POPLA Decisions

bluetoffee1878

Bluetoffee v Anchor Security Services (POPLA)

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Kate Coburn

The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the parking charge notice.

Summary
The appellant states that there is no keeper liability, the operator does not have authority to levy charges, the signage is non-compliant, the terms are unfair/unreasonable and the charge is not a GPEoL. Finally that the operator??? states that the charge fails to meet the standards set out in the BPA CoP.

Rational
By issuing the the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions in question. It is the duty of the operator to to provide evidence to POPLA of the T's & C's that the appellant did not comply with and evidence showing how the appellant did not comply. 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 the appeal.

Bluetoffee1878 10 PPC's 0

Come on PPC's - at least have a go and make it interesting

Redx

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!

also bear in mind that on 01 mar 2016 they changed over to the IPC and so no longer use popla, its now the kangaroo court known as the IAS, so much harder to appeal and so people need to beware this company and if parking be sure they pay promptly, in full and abide by the parking signs and notices (or as you say , do not use their sites)

so the chances are there will be no more popla reports in this thread from now on

mmmatt

DecisionSuccessful


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant for exceeding the time paid for at the site.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator has no standing authority to pursue charges or form a contract with drivers and that the signage is not British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice compliant. The appellant also states that the speculative parking invoice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) at the site is not BPA compliant.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal but I am going to concentrate on bye-laws and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Schedule 4, Paragraph 3 of PoFA 2012 advises of the type of land that the recovery of unpaid Parking Charge Notice’s (PCN)’s applicable. The types of land that it is not applicable for is any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles such as byelaws applying to ports. The purpose of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) is to establish and assess whether a parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and in accordance with the terms and conditions at the site in question based on the evidence provided. I am unable to find any reference to byelaws in the operator response as such I am not able to establish with any certainty that this point has been considered by the operator. For the purposes of this appeal I am not satisfied that the operator has addressed the issue raised by the appellant in regard to Southampton Town Quay car park not having keeper liability, therefore this is not “relevant land”. As such I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant correctly. Accordingly this appeal should be allowed.

trisontana

I presume this is Parking Eye. Once again PE have been told this is not "relevant land" but still insist in dishing out their fake fines.

hookguy

PPC: Liberty Printers PLC

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5375232

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Georgina Riley

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at Calderdale Royal Hospital car park where the operator issued a parking charge notice for either parking in a way that causes an obstruction, parking on a cross hatched area or parking outside of the bay markings.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have any proprietary interest in the land at the site and no contractual authority from the landowner. The appellant also states that he is the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle on the day the alleged contravention occurred, that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), that Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers, that the contract has Unreasonable and unfair terms and that the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land. 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.

taroshm

The appeal has been rejected, please can someone suggest next course of action.
Details of the response below

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
James Beaton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the driver parked in a disabled person's space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person's badge.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant is appealing the PCN on the following 5 grounds 1) Secure-A-Space have failed to establish keeper liability 2) Contract with Landowner 3) Inadequate Signage 4) This charge is not a contractually agreed fee 5) No genuine pre-estimate of loss


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is appealing the PCN on the following 5 grounds 1) Secure-A-Space have failed to establish keeper liability 2) Contract with Landowner 3) Inadequate Signage 4) This charge is not a contractually agreed fee 5) No genuine pre-estimate of loss The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the driver parked in a disabled person's space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person's badge. The appellant is appealing the PCN on the following 5 grounds The appellant states that UK Parking Control LTD have failed to establish keeper liability The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant, as it had not identified the driver of the vehicle. The appellant states that the operator failed to comply with paragraph 8, section (2)(a) which very clearly states: specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; Upon reviewing the Notice to Keeper, we can clearly see the name of the land it was parked on, the date of the incident and it has marked the time it issued the PCN. We are satisfied that this includes the required information and we accept that this complies with “PoFA 2012). The appellant states that the operator does not have a contract with the landowner. 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. The operator has provided us with a copy of the contract it has with the landowner Jones Lang LaSalle. We have reviewed the terms and conditions and we accept that it fully complies with section 7 of the BPA code of practise. The appellant states that there is inadequate signage in the car park “Section 18 of the 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”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of multiple signs that are situated throughout the car park, furthermore the signs clearly state the terms and conditions set out by the operator including the terms for parking in disabled bays. The appellant states that the PCN is not a contractually agreed fee and that there is no 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions by parking their vehicle. Ultimately, the appellant has parked within a disabled bay without displaying a valid permit. By failing to do so, the appellant has not met the terms and conditions as clearly outlined at the site. As such, I can only conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

bod1467

Upon reviewing the Notice to Keeper, we can clearly see the name of the land it was parked on, the date of the incident and it has marked the time it issued the PCN

How is a fixed time in any way a period?

Is this another ill-informed POPLA assessor?

Guys_Dad

bod1467 wrote: »

How is a fixed time in any way a period?

Is this another ill-informed POPLA assessor?

I think you would be scraping the barrel relying on that point alone.

bod1467

It was just the first thing I noticed in a skim read of a wall of text. I'm sure there are a few other pearles in there as well.

alfa145

Boom! First successful decision from first appeal:

hank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxx.

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

Original thread for reference: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69999190#Comment_69999190

Many thanks to all who helped me!