POPLA Decisions

rob_ste

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameLauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in an unauthorised manner.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that this part of Garrick Close is not marked with double yellow lines. The appellant has raised that the signage states parking must be within a designated parking area where applicable and that his vehicle did not cause an obstruction. The appellant has referred to the parking charge as a penalty and that the operator has not complied with section 13.1 or 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, my report will focus solely on the signage at the location. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the location. The photographs show that the appellant parked on the roadside. The appellant has stated that this area is not marked with yellow lines and that the signage states to park in a designated parking area where applicable. The appellant has raised that he has parked in this area for a number of years and it is not clear that parking is not permitted. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state vehicles, “parked outside of a designated parking area” will be issued with a parking charge. 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.” However, I do not consider that the signage at this location does clearly inform motorists where parking is not permitted. The signage does state that motorists are required to park in a marked bay or that parking on the roadside is not permitted. As such, I cannot consider that the appellant was sufficiently made aware that parking in this manner would result in a parking charge being issued. Therefore, I cannot conclude with certainty that the operator issued the parking charge correctly.

NorthernSoul89

Didn't even need to get as far as POPLA with a Civil Enforcement PCN I received.

First thing I noticed was the issue date was a month after the incident date, so I sent off an email to them based on the PCN challenge template, but added in a paragraph about a notice must be issued within 14 days as stated in POFA.

Received a letter back saying the PCN has been cancelled.

1505grandad

Email received today from Wright Hassall ALLOWING appeal I submitted to old POPLA on behalf of a family member. The site is the same as my daughter's allowed appeal last year (Aylesbury Shopping Centre). UKPC this time did not even submit anything for us to rebut.


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 has a legal right to manage the car park. Accordingly the Appeal is allowed.

chica0208

Hello everyone,

Just wanted to share news of another POPLA success, this time against APCOA at Bristol Parkway railway station. We submitted two different appeals (with different POPLA codes) for two different tickets, issued on two different days during the same week back in February. One is still pending, but given I submitted identical appeal letters (and identical responses to the APCOA evidence pack) I would be more than a little surprised and miffed if the other one wasn't successful, too! (and if it isn't, I will fight it tooth and nail!) :-)

Anyway, in context, I think APCOA shot themselves in the foot because they provided their "proof" from First Great Western that they have authority to enforce parking charges at Bristol Parkway etc etc in their evidence pack, but I noticed that the date of the contract term had actually expired last month so I responded saying "their letter isn't even in date anymore, therefore I question the validity of this" etc and it seems to have done the trick!

Massive thank you to everyone who helped - there's a lot of info on here to take in, but in the end it was worth it! Here's the full response from POPLA:




Decision

Successful



Assessor Name

Gemma Edmed



Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the vehicle registered (removed license plate details) parked at Stoke Gifford, Bristol Avon Station on 16February 2016 and no valid payment was made.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s has raised numerous grounds forappeal, as follows: • Railway land is not relevant land under the Protection ofFreedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • There is no keeper liability • No contract with thedriver due to non-compliant signage • Lack of standing/authority from landowner

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While the appellant has raised numerous grounds forappeal, my response will focus solely on the evidence of landowner authority.The operator has provided in its evidence pack a copy of a letter whichcontains the relevant information from the landowner contract as required in awitness statement. It has redacted some information which is required by POPLAto ensure that the witness statement confirms a valid landowner contract is inplace. The letter is signed by a commercial development manager; however thereis no indication of who he is acting on behalf of, so I cannot determinewhether he has the authority to act on behalf of the landowner. Section 7 ofthe British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “If you do notown the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must havethe written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The writtenconfirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land inquestion and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car parkmanagement for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it mustsay that the landowner (or the appointed agent) requires you to keep to theCode of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parkingcharges.” As the appellanthas called into question the right of the operator to issue and enforce ParkingCharge Notices at this site, I would expect to have seen evidence of a current,valid contract between the landowner and the operator. This has not beenprovided and, accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

bod1467

Well done ... but actually the date is not why POPLA allowed your appeal. (Read it more closely). If the contract date was valid at the time of the "offence" then it would be valid, regardless of if it had expired at the time of the POPLA hearing.

