POPLA Decisions

salmosalaris

Or a revision to the CoP ! ;-)

Computersaysno

salmosalaris wrote: »

Or a revision to the CoP ! ;-)

Yep...that's what will happen. They've done it before...and will continue to do so.

Muttley1900

Operator Name Parking Eye Ltd

POPLA assessment and decision
04/03/2016
Decision Successful

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

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he is not liable for the charges.

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. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

C4WRX

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameSiobhan Gooley
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to purchase a ticket for the date in question.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that the parking operator does not have a contract with the landowner to carry out parking management. He states that the notice to keeper has not been properly given in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. He also states that the signage is non-compliant and unclear, and also does not inform users that automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology is in use, nor what it is used for. He contends that the ANPR is not reliable, and also requests proof of planning permission.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The appellant has stated that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle, and has not expressly identified who the driver was. As such, the provisions of PoFA 2012 are applicable. The operator has not supplied in its evidence a copy of any notice sent to either the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle. As such, I cannot conclude that PoFA 2012 has been complied with, or that liability for the Parking Charge Notice has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision.

DanaScully

Thank you to all of the people who contribute to this forum and helped with my appeal.

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Rochelle Merritt
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle had parked for 32 minutes and not paid a fee.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises landowner authority, the signage at the site and Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The case is that the vehicle was in the car park for 32 minutes and not paid for a fee. The operator has stated the vehicle had overstayed by 32 minutes. The operator has sent me clear Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) of the vehicle entering the car park at 18:55 and exiting the car park at 19:28. The operator has sent me clear photographic images of the signs which clearly state the parking tariffs. The appellant raises landowner authority, the signage at the site and Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. I am not satisfied that the contract with the landowner as it does not clearly state that it adheres to the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7 7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. 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 appellant has raised other grounds but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal. The operator does not state this in the contract so I Can conclude the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly.

Archie_hill

BE AWARE Napier Parking is making money out of you if you park for less than one minute in one of their carparks - their customer care is shocking and they will threaten you to pay without a fair appeal. DO NOT go to Janglers Mead Car Park as unless you buy a ticket in less than one minute you will be fined - disgusting!

bod1467

Archie_hill wrote: »

BE AWARE Napier Parking is making money out of you if you park for less than one minute in one of their carparks - their customer care is shocking and they will threaten you to pay without a fair appeal. DO NOT go to Janglers Mead Car Park as unless you buy a ticket in less than one minute you will be fined - disgusting!

Whilst that's all well and good, you've posted this in the wrong place. THIS thread is only for POPLA decisions.

username3295

Operator Name
Observices Parking Consultancy

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Robert Harrison

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellants vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that keeper liability has not been established, and that there is insufficient evidence of a breach of terms. The appellant has also stated the signage is insufficient to enter into a contract, and that the operator has no land owner authority to operate. Furthermore, the appellant states that the parking charge is unreasonable and punitive.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions in place at the site by parking their vehicle. In this case, the operator states that the appellants vehicle failed to display a valid permit, and therefore it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The appellant has stated that they were not the driver, and not identified the driver. In cases where the driver is not known, in order to transfer the liability for the charge to the keeper, the operator must send a PCN that complies with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). I have no evidence that the operator has sent a notice to keeper, therefore I cannot confirm that it has complied with the details set out in POFA 2012. I therefore must conclude that the operator has not issued the PCN correctly. Given that I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have disregarded any further points raised by the appellant.

BiscuitMuncher

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameKayleigh Craven
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant’s vehicle failed to display a valid parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states they are genuine resident parked in their own space, fully complying with the terms and conditions of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement, and says that their tenancy agreement does not advise a permit is required. The appellant says that the operator has not sent a notice to keeper.

The appellant says that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with motorists, therefore there is contract between the operator and the driver. The appellant states that signage within the parking area is misleading and ambiguous. The appellant says that the PCN does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator states that it issued the PCN because the appellant’s vehicle failed to display a valid parking permit. The operator has provided numerous photographs of the appellant’s vehicle which clearly show there was no permit on display. The appellant says that the operator has not sent a notice to keeper. The operator has also provided evidence of an email from the appellant’s uncle confirming that the appellant is the driver/registered keeper of the vehicle and was not aware that a permit was required. As the driver has been identified upon appeal, there is no requirement for the operator to issue a notice to keeper. The appellant states they are genuine resident parked in their own space, fully complying with the terms and conditions of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement, and says that their tenancy agreement does not advise a permit is required. The appellant says that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with motorists, therefore there is contract between the operator and the driver.

The operator has provided evidence confirming that it has an agreement with the landowner (Xxxxx Management) to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at xxxxxx. The appellant has provided a copy of his tenancy agreement. This agreement is between the appellant and his landlord. While the landlord may be the owner of the flat and the allocated space, the land itself is actually owned by xxxxx xxxxx Management. I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PNC’s to vehicles in contravention of the terms and conditions. I agree that the tenancy agreement does not specify that a permit is required, however this is something that the appellant should take up with his landlord as to why he was not made aware and given a permit to park in their allocated space. The appellant states that signage within the parking area is misleading and ambiguous. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass.

In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle”. It then goes on to advise that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided a number of photographs of signage at the site both at the entrance to and within the car park, one which is very close proximity to the appellant’s vehicle. The signage advises motorists “This Private Land is for the Parking of Motor Vehicles. By Parking Outside of a Marked or Allocated Bay and/or Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit which must be displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle or authorised by site management will result in the Driver Agreeing to Pay A Parking Charge Notice of £100.00”.

I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA and that the signage was sufficient for the appellant to have read and understood the terms and conditions of parking. The appellant says that the PCN does not represent 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, 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. The evidence I have received shows the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a permit holders only area, without displaying a valid permit.

While I appreciate that the appellant states they were not aware that a permit was required, the signage is clear that this is the case. I can only conclude that the operator was correct to issue the PCN

salmosalaris

"Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court"

Well not very thoroughly because there is no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge against someone parking in their own space !
This is a case that needs to go before a proper judge .

And this explanation about a landlord owning the allocated space but a management company the land sounds like tosh