POPLA Decisions

lj_dean

Decision: Allowed :j

Assessor: Appeal was unconstested by PE.

Date:18/08/2016

Reported https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71185981#Comment_71185981

This was received from POPLA after complaining to BPA that PE had sent me a "letter before county court claim" whilst a POPLA appeal was in progress.

[FONT=&quot]Dear xxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxx .[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Parking Eye 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Team[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Letter from BPA

Dear Ms xxx,

BPA – xxx.

I have contacted Parking Eye regarding your complaint and they have advised the letter before claim letter you received was sent out in error.

In view of the above, Parking Eye have confirmed your parking charge notice has been cancelled. You will receive a formal cancellation letter from Parking Eye shortly.

As the appropriate corrective action has been taken, I have closed the investigation.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Ross_T_Boss

Ross_T_Boss wrote: »

PE missed POFA 2012 15-day limit (ANPR PCN) and I refused any further correspondence, to which they replied with a POPLA code followed by a new PCN with no mention of POFA 2012. They are looking for a default win by neutralising all my appeal points (they gave good info re: signage, authority, ANPR etc which I expect to be accepted, and said POFA does not apply so my remaining point is irrelevant). I gave POPLA a concise retort including quotes from their own guidelines stating the appeal outcome is based on liability of the appellant, which PE have clarified nicely by sending me to POPLA as the keeper then declaring the PCN outside POFA... we'll see.

UPDATE:

POPLA ignored that PE re-issued a PCN outside POFA and handed them keeper liability on a plate, based on the original NTK. No answer to my appeal point that the ANPR position makes the times invalid as they record 'time at site' not 'time in car park', and the two are not comparable (M6 Hopwood Services - petrol station, shop and car wash are accessible after leaving the car park, but prior to the exit cameras), and all signage + NTK refers to 'Time in Car Park'.

Not overly surprised to lose, but disappointed that POPLA assume 'Site' and 'Car Park' are synonymous and don't answer to a challenge, and volunteer Keeper Liability to Operators when they've rescinded it after non-compliance!

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor: NameEmily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum free stay permitted on site without making a valid payment for the additional parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the Notice to Keeper was not sent in the relevant timescale. The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is well written, however it is difficult to view in the darkness as the signs are not well lit. The appellant feels the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are inconclusive. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with Section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “2 hours free parking. Cars: 2 to 24 hours £15.00 parking only. Tariffs include the first 2 hours free parking. Please pay for parking at: WH Smith or petrol forecourts. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of £100”. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that signs must be “easy to see, read and understand”. After reviewing the evidence of the signs, I am satisfied that these meet the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. In response to the appellant’s grounds for appeal regarding the car park not being well lit, the operator has also included a photograph of a sign taken in darkness, which I still consider to be easy to see and read. The car park in question is monitored by ANPR cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 19:48 and exiting the site at 22:35. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of two hours and 47 minutes. According to the signage, as the driver had chosen to remain in the car park for longer than two hours, parking tariffs were applicable. The operator has provided a system print out, which confirms that the driver failed to make a valid payment on the date in question. In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has questioned the reliability of the ANPR cameras. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the BPA audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. As a result, while I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds for appeal, I have not been provided with any evidence to confirm that the cameras were not in good working order. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing PCNs. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site 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 POPLA with a signed witness statement, confirming the agreement between itself and a representative of the landowner. Witness statements are referenced further in the BPA Code of Practice, where it states that they were introduced as “an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within a POPLA evidence pack and as such these statements should be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent”. After reviewing the witness statement provided, I am satisfied that this meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice in relation to Section 7. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the driver was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site or felt that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the driver accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the driver has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

toctoc

Thanks for your replies to my earlier post and I have now updated my original post to include the POPLA reference.

Today I received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus demanding payment - despite my successful appeal! Not only this, I have recently moved house and they have somehow managed to obtain my new address - more than a week after my successful appeal. Clear breach of DPA - time to get the Information Commissioner involved...

Redx

also complain to the DVLA and the BPA too , well done

Redx

a win against Parking Eye over on pepipoo

it won on clause #13 , GRACE PERIODS

cut and dried , lol

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106376&st=40&start=40

I am forever telling people about these GRACE PERIODS , PE havent learned yet after 4 years and as the largest parking company , proving why the others never learn either

CoCo_N

I've been waiting for over a year and finally received a response in the mail today!

Decision: Appeal allowed
Assessor: Esther Sargeant


Dear XXXXX XXXXXX

Your parking charge Appeal against Wing Parking

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal.

We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX, raising out of the presence of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXX XXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Allowed.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.

Reasons for the Assessor's determination:

The term and conditions of the site state: "PARKING FOR PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY...A VALID PERMIT FOR THIS ESTATE MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN FRONT WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES...By parking here you are entering into a contract of which the terms are stated above. Failure to comply with these terms may result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice of £100."

The Operator issued the PCN because the motorist failed to clearly display a valid permit.

The Operator has provided photographs of the vehicle with the parking charge affixed to the windscreen.

Upon review of the evidence it is clear there is an item affixed to the passenger side of the windscreen. The Operator has not provided clear evidence of the items in the windscreen of the appellant's vehicle or evidence of what a valid parking permit should look like. I am not therefore satisfied that the appellant did not have a permit on display as i am not to establish, with any clarity what the items in the windscreen are.

It is the duty of the Operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions.

The Operator has not sufficiently evidence a permit was not on display; as this was the reason for the issue of the PCN, I am not satisfied it was issued correctly. (Yes, there was a typo in that sentence)

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant raised several other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, it is not necessary for me to consider them.

Your sincerely

Esther Sargeant


*************

Flukey result, but i've gotta say, i'm really pleased. I've waited so long for a decision, I almost forgot about it!

Coupon-mad

Wow, was that another positive decision from Wright Hassall acted 'as' POPLA (we call them 'WHOPLA')? As rare as hen's teeth, well done!

CoCo_N

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow, was that another positive decision from Wright Hassall acted 'as' POPLA (we call them 'WHOPLA')? As rare as hen's teeth, well done!

The letterhead is from POPLA. No mention of these solicitors.
Either way, i'm thrilled

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow, was that another positive decision from Wright Hassall acted 'as' POPLA (we call them 'WHOPLA')? As rare as hen's teeth, well done!

I don't think it's WHOPLA for the following reasons

1. WHOPLA never show the name of the Assessor

2. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/esther-sargeant-90340994 (Although the surname is spelt with an 'a' rather than an 'e' as transcribed by the OP.

Coupon-mad

True. I guess I was going by the fact the poster said it took over a year.