wahooanna

I've had a successful appeal against Parking Ticketing Ltd;

Here is the assessor's decision (Rochelle Merritt);

"While the appellant has raised several grounds of appeal my assessment will focus solely on signage. The operator has provided the terms and conditions of the car park which state “Vehicles parked in this area must clearly display a valid P.T.L. authorised permit in the windscreen”.

Additionally, “Failure to comply with the parking conditions below will result in a £100 parking charge notice being reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days” The operator has sent me images of where the signs are located around the site. From this evidence it is clear that the majority of the signs are placed above another sign which this operator is not responsible for.

In comparison to the sign below the operator’s sign is much smaller and the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park.

In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space, especially considering there is a much larger sign below that does not state that a PCN will be payable for non-compliance.

From the evidence provided to me on this occasion the Parking Charge Notice was not issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal."

The date was 02/06/2016 and the code is 5960956830.

chica0208

And another success, this is Part II of our two-part appeal (e.g. two separate tickets with two separate POPLA codes, although ultimately identical letters were sent as appeal!) Interestingly the assessor is a different person to the first one (three posts up) and has used entirely different reasons to allow the appeal, but who cares, ultimately the appeal has been allowed! :-) Thank you everyone, your assistance was very much appreciated! Here's the appeal result:

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Sophie Taylor


Assessor summary of operator case
The operators case is that the appellant has failed to make a valid payment to park.



Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the land is not ‘relevant land’ and therefore the operator cannot pursue them under PoFA 2012. The appellant advises that the signage is non-compliant, and therefore contracts cannot be formed with drivers. The appellant states that the operator has no authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers.



Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided in relation to this case, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently evidenced how they are pursuing the appellant. Under the Railway Byelaws, the owner of the vehicle is liable for the charge. However, throughout the evidence provided, the operator refers to the Notice issued, as a Parking Charge Notice, and states that the driver breached the terms and conditions of the site. This would suggest that the operator is not using Railway Byelaws, but rather issuing the notice as a standard Parking Charge in order to pursue the driver. The operator has failed to provide a copy of the original Notice given, however as it states it was issued via ANPR, and the operator has contacted the DVLA to retrieve keeper details, I can only presume that a Notice to Keeper has been issued. There is no evidence to support whether a Penalty Charge Notice or a Parking Charge Notice was issued. Further to this, the operator states in its evidence that as the driver has been identified, that they are liable for the charge. However, should the operator be pursuing the appellant under byelaws, it would be irrelevant to identify the driver, as the owner is liable for the charge. As there is no clarification as to how the operator intends to pursue the appellant for the charge, I cannot determine whether the operator has pursued the appellant correctly in accordance with either the Railway Byelaws, as a Penalty Charge Notice, or as a Parking Charge Notice as a breach of terms and conditions.

trisontana

Once again this shows up the confusion regarding station car parks. Are they ordinary parking charge notices or bylaw penalty charge notices? Our local station car-park has just been transferred from the council to East Midlands Trains and the new notices can't make up their mind. They talk about railway bylaws but then say motorists will be issued with a parking charge . This really needs to be sorted out.

MZhelp

Another successful appeal thanks to this forum!

Email from POPLA said:
"Smart 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."

For my full appeal letter that lead to success, edits proposed by @coupon-mad, see the forum thread entitled 'Parking Charge Notice fell off Windscreen'

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70857036#Comment_70857036

Travel4life

Another success story

Birmingham Airport Ibis Layby PCN from APCOA.

Original thread here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5374656

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Robert Harrison

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided any evidence.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the parking charge notice is not compliant with POFA 2012. That the signage on site is inadequate. That the operator has no proprietary interest and that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.