POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

BiscuitMuncher wrote: »

No rubbish mentioned about Beavis v Parking Eye?

I sincerely hope Victoria deals with my next appeal.

@ BM - I think you might heed Salmosalaris' sage words.

Another of Vicky's assessments. Not so encouraging!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70419040#Comment_70419040

http://s204.photobucket.com/user/tawf9494/media/F1rst%20Parking/Untitled.png.html?sort=3&o=0

nikkietoni

WIN AT POPLA!!!
THANKS FOR ALL THE HELP ON HERE! especially Coupon Mad, Guys Dad ,and Fruitcake


sorry the site would not let me put my appeal links on here but if you click on my user name you can find all my posts .

Decision

Successful



Assessor summary of operator case


The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant did not purchase appropriate parking time or remained on the car park longer than permitted.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant has raised their appeal on the following grounds: 1. They are the vehicle hirer and there is no keeper liability 2. The operator has no authority to for parking contracts 3. There is confusing, unclear and inadequate signage 4. The amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss 5. Unclear photographs and ANPR evidence


Assessor supporting rational for decision


The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on notice to hirer as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The appellant has identified themselves as the vehicle hirer and the original Parking Chareg Notice was issued to a company, Erac UK Ltd. The operator has not provided a copy of the response from Erac UK Ltd identifying the appellant as the hirer or any agreement formed which details who is responsible for a Parking Charge Notice. I am therefore not satisfied the notice to the appellant is complaint with PoFA 2012. 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.

pulpotim1960

At the request of Coupon-mad I'm posting the result of my POPLA appeal here regarding a PCN issued by Premier Parking Solutions (PPS). Anyone wanting to read more details about this case might find this post of mine helpful - especially if you've received a PCN because you've entered an incomplete or wrong VRN into the ticket machine: Premier Parking Solutions PCN post #10 (Sorry - I don't have permission to include a proper link.) Thanks to everyone here for their excellent advice. May the fight against these rogue operators continue!




Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
Sirak Solomon


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not purchase any parking time for the duration of stay.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is not complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has questioned the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system at the site. The appellant states that there was a parking ticket purchased to cover the duration of stay.


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 at the time of the alleged 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 me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the Driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that “2) The notice must – f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the Notice to Keeper, where it states “If we do not receive details of the driver within 28 days of this notice, then if the charge is still outstanding we will have the right to recover payment from the keeper”. As such, the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012. 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.

Coupon-mad

Thanks, it's re this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70432721#Comment_70432721

POPLA Code: 6860336005
Decision Date: 24/03/2016
Assessor Name: Sirak Solomon


''The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the Notice to Keeper, where it states “If we do not receive details of the driver within 28 days of this notice, then if the charge is still outstanding we will have the right to recover payment from the keeper”. As such, the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012.''

Now they've jumped ship to the IPC, I bet the IAS won't care that POPLA said PPS' Notice to Keepers are not compliant.

But very useful to assist anyone who might be defending a court claim from PPS later.

We also have on here a POPLA code re Britannia's NTKs not being compliant and on pepipoo, a F1rst Parking decision saying the same about their NTKs being non-compliant....I'll add that one in a mo.

tellytart

My POPLA appeal was upheld. (Original thread about Parking Ticketing Ltd here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5408519)

Decision below:

POPLA assessment and decision
04/04/2016
Verification Code: 5960396500

Decision: Successful

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 without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant is appealing on the following grounds 1: The notice to keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability 2: The vehicle was parked with permission of the owner of the parking space and no method of identifying legitimately parked visitor vehicles has been provided to the resident. 3: The charge of £120 is in excess of the maximum charge outlines in the BPA CoP 4: No genuine pre-estimate of loss 5: No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers 6: No contract formed to pay £120 due to unclear sporadic signage where the parking charge is not prominent.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is appealing on the following grounds 1: The notice to keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability 2: The vehicle was parked with permission of the owner of the parking space and no method of identifying legitimately parked visitor vehicles has been provided to the resident. 3: The charge of £120 is in excess of the maximum charge outlines in the BPA CoP 4: No genuine pre-estimate of loss 5: No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers 6: No contract formed to pay £120 due to unclear sporadic signage where the parking charge is not prominent. The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the driver parked without displaying a valid permit. 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 a sign that is situated within the car park, furthermore the sign clearly state the terms and conditions set out by the operator. This includes the result of breaking the terms which will result in a PCN of £100. The operator has sent the appellant a PCN for £120 which is more than what the signage stipulates. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states under 19.5 that if the charge is to be more than £100 in the first instance (before debt collection) then it must be “justified in advance”. In addition, under 19.3 it states the charges must be shown clearly and fully to drivers on the signage as part of its terms and conditions. Based on the evidence provided we are not satisfied that the higher charge of £120 was shown and justified on the terms and conditions signage. As such, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

Umkomaas

Well done tellytart - now to cause some damage!

Write a letter of complaint to the DVLA and BPA that the PPC is attempting to extort money above and beyond any approved by the BPA. Send a copy of the PCN you received demanding £120 as well as the POPLA decision. You have had to waste time dealing with something that should never have been issued and the DVLA have released personal data when there was no reasonable cause to do so.

Ask both organisations what action they will now be taking!

xpm

Another success - although annoyingly after all the effort that was put in they provided no evidence - but hey ho, a win is a win.

Original Thread : forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5396612
(won't let me link directly as a new user)

Verification Code

3460056026

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Sophie Taylor

Assessor summary of operator case

The operators has not provided any evidence in response to the appellants appeal.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that there is no keeper liability.
The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority to pursue charges on the land.
The appellant states there has not been a breach of contract.
The appellant states the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While I acknowledge the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal, the operator has not provided any evidence to dispute the appeal and therefore I cannot consider these. As the operator has not provided any evidence in response to this appeal, I am unable to establish whether the appellant complied with the terms and conditions at the site. As such, I cannot confirm whether the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

************************************************************************************************

I am led to believe from other people I have talked to locally they just try it on every now and again at this site when the machine is out of order (frequently) and see who pays up.

specialbru

and another one from ldk !

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAmi Edwards
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis the appellant parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the charge is unfair and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant states the PCN was received outside of the required time-frame of PoFA 2012. The appellant states the signage at the site is inadequate to form a contract. The appellant states the charge is above the BPA charge limit. The appellant disputes the photographic evidence. The appellant states the operator does not have landowner authority to issue and pursue a PCN.

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis the appellant parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket. The appellant states the 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.” However, this decision was made on the basis that the charge is clearly explained to drivers when parking at the site. The burden of proof falls on the operator to demonstrate that it did clearly explain the charge to the appellant at the time of parking. The operator has provided one photograph of the signage at the site. However, there is not indication of the location of this sign and therefore I cannot determine if it was noticeable to appellant. Furthermore, due to the poor quality of the photograph I am unable to read the terms and conditions written on it, including the charge details. I must conclude the PCN was not issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, I will not consider any further grounds as they will have no bearing on my decision.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5384775

Coupon-mad

specialbru wrote: »

and another one from ldk !

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis the appellant parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket. The appellant states the 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.”

However, this decision was made on the basis that the charge is clearly explained to drivers when parking at the site. The burden of proof falls on the operator to demonstrate that it did clearly explain the charge to the appellant at the time of parking.

The operator has provided one photograph of the signage at the site. However, there is not indication of the location of this sign and therefore I cannot determine if it was noticeable to appellant. Furthermore, due to the poor quality of the photograph I am unable to read the terms and conditions written on it, including the charge details.

I must conclude the PCN was not issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, I will not consider any further grounds as they will have no bearing on my decision.

Wow, one where the Assessor realises that the Beavis decision was dependent upon clear signage. And they said so! That's a first, despite the usual regurgitation of the standard POPLA 'Beavis' paragraph.

Which Assessor please?

DollyDee_2

OP states it's Ami Edwards (3rd line of post):)