POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

chuckie79 wrote: »

A huge thank you for the help I received with appealing this ticket


POPLA assessment and decision 12/02/2016
Verification Code

6062935255

Decision
Successful Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Sirak Solomon

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked at the site without purchasing any parking time.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the NTK does not specify the land in question. The appellant states that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is not accurate.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.

A further ParkingEye case where POPLA has confirmed they do not have landowner authority to operate on the land. A serious breach of the BPA CoP and a release of keeper data by the DVLA where there was no reasonable cause - another major breach of the PPC/DVLA KADOE contract. Therefore a two-pronged complaint is essential @chuckie79, as follows:

Please complain/write to:

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 by the way. 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:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69199071#post69199071

LJJ

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Anthony Davidson

Assessor summary of operator case: No parking ticket was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
She wishes to appeal against the invoice, issued as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on he following grounds. 1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers 2. No keeper liability under POFA. 3. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss 4. Unfair Terms


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the car park state “Parking Tariffs apply, Note: These tariffs include 20 minutes free stay”. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the site will result in a parking charge of £100. The operator has issued the appellant a Parking Charge (PCN) as no parking ticket purchased. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant entering the car park at 11:07:15 and exiting the car park at 16:14:50. A total duration of 5 hours, 7 minutes and 35 seconds. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the layout plan of the signage at the site in question along with signs that provide the appellant with the required terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has confirmed there are signs at the entrance of the car park that clearly state the terms and conditions. There are an additional 20 signs situated around the car park that advise of the terms and conditions. The operator has provided a copy of a printed audit trail of the registration plate AV10MBF which was not on the list on this specific day. It clearly demonstrates the appellant did not purchase a pay and display ticket. 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. I am satisfied that the operator has provided a satisfactory response and had provided evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has demonstrated that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question The appellant states in their appeal that the operator has no keep liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA 2012) After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator. I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 8 of PoFA 2012. The appellant says the amount of £100 demanded by Parking Eye 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. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I consider the signage sufficient for the appellant to have read and understood the terms and conditions of parking. 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court By leaving the vehicle parked, the appellant has indicated acceptance of the terms and conditions. When doing so, the appellant equally accepted that the operator would issue a PCN for failing to comply with any of the conditions. As such, I must conclude that the appellant has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the site. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Daniel_san

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5015782

Successful on 3 counts (out of 20 pending)

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Sirak Solomon
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not display a parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant states that the parking 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 (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has not provided me with the full copy of the Notice to Keeper that was sent to the appellant. As such, I cannot confirm that the Notice to Keeper has complied with section 9 of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I cannot confirm that the parking charge has been issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.

Daniel_san

I'm at 11 WINS now (100% success so far), all on the same basis!

toffee'n'tom

Thank you to all who posts on this thread. I have just won my popla appeal for parking at a stop off point for seconds at the hotel drop off at Birmingham airport last September. Decision as follows:

Decision
Successful



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not parked in a designated parking area.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper did not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant feels the signage displayed on site is insufficient. The appellant does not believe that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is 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 PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has failed to provide POPLA with a copy of the Notice to Keeper. As such, I am unable to confirm whether or not the operator adhered to PoFA 2012. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.

Ralph-y

well done .... :j

and thanks for leeting us know

Ralph:cool

bucklag

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Sharon Kerr

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that on 28 August 2015, EK13 DOA was captured by automated number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras entering the Seafront Canvey Island at 11:28 and departed at 18:35. The operator states that the appellant exceeded the permitted parking time by 39 minutes.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. The appellant states that there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss No genuine pre-estimate of loss The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability. The appellant states that the signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed. The appellant states that the ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronized nor accurate - evidence does not discount two visits shown as one.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The Appellant has raised the issue of landowner authority, in that the parking operator needs to have sufficient authority from the landowner to pursue charges in court and make contracts with drivers. I have been provided with a copy of the landowner authority; however due to the quality of the image I am unable to decipher the details of the contract, therefore I am unable to consider this in my assessment. On the balance of probability I am willing to accept that the operator has the authority of the landowner to manage parking on the land in question, on the basis that the landowner has allowed the Operator to construct relevant parking management apparatus and continue managing parking on the land. However, evidence that the authority of the landowner has been granted to the Operator to pursue unpaid parking charges from drivers or registered keepers through the courts has not been provided. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The Appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis I have not considered these.

Daniel_san

Background thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5015782

I've had my 12th ruling now, also successful, but with a difference this time. The operator, TR Luckins T/A UKPS, included a REMINDER NTK within the evidence pack (something which they've missed out completely on several occasions, resulting in an easy ruling against them), which the POPLA assessor ruled not adequate evidence. I should be due 4 more rulings any time now, which based on the 12 so far, should also be successful, as UKPS have NEVER sent an original NTK within the required time to satisfy POFA 2012


Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Anthony Davidson
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he does not believe that the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant does not feel that the PCN is 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 alleged parking contravention. 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 (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided POPLA with a reminder of the Notice to Keeper. The operator has not provided POPLA with the original Notice to Keeper issued to the appellant. As a result, I am unable to determine whether the operator has adhered to PoFA 2012. I note that the appellant has raised several other grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.

trisontana

From PPP, a win against Parking Eye over grace periods and poor signage;-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104555&hl=

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The sites terms and conditions state, “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of: £70” and “Parking limited to 1 ½ hours”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 09:28 and departing at 11:12, as such the appellant’s vehicle was at the site for one-hour 43 minutes. The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a reasonable grace period to enter and leave the site. The appellant has provided photographic evidence of how busy the site is and that it can take over ten minutes to enter the car park from the entrance due to queuing traffic. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out that parking operator’s should allow a reasonable grace period for motorists to decide whether to park. In addition, Section 13.4 of the BPA’s 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.

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”. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out that parking Operator’s should allow a reasonable grace period for motorists to decide whether to park. In addition, Section 13.4 of the BPA’s 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. 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”.

In addition, the appellant states that automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems are unreliable. Within its response, the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the location. Having considered this, while I note that it advises that the “car park monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. Section 21.1 of the BPA’s Code of Practice states, “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

salmosalaris

The ANPR appeal point is a slam dunk in every PE car park . Looks like parking sign-makers may be getting some extra business .