POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

adammorr wrote: »

Thanks coupon-mad. My charge is due tomorrow then litigation will start so is it still suitable to contact POPLA complaints?

Why do you think that you will be Minster Baywatch's very first small claims court case?

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Minster_Baywatch.html

adammorr

Fair point

bucklag

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameLauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum parking time at the site.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has no authority to pursue the parking charge. He says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and that the signage is not sufficient. The appellant says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is not reliable or accurate and that the operator has no legitimate interest with reference to the Beavis case.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While the appellant has raised a separate ground of appeal, my report will focus solely on the signs reference to the parking charge amount. The appellant has stated that the operator has no legitimate interest in the land and referred to the Beavis case. 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 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 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 documenting the signage at the location and a site map also which documents the signs placed around the car park in question. However, the signs provided do not clearly state the amount that will be charged to motorists that do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking at the location. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the signage in place at the location is “conspicuous” or “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice. It therefore does not meet the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in that the “wording of the notices” is not sufficiently “clear” to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who use this car park.

Umkomaas

Beavis bites back, supporting the adage that every cloud has a silver lining!

Ouch, TPS!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5422280

pinky1984

Original thread: hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5445008

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that the appellant was stopped in a prohibited area.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as there is no keeper liability and that the signage on site is inadequate. The appellant has also questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land in question.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
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. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, 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. 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. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

If you wish to exact some revenge/pain on the PPC you could 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

turbowoowoo

Operator Information and Evidence

Submitted 01/01/0001



POPLA assessment and decision

12/05/2016




Verification Code

XXXXXXXXX



Decision

Successful


Assessor Name

Timothy Jessop


Assessor summary of operator case


The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid ticket.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper issued is non-compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has also stated that the operator does not have the authority to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in relation to this land. They state as well that the PCN does not represent a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss and that it is formed from unfair contract terms.


Assessor supporting rational for decision


Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Within its case summary, the operator has confirmed the car park is operated under byelaws by Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd. The landowner authority that has been provided confirms that a contract for parking management is in place and that this authority is given to a company named Meteor Parking Ltd. The operator has failed to provide any explanation for the difference in name, so I do not consider this to be sufficient to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. As a result I cannot consider this PCN to have been issued correctly.


Thanks to everyone for their help

Castle

CLASSIC!!
Meteor Parking Ltd changed their name to Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd in January 2016, but couldn't be bothered to explain that to POPLA.

Coupon-mad

OMG that's useful...I am doing 4 x Indigo POPLA appeals for a friend! Probably something best not to spell out 'Janet & John' style, till the comments stage though.

stillmans39

Success!. I've received this email from POPLA:

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXXXX.

MET Parking Services 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

Here is the transcript of my appeal sent to POPLA:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am appealing Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXX, issued by Met Parking Services on 4th March 2016 on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability.
A Notice to Keeper has not been issued. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Paragraph 4 of The Act states that

(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met
The condition specified in paragraph 6 “is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.”
Paragraph 9 states this notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given"

As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle. For this reason my appeal must be upheld.

2. The parking charge has been issued incorrectly and the reason for the charge is unclear. The rejection letter from MET Parking Services following the initial appeal states that: "the terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at this site including that there is a 90 minute maximum stay for the use of McDonald's customers only" As the driver was in the car park for less than 90 minutes and was a customer, there are no grounds at all for the issuing of this parking charge notice.

The rejection letter states that "a site survey was conducted whilst your vehicle was on the premises ...We note you state that the driver was a paying customer, however, the manager of the restaurant signed the survey to confirm that there was no one present to take accountability for your vehicle and to authorise the issuing of this charge" There is insufficient evidence that the driver was not on the premises. MET Parking Services need to show clear proof of the efficacy of the site survey - that they checked all parts of the premises (including the toilets) and surveyed every customer in the restaurant.

3. The signage is deliberately misleading. The signs displayed around the car park clearly state that it is a customer car park and there is a maximum stay of 90 minutes. Only in the terms and conditions does it state that it is “for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only" This implies that the car park is to be used by those patronising the restaurant, not those who are shopping or using the services of other businesses nearby.

However there are always times when customers may need to leave the premises - e.g. to withdraw money from a cash point, to take an urgent phone call, to attend to a car alarm etc. If customers are specifically forbidden to leave the premises for any reason, even when they have purchased food from the restaurant, this needs to be made clear on the signs and should be included in the red ‘headline’ section of the signage. One would expect the signs to say something like 'users of this car park must not leave the premises'.

It is also unclear what constitutes the premises - the restaurant only or the restaurant and the car park. If it is only the restaurant, then drivers would be in breach of parking regulations when walking to or from their car to the restaurant. If it does also include the car park, as I assume it must, then did the parking attendant also survey every person in the car park, as well as inside the restaurant, and can MET Parking Services offer clear proof of this?

I hope you will consider my points carefully. I would emphasise that point 1 is not a subjective argument but a bald statement of fact. A Notice to Keeper is required in this case by law and this has not been issued. I therefore see no way in which the charge issued by the PPO can be upheld.

Yours faithfully ....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5441916