POPLA Decisions

bodrulm123

Another successful appeal against LDK :T:T

Decision

Successful


Assessor Name

Colin Pugh


Assessor summary of operator case


The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant’s vehicle was either not parked wholly within a bay or parked with an expired parking ticket.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant has raised various grounds for appeal as detailed below: • Incorrect contravention stated • Grace periods • Landowner authority • Inadequate signage • Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL) • British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice breach: referred to debt collectors during POPLA appeal • Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Accuracy and Compliance


Assessor supporting rational for decision


While the appellant has raised numerous grounds of appeal, my report will focus solely on the operator’s authority to operate on the land in question.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The appellant has questioned landowner authority and, as such; I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

Section 7.1 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). 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”.

Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

I recognise the operator has provided 2 pages (1 & 6) of the agreement, however, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice.

As the operator has failed to provide the required evidence of landowner authority, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Nice one!

As I said in your thread, in future we need to cite Section 7 of the BPA CoP (particularly 7.3) in POPLA appeals from the outset, as POPLA ignore comments added later.

Umkomaas

As the operator has failed to provide the required evidence of landowner authority, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

See my advice in post #2102 immediately preceding your post. I'm sure you'd like to give the pot another stir!

POPLA really should be referring all these 'No Landowner Authority' cases to the BPA for sanctioning of the PPC and to the DVLA for them to no longer divulge keeper data for the site in question.

Without authority, this is potential fraud. Maybe should be escalated further - TS (or even BiB)?

Guys_Dad

Regrettably failing to provide POPLA with proof does not necessarily mean that the PPC doesn't have the relevant authority. Simply could mean that they made a poor job of presenting their case.

Umkomaas

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Regrettably failing to provide POPLA with proof does not necessarily mean that the PPC doesn't have the relevant authority. Simply could mean that they made a poor job of presenting their case.

I'm more than well aware of that GD, but when there's the opportunity of finding a chink in the armour, why not exploit it with a couple of letters. There will be cases when a bull's eye is scored.

Why should the motorist always be expected to bend over and take it without a whimper?

Why not give the PPC a taste of their own medicine?

eah42

A successful appeal against Parking Eye!

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not purchase any parking time to cover the time spent on the site.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant states that the parking charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant states that the signs breach the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and therefore creates no contract with the motorist. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA 2012). The appellant does not feel that the ANPR system is unreliable or accurate. The appellant says that there has not been a reasonable grace period applied.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided me with photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the Aire Street Car Park at 19:21 and exiting at 19:33 for a stay totalling 12 minutes. The operator has provided a system printout that shows the appellant did not purchase any parking time. The operator has provided photographs of the signage that is located at the site. The signage states that “Parking tariffs apply…failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. 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. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In this instance the operator has provided written authorisation in response to this ground of appeal. However, the written authorisation is signed 18 Jun 2012. The written authorisation reads “A period commencing on the effective date and expiring after 12 months”. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land on the date of the contravention and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. 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

Well done - Aire Street's dodgy ownership/contract strikes again!

buffness

Good Afternoon All,

I received a PCN from Parking Eye Limited a few months ago - I decided to follow the normal appeals process and surprise surprise - Parking Eye Ltd sent a generic 'UNSUCCESSFUL' letter to me, along with information on how to appeal to POPLA.

After reading various forums and information on here, and using a template letter provided by a different website, I have received information that POPLA have deemed my appeal as 'successful' - yipee!!

Below is a link to the thread I've posted on here, providing the letter I used to POPLA.

Have a great weekend everyone

Vijay

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70470309#Comment_70470309

karlon

Thanks to the help, information and advice posted on the MSE forums (and Parking Cowboys and Pepipoo etc) I've successfully appealed against two parking tickets - saving me £200. Woop!

Appeal 1 - Daughter was visiting a friend in Brighton. Her friend's resident parking permit was in use and the visitor parking permit only covered 9am-5pm. Ethical Parking issued a ticket shortly before 5am.

Daughter ignored ticket (as they do) and I found out about it when the NTK arrived.

I cobbled together an appeal letter which was rejected. Most of my requests for further information were ignored but Ethical Parking did send me more photos - these showed a time gap of less than 2 minutes between the earliest photo of the car and the ticket being issued. I thought this might win the case but following MSE advice I appealed on a number of issues - and copied and pasted from appeals that were posted online.

POPLA assessment and decision
08/04/2016
Verification Code

2362295009

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameSamuel Connop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that failed to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that there are no signs at the entrance or exit of the site. The signs within the car park are on the garage doors and are not sufficiently lit. The appellant states that residents were not issued with visitor permits covering the time the vehicle was parked. The appellant states that there was no grace period given. The appellant has questioned the landowner authority. The appellant states that the charge 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 solely on Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. 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.” As such, it is evident that I must consider whether the signage at the location was sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Within its response, the operator has provided a number of photographs of the signage at the location from this I consider the signage to be unclear and difficult to read. Additionally, I am not satisfied that the parking charge is visible. Therefore, I can only conclude that the signs are not “conspicuous” and “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and are sufficiently “clear” in order to meet the standard outlined by the Supreme Court as referred to above. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is not allowable. Although the charge may not be a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss; the signage at the location is not clear the charge is unclear. Ultimately, I can only conclude that the signage had not complied with section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. As a result, I cannot be satisfied that Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.


Appeal 2 - Son was attending a training course in Oldham. He parked in Rock Street car park which uses an ANPR system and is managed by Smart Parking. He paid for 4 hours parking but stayed for four and a half hours, and left without realising he had overstayed. We were sent an NTK and a request for £100.

Smart Parking rejected our appeal.

We appealed to POPLA fully expecting to lose. (We didn't really have a case, we just felt £100 was too high a penalty)

The appeal was cut and pasted from posts on this forum, The main arguments centred on the use of ANPR and the existence of a financial consumer contract - differentiating our case from Beavis- as my son had paid for parking

Smart Parking decided not to contest our appeal so we won. Yay!

Thank you again to all those who have shared their appeal details and experiences, and good luck to everyone who is appealing a private parking charge.

Umkomaas

Therefore, I can only conclude that the signs are not “conspicuous” and “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and are sufficiently “clear” in order to meet the standard outlined by the Supreme Court as referred to above. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is not allowable. Although the charge may not be a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss; the signage at the location is not clear the charge is unclear. Ultimately, I can only conclude that the signage had not complied with section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. As a result, I cannot be satisfied that Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

Maybe a glimmer of hope that (at least one Assessor of) POPLA is starting to get a marginally better understanding of the Beavis Judgment?