POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

thetogonator wrote: »

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli
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 the Parking Charge Notice (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 (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:25 and exiting the site at 14:37.

The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs stipulate the parking tariffs applicable to motorists wishing to park their vehicle on site. The signs also state that “parking tariffs apply 7 days a week, to all motorists”.

Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” After reviewing the evidence of the signage displayed on site provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signs adhere to the BPA Code of Practice.

The operator has provided a system print out which shows the appellant paid for one hours parking. The images captured on the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle was on site for a total of one hour and 11 minutes, thus exceeding the parking time he had paid for.

The appellant says the parking charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.

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.”

Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, 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.

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. If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. 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 of the signage at the site and I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

I have separated out some paragraphs to make that decision readable.

I see the OP never posted here and seems to have only appealed on the single point about GPEOL and can't have responded when POPLA gave him/her the chance to comment further, post Beavis.

Where was your BPA Code of Practice Grace Periods point, thetogonator?

Where was 'no landowner authority'?

Where was 'no keeper liability'?

Maybe you had 'bad signage' as I see she's mentioned the signs?

Did you have 'ANPR' issues as an appeal point as this is all about a mere 11 minutes? I guess not...What a missed opportunity this one appears to have been - a lesson to others.

Why are you calling this 'an expensive 11 minutes' seeing as that's within the BPA Grace Period set out in the Code of Practice and would be defendable at a hearing on that basis and on other facts? This was winnable at POPLA too, just by pointing out the BPA CoP Grace Periods in the appeal.

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But it is up to the appellant to make their case to drive things home.

We don't know what evidence either the OP or the PPC submitted. What we do see is a whole chunk of text in the POPLA verdict that they seem to cut & paste & use in every assessment. Like the nonsense that the 'fine' in this case might be £100 but that's OK because the Supreme Court said £85 was OK. Uncritically accepting that the Beavis verdict justifies 'fining' motorists whatever the circumstances is just swallowing the line fed by the BPA Ltd.

A contract to pay for parking by the hour is utterly different to accepting an offer of free parking conditional on not overstaying.

salmosalaris

This is the crux of the matter
Make sure it is rebutted

"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."

Cameo14

Another succesful POPLA appeal on POFA 2012 grounds and the parking "company" did not provide any evidence.....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69294316#Comment_69294316

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameRochelle Merritt
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided a response to the appeal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 therefore no keeper liability exists no evidence of proprietary interest no evidence of the alleged incident.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notice is valid.

thetogonator

Apologies for the formatting of the original email.

The argument originally used was based on the template provided on this website. In particular, I highlighted how the charge of £85 seemed excessive in relation to the time over that we had parked.

I have to say I was a bit flummoxed by the further comments written by a solicitor on behalf of Parking Eye, it was deliberately complex and hard to read.

I was going to provide further comments, but the portal did not allow me to do so.

Hopefully people will learn from my error.

Coupon-mad

You could have emailed comments to POPLA if the Portal was closed to you. It's a shame you missed the chance to rebut their evidence and have the last word but I know it's not just you. Several are being lost.

I am aware that very well-argued cases are being lost at POPLA now, who seemed to have swallowed the Beavis case whole and think it's a green light to all parking charges...

...we need to make more of the other points like ANPR and not having an ICO-compliant notice stating how the data captured will be used.

And grace periods, signage not having the charge itself in 'large lettering' (the 'red hand rule' might be useful to quote again) and any BPA CoP breaches.

As well as no keeper liability of course.

Computersaysno

I know of a winning case against PE, where it was a deliberately made as a single point of appeal on 'ANPR Technology being unreliable'.


PE didn't argue their and so the appeal won, so I would suggest that it could well be a 'silver bullet'.....


Should anyone want the case number or details pls PM me...or I'm happy to post it up on here....

Coupon-mad

Post it here please with the redacted decision (no ID of the person/car).

Computersaysno

14 May 2014
Reference: 6060934051
always quote in any communication with POPLA
xxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 151128/105434 arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxxx, on 27 February 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx.
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. 2 14 May 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator’s Case
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for parking without paying to. The Operator submits that a parking charge is due in accordance with the advertised terms which required motorists to pay to park. The Operator submits that it’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at 09:27 and exit at 11:56, a stay of 2 hours and 28 minutes. The Operator submits that it undertook a check to locate the vehicle on the paid parking system and that no payment was found.
The Appellant’s Case
The Appellant disputed parking improperly. It is the Appellant’s case that the breach never occurred because he entered and exited the site twice on the day in question. The Appellant submits that he entered, as recorded by the ANPR system, at 09:27 and exited around 10 minutes later. He then returned at approximately 11:45, leaving 10 minutes later as recorded. The Appellant submitted a document detailing various issues with ANPR technology which might have resulted in the parking charge being issued.
The Decision
I appreciate that ANPR technology is not infallible, and susceptible to the errors highlighted by the Appellant. These include misreading registration mark characters and being obscured by the presence of other objects, such as vehicles. However, the Appellant’s case – that his first exit and subsequent re-entry were both missed whilst his entrance and exit at 09:27 and 11:56 were both recorded – is unlikely. This is because ANPR equipment correctly recognised and recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering and exiting the site at 09:27 and 11:56 which would have had to have failed – for whatever reason – to record the vehicle’s additional movements.
However, the Appellant also submitted that where a registration mark is misread, or not read at all and no photo is recorded by the ANPR camera, then the system is “configured to record the duration of stay as the first and last exit”, and to ignore any isolated entry or exit in between. On that basis, the ANPR need only have missed either the vehicle’s initial exit or re-entry. Because the site was very congested at the times in question, the Appellant 3 14 May 2014

submits that the ANPR error is most likely to have been caused by another vehicle obscuring his registration mark.
In any event, the Appellant suggested various pieces of evidence that the Operator ought to reasonably provide to prove its case. This included evidence to show that it had conduct searches of its ANPR database to rule out multiple entries/exits on the day in question.
The Operator did not produce any evidence to address these issues.
On balance, I find that the Operator has not discharged its burden to prove the offence by refuting the Appellant’s submissions.
The appeal is allowed on this ground.
It does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.
Matthew Shaw
Assessor

Guys_Dad

Thanks for that. But that was 2014 and old POPLA. We have to see if new POPLA follows suit, but that one is an excellent library reference precedent to quote from.