POPLA Decisions

auspuff

Thought this was unusual. I would have laid money on one of the other grounds being the winner.

Oh well that's 6-0 to me then.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant was not displaying a ticket in the vehicle.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised issues with signage at the site and states that the Notice to Keeper has not met the requirements of PoFA 2012. The appellant has also questioned the operator’s authority to
operate on the land and states that the amount requested on the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) does not represent a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, parked at the site in question on NN December 2015. The operator advises that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the vehicle was not displaying a parking ticket. While the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my report will focus solely on if the Notice to Keepers was compliant with PoFA 2012. 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.

The Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of
PoFA, 2012 that states that the creditor must ‘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;’.

From the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the operator met the conditions of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I must allow this appeal and the other grounds of appeal do not need any further consideration.

ReginaldJeeves

Hi everyone,

This was my first appeal to POPLA for a PCN received in the above location. Minster Baywatch provided no evidence pack but I wanted to share with you the decision from POPLA. 11 minutes grace for the win! May thanks to the people on this board for helping me put together this appeal. It was completed on behalf of a friend and submitted to POPLA as such.

Decision Successful

Assessor Name
Lauren Bailey

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without displaying a pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that: • The Notice to Keeper is non!compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • There was a lack of grace period • The operator has no standing to pursue charges or form a contract with drivers • The charge was not based on a genuine pre estimate of loss • The signage was unclear and inadequate

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While the appellant has raised a separate of ground of appeal, my report will focus solely on if the operator provided a sufficient time for the appellant to display a ticket. The appellant has raised that the operator has not evidenced a grace period when issuing the Parking Charge Notice. Within the operator’s evidence, it has stated that staff grant a period of 11 minutes before issuing a parking charge on sites that offer pay and display facilities. However, the photographs provided by the operator confirm that the vehicle was observed between 10:58 and 10:59. The parking charge was issued at 10:56. As such, the operator has failed to provide evidence to confirm that it has allowed the grace period stated within their evidence. Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states ‘Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice’. In this instance, the operator has confirmed the vehicle was observed for a total of three minutes. I cannot conclude that this time gave the appellant opportunity to consider the terms and conditions at the site and decide whether to stay or leave. Based on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that three minutes exceeds a “reasonable” amount of time. As such, I cannot conclude with certainty that the operator issued the parking charge correctly.

dunmol

We have a winner !!!


DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameColin Pugh
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not parked wholly within a bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that: • Railway land is not relevant land since bylaws apply to railway land. • No keeper liability. • No contract with the driver, inadequate signage. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • Lack of standing / authority from landowner. • Unreasonable/unfair terms.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As a result, the appellant is being pursued as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that she believes that the Twyford Station car park has no keeper liability, due to byelaws prevailing, not being relevant land. 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 the reading of these sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act (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. The appellant has stated that they believe the land in question is subject to Byelaws regarding the parking of vehicles, and that as such they cannot be pursued as the keeper of the vehicle using the PoFA 2012 for the charges incurred. Reviewing the Railway Byelaws (found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf) states under section 14, “Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking”, that: “(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway: 1. in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an operator or any person using the railway; or 2. otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an operator or an authorised person. (3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an operator or an authorised person at that place. (4) In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” Further to this, the Railway Byelaws state, under section 24 “Enforcement, that: “(1) Offence and level of fines Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.” From my reading of these Byelaws, I am satisfied that the operator is unable to use PoFA 2012 to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, on this occasion. Within the operator evidence it has stated that “APCOA can confirm that we do not enforce under the Bye-laws”. Therefore, I have not assessed whether the operator would have been able to pursue the appellant under the Byelaws. Accordingly, as the driver has not been identified and as PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal; however, as I have allowed this appeal on this ground I have not assessed the other points raised.

bod1467

Is this the first confirmed Bylaw appeal success? I don't remember one before, even under Old POPLA.

Actually no - I found this from last month.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70352517&postcount=2046

Aaron_Aadvark

An outrageous Railway Byelaws refusal, from Pepipoo

"Case officer findings:

The appellant’s case is that the operator cannot pursue them as the keeper due to the byelaws in place at the railway station. The appellant states that the signage at the site is inadequate. The appellant states that the operator does not have the sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant states that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As such, the operator has stated that they are pursing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. The operator has confirmed this, and states that the site is governed by the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law. The operator states that it is therefore pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Byelaws. Under Section 14 (4) (i) of the Railway Byelaws, it states that “In England and Wales: The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number

---

, parked in the car park at 13:21. From the photographs provided, there is no pay and display ticket visible on the windscreen of the vehicle. As the vehicle was observed at 13:21 with no ticket visibly displayed, and no online payment having been registered, the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Byelaws 1-3 under Section 14 of the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law states that “(1) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign. (2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway: (i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or (ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person. (3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place”. From the evidence provided in relation to byelaws, I am satisfied that the operator has pursued the owner correctly, in accordance to these statutory provisions. The appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has not disputed that they are the owner of the vehicle. As such, the owner is presumed to be the registered keeper unless they prove otherwise. For the purpose of this appeal, I will work on the basis that the appellant is therefore the owner of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signage at the site is inadequate, and there is no proof of a breach. The photographic evidence provided of the vehicle clearly shows that there is no ticket visible from the windscreen. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “vehicles must clearly display a valid parking pay and display ticket face up in the front windscreen at all times or drivers must have paid for parking by using the pay by phone service prior to leaving their vehicle unattended”. The signage further states that “The following charges are payable for the parking of vehicles contrary to the above terms and conditions of use”. In addition, the operator has provided a site map showing the signage in location at the car park, and also outlined signage in relation to the appellant’s vehicle. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (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”. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I am satisfied that the operator has placed signage prominently in order to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions. The appellant states that the operator has no contract with the landowner to enforce parking control at the site. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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”. The operator has provided a letter confirming that they have the authority to regulate parking control and enforcement on the land, providing it is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Upon review of the document provided, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to operate on the land. In their appeal, the appellant has informed that the operator has failed to provide them with a calculation of loss to prove that the charge is a pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has therefore stated that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges incurred under the Railway Byelaws. As such, the charge is a penalty, applied under applicable law, and not a charge as part of a consumer contract. As a result, there is no requirement for the operator, acting as the agent of the landowner with the authority to issue a penalty, to justify the amount requested. Under section 24 (1) of the Railway Byelaws it states that “Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. Level 3 of the standard scale is £1,000, therefore the £100 requested by the operator falls within the level of the penalty to be applied for a contravention of the Railway Byelaws. I note that the operator has provided evidence that a payment has been made for the vehicle registration

---

however, the payment was not made until 18:17, at which time the PCN had already been issued. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, it is clear that the no payment has been made for the appellant’s vehicle to park at the time the PCN has been issued. The operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the site, and that the driver of the vehicle has not complied with these. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly."

How can POPLA even consider a case being under Railway Byelaws?

"...The appellant has stated that they believe the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. The operator has confirmed this...The operator states that it is therefore pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Bylaws....For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As such, the operator has stated that they are pursing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle....I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges incurred under the Railway Byelaws. As such, the charge is a penalty, applied under applicable law, and not a charge as part of a consumer contract.

Coupon-mad

New POPLA did tell the BPA in the Autumn that (astonishingly) they were prepared to hear byelaws cases. This was just before UKPPO - they of the 'penalty' notices at Newcastle Airport fame - jumped ship to the IPC.

So the OP needs to just wait/string it out to six months then if the PPC persist in pursuing it by letter after that date, take the case to Trading Standards and/or Transport Focus (renamed from Passenger Focus).

Interestingly, people who get Service Station Road Network PCNs can also now complain to Transport Focus (not that they have teeth though):

http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/about/history/

''In 2014 the Department for Transport (DfT) announced that Passenger Focus would widen its role, from representing passengers to representing all those who use the motorways and certain A roads in England (the Strategic Road Network). This would include motorists, freight and business users, as well as those who walk or cycle on the network.

In order to reflect the added responsibility, Passenger Focus changed its name to Transport Focus.''

MR_MP

Location: Luton Airport
Operator: APCOA
Alleged offence: dropping off/picking up passenger outside designated parking area
Outcome: PCN withdrawn by operator

Description:
APCOA sent automatically issued PCN to keeper for stopping outside designated parking area at Luton Airport. The offence was identified with CCTV cameras. APCOA provided photos as proof. Asked for £80 GBP charge. Internal appeal to APCOA was rejected.

Appeal to POPLA was submitted on multiple grounds:

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
3) Not relevant Land under PoFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
4) Lack of authority
5) The alleged act is not in contravention of the airport byelaws
6) Misleading and unclear signage
7) No Reasonable cause for requesting keeper details from DVLA
8) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers 9) The PCN is in contravention of the BPA code of practice

APCOA withdrew the PCN acknowledging absence of keeper liability.

Decision from POPLA:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxx.
APCOA Parking 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


A previous very similar case had been contested by APCOA and was decided in favour of the applicant so APCOA decided not to fight this one. This demonstrates that they know that their charges for stopping on Luton Airport roads are illegal and are nothing more that fraud. I am preparing a complaint letter to BPA and DVLA...[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]EDIT:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]This is[/FONT] the post on the previous case with all info to submit a[FONT=&quot]n appeal[FONT=&quot]. I[FONT=&quot]f anybody is interested I can provide my appeal letter[FONT=&quot] as well[FONT=&quot] (add htt[FONT=&quot]p://[/FONT]):
[FONT=&quot]forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5403738[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT]

YJ68

This is an interesting one in that I won on something I didn’t even appeal…. Keeper Liability. I didn’t appeal this point as I had mentioned in my first appeal that I was the driver (oops I know, it was before I found this site).

Date of Decision
24/3/16

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Sirak Solomon

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the signage at the site was unclear. He states 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 a reasonable Grace Period was not applied. The appellant has questioned the reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at the site.

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.

Umkomaas

This is an interesting one in that I won on something I didn’t even appeal…. Keeper Liability. I didn’t appeal this point as I had mentioned in my first appeal that I was the driver (oops I know, it was before I found this site).

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.

This is descending into a farce! You just couldn't make some of this stuff up. Well done nonetheless OP.

It will be interesting to see if Britannia go back to POPLA on this, and whether POPLA will deal with it with the same dismissive 'case closed, goodbye' line they've used previously on some motorists querying decisions.

YJ68

Umkomaas wrote: »

This is descending into a farce! You just couldn't make some of this stuff up. Well done nonetheless OP.

It will be interesting to see if Britannia go back to POPLA on this, and whether POPLA will deal with it with the same dismissive 'case closed, goodbye' line they've used previously on some motorists querying decisions.

Thanks Umkomaas. I couldn't have done it without the help of everyone on this site.

It was only in my first appeal directly to Britannia that I had mentioned I was the driver. Once Britannia rejected my appeal and I went on to the next stage with POPLA, I did not mention being the driver (or not) in my appeal to them.

It is curious though why the assessor chose to uphold the appeal on a point I hadn't even put forward. Whatever the case I am very pleased it turned out well for me. However, I do feel for others who have lost their appeals even though they put forth strong cases. It seems that it depends on which assessor you get and how they approach the assessment of the case.

I thought that Britannia only had 21 days to go back to POPLA. I haven't heard anything further since the decision on 24th March so I'm hoping that that's the end of it!