IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

POPLA Decisions

Options
1217218220222223481

Comments

  • henrik777
    henrik777 Posts: 3,054 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Umkomaas wrote: »
    How about 'signage'? Beavis certainly increased the importance placed on signage.

    How about definition of 'Premises' or 'Site' or 'Boundary'. Where does Beavis override?

    Contract content in the context of the 'essentially binding' BPA CoP.



    Lots of the above is germane and not overridden by Beavis.

    This was intended as a helpful resource to the OP. Do you feel it not helpful. Do you think Beavis overrides any 'leaving the site' cases and Ibbotson is totally redundant?

    Ibbotson was much more than GPEOL.

    It is rather telling that - to my knowledge - no PPC has pursued a 'leaving the site' through the courts since Ibbotson.

    So, are you here to help the OP (if so, how?), or just visiting to score points?

    If Beavis allows them to issue these then losses do not come in to play at all. Mitigation of loss is redundant in cases where Beavis applies.
  • salmosalaris
    salmosalaris Posts: 967 Forumite
    The test would be is there a legitimate interest in enforcing a proportionate charge for leaving the site if the warden that observed it could alternatively have stopped the driver and told them to park elsewhere.
  • leeda84
    leeda84 Posts: 62 Forumite
    edited 20 May 2016 at 12:47PM
    This is the second of two appeals I have with Wright Hassall. I wonder if WH had sent the same letter to UKPC asking for specific evidence on this appeal as they did with the first one - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5465245

    Additionally, I never received the standard WH letter (there should have been 2 due to 2 appeals) to introduce themselves and to inform me the appeals process had started. This also meant I was not given the opportunity to submit further evidence for this appeal nor the one in the link above. There is proof in the link to show that UKPC was asked for specific evidence from WH. Not only was UKPC given the 7 day opportunity to include additional evidence, they were given guidance as to what evidence WH required from them. If your appeal is unsuccessful with WH - complain to ISPA because the process is not independent, nor fair and sways heavily on the side of the PPC.


    Car Park Operator - UK Parking Control Limited
    Appellant - Miss leeda84
    Appeal Verification Code - *********
    Parking Charge Reference Number - 13197*******
    Wright Hassall Reference - POPLA
    Appeal Outcome - Allowed

    We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

    We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to allow the appeal on this occasion. This means that the Appellant does not need to make payment to the Car Park Operator and the Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) must be cancelled.

    Reasons for allowing the Appeal
    • Evidence regarding this POPLA Appeal has been requested from the Car Park Operator and no
    response has been received. As such, this decision is based on the evidence currently available. The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are not in receipt of any evidence to suggest that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage the car park. Accordingly the Appeal is allowed.
  • rshome123
    rshome123 Posts: 33 Forumite
    POPLA assessment and decision
    19/05/2016
    Verification Code

    6661206995

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameLauren Bailey
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without making a valid payment.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that he paid £1 for 2 hours parking.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator monitors the site using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:13 and exiting at 13:03 on 14 April 2016. The appellant has stated that he made a payment of £1 for parking for two hours. The operator has issued the parking charge, as the appellant did not make a valid payment for parking. The operator has provided a system printout that confirms the appellant’s vehicle was not registered on the date in question. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state, “Please enter the full correct registration of your vehicle at the payment terminals”. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states, “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.” I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I also consider it clear that the vehicle registration must be entered correctly. When parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions of parking set out in the signage at the site. Whilst I accept that the appellant made a payment for parking, the signs state that the correct vehicle registration must be entered. On this occasion, the appellant has parked without correctly registering the vehicle, as such; I can only conclude that the operator issued the parking charge correctly.
  • bod1467
    bod1467 Posts: 15,214 Forumite
    On the face of it, what a waste of a POPLA appeal. :(
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,734 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    True - but I'm sure he wont be paying the nasty PPC. He'd get a fairer hearing in small claims than this drivel.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • leeda84
    leeda84 Posts: 62 Forumite
    edited 23 May 2016 at 3:15PM
    So that's leeda84 - 3 (4 if you count the cancellation at initial appeal) and UKPC - 0

    With reference to my appeal in post #2195, Wright Hassall has allowed this appeal on the same grounds. This is the appeal where I have proof that WH requested specific evidence from the PPC which is wholly unfair and is not in the remit of an alleged independent appeals service.
    Car Park Operator - UK Parking Control Limited
    Appellant - Miss leeda84
    Appeal Verification Code (“the Appeal”) - **********
    Parking Charge Reference Number - 12096********
    Wright Hassall Reference - POPLA
    Appeal Outcome - Allowed

    We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

    We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to allow the appeal on this occasion. This means that the Appellant does not need to make payment to the Car Park Operator and the Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) must be cancelled.

