POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

The Assessor was right to consider keeper liability if Britannia had not made clear in their evidence that they were pursuing you as driver (e.g. by including a copy of the appeal letter/email you sent them). If the parking firm missed that out and left it vague it's their lookout!

freester

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle registered under XXNN YYY failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site by unauthorised parking on site.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he arrived at the hotel and he was late meeting someone. He states he unloaded his bags and parked on double yellow lines.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of sufficient clear signage located throughout the car park which clearly states vehicles parking with a valid permit, ticket or written authority fully on display in the windscreen area. No exceptions. Park in a marked bay only where present. The signage also explains that failure to adhere to the terms and conditions will result in the operator issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the value of £100. The British Parking Association Code of Practice mentions under section 18.3 “specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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”. I note the appellant states parked on double yellow lines whilst he was unloading his bags, however, this does not detract from the fact it remains the appellant’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions on site by ensuring he is parked within a marked bay rather than double yellow lines. After reviewing the operator’s evidence I can see the appellant parked on double yellow lines, double yellow lines mean no waiting at any time unless there are signs that specifically indicate restrictions. As such, the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the site. I also note the appellant’s comments, however, the onus is with the appellant to comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As the appellant has failed to adhere with the terms and conditions of the site by unauthorised parking, I am satisfied that the PCN issued is valid. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Ralph-y

one is inclined to believe that the new POPLA is training the 'baristas' for the IAS ....

Ralph:cool:

Myriddin

A win, of sorts:

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]An Appeal has been opened with the reference 1410756524.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Civil Enforcement 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Team[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ET6116/001[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

redkop71

Had an unsuccessful decision but the reg number on the evidence pack does not relate to my vehicle. POPLA rules state you can't challenge their decision but there must be a technicality I could use on this one. Any advice???

Decision
Unsuccessful



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant has exceeded the maximum permitted stay in the car park without authorisation.



Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he believes the signage is inadequate and far too small, as if he would have seen that the maximum parking time was 90 minutes then he would have adhered to the limit. The appellant states that he does not believe the signage to be clear enough to differentiate between customers and non-customers, as he understood that being a customer that the parking limit would not apply to him.



Assessor supporting rational for decision
Upon entering a car park it is expected that the motorist complies with the site’s terms and conditions. By deciding to park at a site the motorist enters into a contract with the operator, so it is their responsibility to ensure that they are reading the signage displayed. The site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which record the duration at the site by taking a picture of the vehicle registration details upon entering and exiting the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle KS52 KPT entering the car park of McDonald’s Towcester at 07:43am and exiting at 09:33am, totalling a stay of one hour and 50 minutes at site. The appellant states that he believes the signage is inadequate and far too small, as if he would have seen that the maximum parking time was 90 minutes then he would have adhered to the limit. The appellant states that he does not believe the signage to be clear enough to differentiate between customers and non-customers, as he understood that being a customer that the parking limit would not apply to him. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.3 states “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at site, and also a site signage plan that shows the location of signs at site. The signage states “McDonald’s customer car park… 90 minutes maximum stay… terms and conditions of use… this car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes.” The operator states that the entrance sign measures 750mm x1,000mm and the terms and conditions signs measure 600mm x 800mm. The signage is significantly larger than the minimum signage size set out in section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice that states they should be at least 450mm x 450mm. Having viewed the signage at site I am satisfied that it fully complies to the BPA Code of Practice section 18.3, and is clear in instructing motorists how to park at site. As the appellant has exceeded the maximum time of 90 minutes allowed for McDonald's customers at site he has breached the terms and conditions of parking at the site. I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge.

Ralph-y

hi and welcome redkop71

yes ........ if you read up on some of the appeal unsuccessful posts higher up this thread .... it will explain how to complain .....


can you pleas post up the assessors name .....

your POPLA appeal appears to have been week with only one point

did you ever complain to the Mc'c manager and head office ?

who was the PPC ?

Ralph:cool:

adammorr

Assessor Name
Sophie Taylor

Assessor summary of operator case
The operators case is that the appellant has not paid for parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the app that they used to pay for parking made an error when inputting the vehicle registration number.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellants vehicle, registration number XYZ parked in the car park at 13:11. The operator has provided evidence of the online payment record, this shows that no payment has been registered for the appellant’s vehicle on the day of the contravention. The appellant states that they did pay the correct amount for parking; however the registration was submitted incorrectly. The appellant has provided evidence of the VAT receipt. This confirms that the appellant made payment for a vehicle to park, however entered the wrong registration. As such, the appellants vehicle has not been registered to park. While this indicates that the appellant has paid to park, it is clear to me that they did not correctly enter the vehicle registration number. As such, the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check they input the correct details. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the location which lists the terms and conditions, and states that “A parking charge of £85 will be issued to unauthorised vehicles”. As the appellant did not enter the correct vehicle registration number, the vehicle was not authorised to park. From this evidence provided I can only conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

Ralph-y

here we go again .....

assessors who need assessing!

this is what one judge felt about parkinglie's technology ....

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/parkingeye-lost-in-courttechnology.html

adammorr please read through some of the above appealsUnsuccessful and please do the appeals listed ....

do not pay !

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Geraint_Parry

My parking ticket was issued for parking in supermarket on 26 April 2014, I disputed straight away, received some letters from DRP, which I duly ignored, I believe I sent one letter stating I would take this further if I heard anymore. Now I have received a letter from DRP dated 26 Apr 2016 demanding the payment. Any advice, ? I do not intend to make payment but I cannot find original letters as they are over 22 and half months ago.
Thanks anyone

pogofish

Geraint_Parry wrote: »

My parking ticket was issued for parking in supermarket on 26 April 2014, I disputed straight away, received some letters from DRP, which I duly ignored, I believe I sent one letter stating I would take this further if I heard anymore. Now I have received a letter from DRP dated 26 Apr 2016 demanding the payment. Any advice, ? I do not intend to make payment but I cannot find original letters as they are over 22 and half months ago.
Thanks anyone

This is not a POPLA decision and spamming the forum is something you clearly agreed not to do as part of your signup.