POPLA Decisions

fuzzy_wuzzy

Operator Name: Parking Eye Ltd

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in an area which is only permitted for staff permit holders only.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant does not believe that the operator has complied with 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 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 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. Section 9 4(b) sets out to parking operators that “the notice must be given by sending it by post, to a current address for service for the keeper, so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period”. Under section 9 (5) it states “the relevant period for the purpose of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”. In reference to this, after reviewing the operator’s evidence I can see this is over the 14 day period permitted by PoFA 2012. As a result, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the regulations set out in 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.

Thanks for all the advice on this forum!

DollyDee_2

Could you please post the name of the assessor and your POPLA Verification Code, it would help others with future appeals.

Thanks - Dolly

Mr_Reality

Assessors Name - Timothy Jessop

POPLA Code - 6662515562

Aquila Residential Aprtments Cardiff Bay
[FONT=&quot]Allowed [/FONT]–[FONT=&quot] March 2016 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your parking charge Appeal against Premier Park. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX, arising out of the presence of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Appellant Appealed against liability for the parking charge.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Allowed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of operator case:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay. Assessor summary of appellant case:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The appellant’s case is that the signage in the car park was inadequate and that the operator has provided no evidence of a contract with the landowner.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They have also stated the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 20 12 and does not demonstrate a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reasons for the Assessors determination: The operator has provided a copy of the PCN issued following the parking incident.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the appellant has not ›been identified as the driver I must ensure this PCN has met the requirements of PoFA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA states the PCN must (9f) warn the keeper that if after the [/FONT]

Period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given —
[FONT=&quot](i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,[/FONT]
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 PCN issued to the appellant states “If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper o / the vehicle. “
I this case I do not consider or that the operator has, fully met the requirements of PoFA as by informing the appellant it can seek to recover payment after 28 days, it has failed to meet section (9f) as this 28 day period will not begin until the day after the notice is given.
As such I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, the Appeal Allowed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely

[FONT=&quot](not sure if the verifi[FONT=&quot]cation code [FONT=&quot]is traceable as i started online appeal than sw[FONT=&quot]itched to [FONT=&quot]po[FONT=&quot]stal due to lack of confidence in the new P[FONT=&quot]OPLA website).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you to[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]the Forum for a[FONT=&quot]ll the help on this keep up [FONT=&quot]the[FONT=&quot] fight![/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Mr_Reality wrote: »

Assessors Name - Timothy Jessop

POPLA Code - 6662515562

Aquila Residential Aprtments Cardiff Bay
[FONT=&quot]Allowed [/FONT]–[FONT=&quot] March 2016 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your parking charge Appeal against Premier Park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the appellant has not ›been identified as the driver I must ensure this PCN has met the requirements of PoFA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA states the PCN must (9f) warn the keeper that if after the [/FONT]

Period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given —
[FONT=&quot](i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,[/FONT]
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 PCN issued to the appellant states “If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper o / the vehicle. “
I this case I do not consider or that the operator has, fully met the requirements of PoFA as by informing the appellant it can seek to recover payment after 28 days, it has failed to meet section (9f) as this 28 day period will not begin until the day after the notice is given.
As such I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, the Appeal Allowed. [/FONT]

Groundbreaking and VERY useful for Premier Park cases. Thankyou for the POPLA code and Assessor's name, as we can tell people to quote this exactly in future.

We now have Premier Park, Britannia (and F1rst Parking on pepipoo forum, and PPS but they've hopped to the IPC now) NTK decisions saying 'not compliant with the POFA' from POPLA.

:T

sa22ie

Original Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390160

Decision: Successful

Assessor: Victoria Thackeray

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 states it took 15 minutes on arrival to find a space and get advice on purchasing parking as there was no information available of tariffs after 6pm. The driver purchased parking time and remained for the time purchased and it took approximately 5 minutes to exit. The appellant queries if the ANPR cameras may be out of sync with each other. The appellant also states the PCN does not detail the amount due. The appellant has referred to an attached document for further information on their appeal however no document is attached.


Assessor supporting rational for decision: When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions by parking their vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle enter the car park at 18.12 and exit at 22.25 following a stay of 4 hours 12 minutes, and the signs in place on the site. The appellant states the first 15 minutes were spent securing a space and understanding the tariff for after 6pm. The operator has provided a copy of a payment made at 18.23. The British Parking Association code of practice 13.2 states: You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. 13.4 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. I consider the period between entry and purchasing the ticket to be in line with what the appellant has detailed and the additional 2 minutes after the purchase expired to exiting to be reasonable, as both parties have agreed there was a purchase of 4 hours parking, I am allowing the appeal on the grounds of the grace period. I have not taken any other ground for appeal into consideration as it has no bearing on the outcome.

thanks to everyone for your support

nigelbb

Well done with a fair & sensible assessment.

I do wonder whether the names of the assessors are real or whether fictitious as is common with Call Centre staff.

Coupon-mad

sa22ie wrote: »

Original Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390160

Decision: Successful

Assessor: Victoria Thackeray

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 states it took 15 minutes on arrival to find a space and get advice on purchasing parking as there was no information available of tariffs after 6pm. The driver purchased parking time and remained for the time purchased and it took approximately 5 minutes to exit. The appellant queries if the ANPR cameras may be out of sync with each other. The appellant also states the PCN does not detail the amount due. The appellant has referred to an attached document for further information on their appeal however no document is attached.


Assessor supporting rational for decision: When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions by parking their vehicle.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle enter the car park at 18.12 and exit at 22.25 following a stay of 4 hours 12 minutes, and the signs in place on the site. The appellant states the first 15 minutes were spent securing a space and understanding the tariff for after 6pm. The operator has provided a copy of a payment made at 18.23.

The British Parking Association code of practice 13.2 states: You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

13.4 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.

I consider the period between entry and purchasing the ticket to be in line with what the appellant has detailed and the additional 2 minutes after the purchase expired to exiting to be reasonable, as both parties have agreed there was a purchase of 4 hours parking, I am allowing the appeal on the grounds of the grace period.

I have not taken any other ground for appeal into consideration as it has no bearing on the outcome.

thanks to everyone for your support

That's a very useful decision too.

Shows that the initial grace period in this case was deemed reasonable because the appellant stated what the problem was in establishing the fee after 6pm before they paid, hence on arrival, they took 11 minutes including the time to query the signage with someone and then actually push the keypad buttons, use the machine and make the payment.

11 minutes at the start has not been deemed 'reasonable' before so we can use this (because of course it is reasonable!).

Please could we have the POPLA code to quote, sa22ie?

:T

Interesting also that at Aire Street, this OP is saying the fee after 6pm is not clear. I would never say an appellant should admit to 'getting change' or crossing the road out of the site, though:

There was details of the fee between 8am and 5pm, then a price for all night parking but there was no details about parking charges after 5pm if you weren't staying all night.

I spoke to another driver who pulled in as I was looking to see if he used the car park often enough to know but he didn't. We stood together looking at the tariff but he also didn't understand the signage and felt in the same predicament. [STRIKE]I crossed the road to the gallery (where I was headed) and asked if they knew what the parking fair was, but they didn't. I got change from a tenner at the gallery incase the change I came prepared with wasn't enough[/STRIKE]

and as I came out the other driver had just got off the phone to someone he knew who did use the car park regularly who said "Just keep putting money in the metre and it will tell you how many hours you have." I put money in the meter and paid what I think was the equivalent of the all night fee and displayed my ticket.

Coupon-mad

Here is the F1rst Parking POPLA code and decision from pepipoo where their NTK was found non-compliant in TWO ways.

We must use these decisions!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103947&hl=2610436602

Assessor: M. Yates
Date: 30/03/2016
POPLA code: 2610436602

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is the ticket issued does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA 2012).

There is no clearly marked signage at the college entrance that shows the terms and conditions the ticket has been issued.

The evidence submitted by the operator shows the vehicle exiting the college grounds at [the specified time]. The timestamped photograph shows the vehicle was not in the car park at the time of the alleged contravention.

Only visiting vehicles parked for longer than one hour are in breach of the conditions.

There is no offer of parking to anyone without a permit so the money cannot be demanded.



Assessor supporting rational for decision
... Under the POFA 2012 guidelines, section 9 (2)(b) states; “Inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect to the specified period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full”.

Having reviewing the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. The notice to keeper does advise that the driver was not known and asks the keeper to name the driver, but it does not say the driver is liable for the parking charge.

Under the POFA 2012 guidelines, section 9 (f) states; “Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning the day after that on which the notice is given” Having reviewed the notice to keeper sent to the appellant, the notice to keeper only states that “the amount outstanding after 28 days”

From this evidence POFA 2012 has not been followed correctly, therefore the liability for the parking charge has not been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle.

shortstay

here is my recent successful appeal decision against LDK, which must add weight to the advice from regulars here to include all possible avenues of appeal (when I thought that non compliance with POFA was my key). Thanks again:)

06/04/2016
Code 3460366028

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle registered under XXXXXXX failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site by parking and failing to display a valid parking ticket.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that there is a lack of authority from the landowner.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal; however, my report will focus on the provision of landowner authority. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states 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. After reviewing the operator’s information, there is no evidence of authority from the landowner that demonstrates it is entitled to issue Parking Charge Notices on this site. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Umkomaas

No authority from the landowner? They shouldn't be issuing tickets, the DVLA shouldn't be divulging your details and the BPA should be sanctioning the operator!

Please take the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

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:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69199071#Comment_69199071

Complaints to the BPA and DVLA can be emailed to:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk
Steve Clark
Head of Operational Services
British Parking Association
Stuart House
41-43 Perrymount Road
Haywards Heath
West Sussex
RH16 3BN

and DVLA:

FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk