that the terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed (for example where they blocked, too small, or not showing)?

The only sign in view in the darkness was damaged and did not indicate any terms and conditions. After revisiting the car park in daylight hours, other signs were visible in other areas of the car park, but these did not have lights to enable reading in the dark, so would need a torch and a ladder, as the bottom of the signs are around 2 metres above ground level and set 2 metres into shrub-filled borders. The signs also have mixed colour fonts, some blue on yellow and some minute terms and conditions in red on yellow, which can be seen in the attached photo are unreadable.

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that the terms and conditions were not properly signed?

euro car park sign 1.jpg
euro car park sign 2.jpg

Appeal clarification

You complied with the signage at the car park

What did the signage at the car park say?

The Wickes sign states “This car park is the private property of Wickes Building Supplies Limited. It is provided for the use of customers and employees of Wickes Building Supplies Limited during store opening hours only.” The Euro Car Parks terms and conditions are unreadable because the font is too small and red on yellow. You will see the same sign states two different parking periods “90 MINUTES FREE PARKING” and “PARKING LIMITED TO 2 HOURS”.

Why do you consider you complied with the signage?

An occupant of the car was a customer of Wickes and used the car park during store opening hours.

Why does the parking operator consider you to have failed to comply with the signage?

The PCN states that signs clearly show the 120 minute parking period, together with the parking terms and conditions, when the only sign in view did not do either.

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that you complied with the signage at the car park

wickes parking sign 1.jpg
wickes parking sign 2.jpg

Appeal details

Ground for appeal

Other

Please explain your reasons for appealing against the parking ticket.

1. No Keeper Liability. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012. The notice asks the registered keeper to pay a £70 parking charge, reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days. Under 9(2)(b) the notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full. This is missing. Under 9(2)(e) the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges or notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver. This is missing. Under 9(2)(h) the notice must identify the creditor. This is missing.

2. Date error on PCN. The notice states that payment of the charge is due within 28 days from the letter date, rather than 28 days from the day after the letter date.

3. No proprietary interest in the land. Euro Car Parks have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Euro Car Parks must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including pursuing them via the courts. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing, nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to provide an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Euro Car Parks and the landowner, not another agent, retailer or other non-landholder.

Can you upload evidence to support your position?
pcn front.jpg
pcn rear.jpg

johnwatts22

Hi all,


I've just received a decision from POPLA for an appeal against Parking Eye. The details are below. I'd like to thank all the people who post on this forum for their help and advice.
My advice to anyone considering an appeal is DO IT! Whilst it takes a little time and effort it's worth it in the end.


To summarize my appeal, I asked Parking Eye to provide me with the contractual evidence that they had the authority to issue PCN's. They didn't provide this, I appealed to POPLA and POPLA upheld my appeal.....happy days.




Operator Information and Evidence
Submitted 29/10/2015
The operator will send the evidence independently

Verification Code XXXXXX

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Ami Edwards



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park longer than the permitted free stay or purchased parking time.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue and pursue PCN. The appellant also states there was insufficient signage at the site and that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions by parking their vehicle. On this occasion, the operator has recorded the appellant as having remained at the location for four hours and 46 minutes. Additionally, the operator has provided evidence that the appellant did not make a payment after the two-hour free parking had elapsed. The appellant states the operator does have the authority of the landowner to issue and pursue parking charge notices (PCN). Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, but as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have not considered them.

windy488

I received the result of my appeal to POPLA yesterday. Another successful appeal against Parking Eye.

The car park was a privately owned piece of land in Newquay with Parking Eye controlling the parking via ANPR. As you can see from the adjudication below, Parking Eye were taken to task for not providing proof of authority to issue PCNs. This is a recurring theme looking at previous appeal results posted on this thread.

My thanks to the members of this forum who gave advice and assistance and pointed me in the right direction. You do a great job!

The appeal ruling:

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the parking time he had paid for.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:
• The appellant does not believe the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).
• The appellant does not believe the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).
• The appellant does not feel the operator has applied a reasonable grace period.
• The appellant believes the signage displayed on site is insufficient.
• The appellant feels the PCN is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:06 and exiting the site at 14:16. The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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 not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.


Regards

Brendan Hale

Ralph-y

well done .....:j


doing your bit .....;)
have you and all your family / friends/work colleagues signed the petition found in the newbies thread ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5365003

it is now getting close to its target ..... and just needs one last push

again well done and thanks for the update

Ralph:cool: