POPLA Decisions

Mainze75

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Rebecca Grimes

Assessor summary of operator case
the operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to insufficient paid time/overstayed paid time.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they purchased a ticket from the machine for this parking period and they have either entered their registration number incorrectly or entered the registration number of their other vehicle by mistake.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator monitors the site using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:30 before exiting at 15:14. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions in force at the site, by parking their vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state ‘When purchasing a ticket, to avoid a Parking Charge, please enter full correct registration into the Payment machine before inserting coins’ and ‘Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £90.00’. The appellant does not dispute that they were aware of the signage at the location. The operator has provided a system printout, confirming that no parking time was purchased on the day in question for a vehicle registration matching that of the appellant’s. The appellant states that they have either entered their registration number incorrectly or entered the registration number of their other vehicle by mistake. However, by doing this, the appellant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions in force at the site and I can only conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

DollyDee_2

Was it ParkingEye?

Quentin

Mainze75 wrote: »

Decision
Unsuccessful



Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they purchased a ticket from the machine for this parking period and they have either entered their registration number incorrectly or entered the registration number of their other vehicle by mistake.

With this as your case, no wonder the decision you got!


Why post this now, instead of getting some advice on your appeal here first?

Coupon-mad

Maybe they can get it cancelled by sending PE a copy of their receipt or bank statement or by complaining to the retailer.

Mainze75, start your own new thread as you need assistance. That POPLA appeal was doomed, I tell ye. But you are not doomed, there are other ways and means.

wowman

Kicked APCOA to the ground when they tried to charge me for stopping in a layby on the airport roundabout to drop my GF off. Theiving B******s.

I appealed on lots of points, but all that was decided upon in the end was keeper liability. Full post is here >>> https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5403738

Decision:
Successful

Assessor Name:
Rebecca G...

Assessor summary of operator case:
the operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for dropping off/picking up outside of a designated area.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant’s case is that the amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 and furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. The appellant states that there is no registered keeper liability, and airport land is not ‘relevant land’ and is covered under bylaws and so is excluded from keeper liability under PoFA 2012. The appellant states that the signage is misleading and unclear, they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. There is no landowner contract and no reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA. The appellant states that photographic evidence appears doctored, and there was no grace period given.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The operator states that it issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area. The appellant states that there is no registered keeper liability, and airport land is not ‘relevant land’ and is covered under bylaws and so is excluded from keeper liability under PoFA 2012. The operator states that it does not work, seek payment, or issue notices under PoFA 212 as this site is covered by Byelaws and states that any vehicles in breach of the Byelaws of this site are seen to be committing a criminal offence. Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that: “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”. It is from my reading of these sections of PoFA 2012 that I conclude, if statutory provision exists that imposes a liability in respect of parking on the land, PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability for any charges incurred from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. I have sought information on relevant Byelaws that may be applicable, based on the information provided to me by the operator to the effect that statutory control is in place on the land by the way of Byelaws, as conferred upon it by the London Luton Air. It states in part 3 of London Luton Airport Byelaws November 2005: “3.6 No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait in, leave or park a vehicle: (c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles”. Furthermore, it states: “7.2 Any person contravening any of the byelaws in Parts 2, 3, 4, and 6 except the byelaws referred to in byelaws 7.1 and 7.3 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 (£1000) on the standard scale”. In reviewing the case, I accept that the contravention took place on land controlled by Airport Byelaws. While the London Luton Airport Byelaws November 2005 confirms that motorists should comply with all notices, it does not detail the operator’s rights in terms of transferring liability of a parking charge from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle. In this case, the appellant has confirmed they are the keeper of the vehicle, but has not confirmed who the driver was, therefore the operator needs to demonstrate the right to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. As the operator is not relying on PoFA 2012, the Airport Byelaws must give the operator this right. Having reviewed the Byelaws, I cannot find any such right given. Therefore, in reviewing the Airport Byelaws, I find the operator has not demonstrated that it has the right to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, therefore I consider it 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.

Umkomaas

Alleluia - a POPLA Assessor who seems to have 'got it' - certainly as far as airport byelaws are concerned.

Well done OP. Would you be good enough to let us have the POPLA case reference number, the (full) name of the Assessor and the date the assessment was given - this will help others in similar airport cases, enormously.

Time also for a very serious complaint to both the DVLA and BPA that the operator was pursuing the Registered Keeper when, under Airpirt Byelaws, it had no reasonable cause to do so - as clearly determined by POPLA.

Ask the DVLA and BPA what they propose doing! Please let us know how they respond.

jredcliffe

Message from POPLA today shown below and also recently notified that from all the complaints received about the Parking operator within the copper quarter that the parking system in the residential area will be scrapped.

Thank you all so much for your help. You've guided me through the process with ease. Thanks again! Much love.

Decision Successful
Assessor NameVictoria Thackeray
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was not displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised an appeal on the following grounds: 1. Presumption the owner is also the driver 2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it was issued 69 days after the event 3. Authority from the landowner 4. Inadequate signage 5. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss 6. Failure to comply with the consumer contracts regualtion2013 7. Vehicle is a genuine resident 8. No contract was formed.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on PoFA 2012 as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it was issued 69 days after the event, as a Notice to Driver was issued to the vehicle this would not be applicable. However, the notice does need to contain the following information to comply with PoFA 2012 8(2) (c); state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f). The operator has not provided a copy of either the original notice attached to the vehicle and captured on the photographs it provided, or the Notice to Keeper issued on 18 December. The appellant has only provided a partial view of the notice they received. I cannot therefore determine if the correct information was included as detailed above. 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.

BiscuitMuncher

No rubbish mentioned about Beavis v Parking Eye?

I sincerely hope Victoria deals with my next appeal.

salmosalaris

I wouldn't . More garbage . Apparently because an NtD is stuck to the vehicle the fact that the NtK did not arrive within the 28-56 day window is irrelevant yet the appeal is from the Keeper and she's accepting the appeal because the statutory wording may not be on the NtK that is required to invoke keeper liability .
Victoria, I suggest a few nights studying POFA.
Clueless

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

Alleluia - a POPLA Assessor who seems to have 'got it' - certainly as far as airport byelaws are concerned.

Unfortunately this assessor has not "got it". Just like another similar case that I commented on a couple of days ago the assessor goes rambling on about whether or not the Bylaws confer the right to pursue the keeper. The Bylaws have nothing to do with private parking enforcement but are criminal charges to be laid in the magistrates court. Even if the Bylaws did confer liability on the keeper then the they could not be 'fined' by a PPC they would have to be taken to a magistrates court to be fined.
The point that the assessor needs to 'get' is that there are Bylaws to enforce parking therefore this is not relevant land for the purposes of POPLA thus there can be no keeper liability.