    Reasons for allowing the Appeal
    • Evidence regarding this POPLA Appeal has been requested from the Car Park Operator and no
    response has been received. As such, this decision is based on the evidence currently available. The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are not in receipt of any evidence to suggest that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage the car park. Accordingly the Appeal is allowed.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,734 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 19 October 2016 at 5:28PM
    Here's a fluttering P&D ticket case I helped someone on a football forum with, re Sussex County Cricket Ground which has no Ethical Parking signs about pay & display, only Sussex Sharks signs which completely omit the sum of the parking charge.

    Ethical have also missed the BPA deadline of last October for 'mandatory entrance signs' because there are only Cricket Club signs offering parking for £1. No signs AT ALL exist with Ethical's name on, except some old ones about permits (not P&D). None of the mandatory entrance signs exist and it's a big car park where the public are invited to park, so this is not an exempt site.

    Ethical also forgot to supply much of a landowner contract - only the Phase One 'permit scheme' contract. Not the alleged 'Phase 2' P&D scheme contract...and this appeal was about the P&D area.


    :D



    Decision - Successful
    Assessor Name - Carly Law


    24th May 2016

    POPLA CODE: 2360606017


    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was parked with the ticket/permit face down.

    Assessor summary of your case


    The appellant has raised several ground of appeal. These are as follows:

    • There can be no contract between the appellant and the operator, as the operator’s single sign is illegible/small font.
    • The signs are a jumble, a plethora or information and warnings but no mention of the £100 charge. There can be no contract to pay £100 at all as the signs do not state any sum.
    • The lack of entrance sign breaches the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP)– this car park is not exempt.
    • The very small font on their only sign breaches the BPA CoP, Appendix B.
    • The operator’s sign comes too late to form part of any contract, as it cannot be read before paying/parking.
    • The main sign provides for “Failure to purchase and (not or) display”. These issues did not occur.
    • The operator does not own the site, even if it is employed to regulate parking, it does not have the right to enforce charges.
    • Lord Dunedin’s four tests for a penalty apply and this charge fails that test. No ‘legitimate interest’.
    • Lord Denning’s ‘red hand rule’ applies and these signs fail that test.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision


    POPLA’ s remit is to establish if the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate how the appellant has not met the terms and conditions of the car park.

    The appellant has raised several ground of appeal, however, my report will focus on signage at the site, specifically the entrance signage.

    The appellant has stated that there is a lack of an entrance sign, which breaches the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”.

    Furthermore it goes onto state that “A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example:
    • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance
    • when the car park is very small
    • at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations
    • at parking areas where general parking is not permitted”.

    From the evidence provided by the operator and the appellant, I am not satisfied that the car park in question falls into the category of any of the above, where an entrance sign is exempt. The operator has not provided any evidence of an entrance sign at the site.

    The appellant has provided photographic evidence of what appears to be an entrance, however, this is obscured by bins infront of it and I am unable to determine what it says.

    As the operator has not provided evidence of the entrance sign at the site and from the evidence provided by the appellant, I am unable to determine that the appellant would have been able to see that the site is managed and that there are terms and conditions.

    I note that the operator has provided photographic evidence of signage at the site, however, the sign that refers to pay and display tickets, does not include the Parking Charge Notice amount. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice 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”.

    The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle on the date in question. From these, while I recognise the appellant has parked infront of a sign, this sign states, “Vehicle must clearly display a current/valid permit in the front windscreen, also be parked correctly in a bay/space only” and “If you park on this land at any time in contravention of the terms and conditions, you are contractually agreeing to pay the Parking Charges by way of a CBC (Contractual Breach Charge). CBC £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)”.

    This signage refers to permits and does not mention pay and display tickets. As such, it is reasonable to expect had the appellant seen this signage, she would not be aware that this refers to her, as she was using a pay and display ticket. It appears that this signage only relates to permits.

    From the evidence provided by both the operator and the appellant, the signage in the site is conflicting and unclear. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided, that the signage at the location meets the requirements of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice and as such, the appellant has not been able to see, read and understand the terms and conditions in order to fully comply with them.

    I note that the appellant has raised several other grounds of appeal but as I am allowing the appeal on signage, I do not need to address the other points. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

    :)
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Walaboobah
    Walaboobah Posts: 307 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    Had two wins against NCP, initial appeals rejected on both occasions but on submitting appeals to POPLA both were allowed as NCP withdrew from contesting them!

    Dear Mr X

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXX

    NCP Ltd 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
  • Browny137
    Browny137 Posts: 23 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    Decision: Refused

    Assessor: Unknown

    Date: 30.06.2015

    Grounds: Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL)

    PPC: Parking Eye

    Note - I don't find it funny that the law firm representing Parking Eye is called "Wright Hassall".
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.