POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

The signs at the car park do not inform the motorists that their parking time starts on entry to the car park.

That's a corker if POPLA is going to allow appeals on that basis - it has the potential to blow all ANPR tickets, especially in a P&D car park where a ticket is purchased with an actual time showing. But not restricted to P&D - jeez that's an exponential number of new signs required!

Coupon-mad

BJ63 wrote: »

Many thanks to all those on the forum who helped advise me on my appeal, and also to the journalist from The Times who published my story. Nearly 5 months on I finally heard today that my appeal against Parking Eye was successful.

The decision seemed to be based on 2 major points:

The signs at the car park do not inform the motorists that their parking time starts on entry to the car park.

The penalty was issued without proper consideration of a grace period as defined in Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Whilst clearly relieved at the decision and grateful for all the support from forum members, I am resentful over the valuable time spent putting an appeal together over a penalty that should never have been charged in the first place. It's time these Cowboys were stopped.

Can we see that decision please? Very useful indeed...:)

BJ63

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 case is that due to the payment machine being faulty, the appellant opted to pay for her parking via telephone, which took some time. The appellant exited the car park within the parking time he had paid for.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:32 and exiting the site at 16:42. The operator has provided a system print out which shows the appellant paid for two hours parking at 14:44, expiring at 16:44. The operator has provided PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs do not inform motorists that their parking time commences upon entry into the car park. From the images captured on the ANPR cameras, the appellant’s vehicle was on site for a total of two hours and 10 minutes. As the appellant paid for two hours parking, that leaves 10 minutes unaccounted for. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “you should allow the driver a reasonable grace period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” As the appellant’s overstay was a total of 10 minutes after the parking contract had ended, I consider the Parking Charge Notice to have been issued without proper consideration of a reasonable grace period.

BJ63

I appear to have a sex change part way through my case...

Coupon-mad

That is humdinger of a decision - could we ask which Assessor please, so we can quote them?

salmosalaris

Its a contradictory decision . On one hand it refers to the fact that the signage does not inform of the start of the parking allowance but goes on to state there was a 10 minute overstay and relies on an inadequate grace period .

Coupon-mad

salmosalaris wrote: »

Its a contradictory decision . On one hand it refers to the fact that the signage does not inform of the start of the parking allowance but goes on to state there was a 10 minute overstay and relies on an inadequate grace period .

Works both ways then!

BJ63

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That is humdinger of a decision - could we ask which Assessor please, so we can quote them?

Emily Chriscoli

nigelbb

The appeal was upheld because no NTK was ever sent after the Keeper appealed the windscreen ticket. The other appeal points were ignored e.g. Parking for permit holders only therefore no offer of parking thus no breach of contract.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Rochelle Merritt
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle was parked on a footpath/grass verge.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has not been identified as the driver.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has not identified the keeper as the driver. The appellant has appealed to the operator making clear that they were not the driver, however the operator has not provided any evidence to suggest that it responded to this by issuing a Notice to Keeper. As the driver has not been identified, and the operator has not provided any Notice to Keeper in its evidence, I am unable to conclude that the operator has followed the requirements set out in Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Accordingly I must allow the appeal.

homgif

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Kayleigh Craven
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the PCN does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant advises that his vehicle was parked for the maximum two hours and says that the overstay was due to difficulty locating a space when entering the car park and being stuck in a queue when leaving the car. The appellant states that the signage was not clear at the site and that the signs did not specify that the two hour period began when the vehicle entered and left the car park.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.