POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

I'd be interested on whether you think the signs can't create a contract by performance if you already believe you have the right to park there. You believe you have a contract to park, so why would a reasonable person look at signs or consider that parking in your space constituted an acceptance of the offered contract on a sign?

Yes I agree, we've used in defences that the person already has a (sometimes paid-for, and often signed) contract allowing them to park, which neither specifies the terms or actually states the £sum of any parking charge, nor advises or in any way draws to the attention of the recipient to any terms on signs which must be taken as also be incorporated into the contract and read before signing/agreeing to the permit scheme.

Therefore the contract is already concluded and cannot be taken to be a day-to-day one accepted 'anew' by performance each day whereby a driver would be expected to check the signs haven't changed. The signs (arguably) do not form part of the contract if they were not part of it when the permit was accepted, paid for or signed for.

There may also be other considerations such as what the lease allows in terms of easements and rights, to take into account in a residential flats/houses car park, like in Laura Jopson's case:

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

Worth including as this was an appeal case heard by a Circuit Judge, which is persuasive to lower county court hearings.

Also as added now by henrik777 whose comments are always spot on:

henrik777 wrote: »

Thornton v Shoe lane. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

Once a contract is concluded you can't bolt on random crap.

mmn100

APCOA gave up immediately, looks like the NTK not relevant land issue is the killer.

You can see details under thread "Luton Airport APCOA Dropping Off PCN POPLA Appeal", sorry cannot post a link.

Fruitcake

mmn100 wrote: »

APCOA gave up immediately, looks like the NTK not relevant land issue is the killer.

You can see details under thread "Luton Airport APCOA Dropping Off PCN POPLA Appeal", sorry cannot post a link.

Original thread here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5526432

Well done to you.

henrik777

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes I agree, we've used in defences that the person already has a (sometimes paid-for, and often signed) contract allowing them to park, which neither specifies the terms or actually states the £sum of any parking charge, nor advises or in any way draws to the attention of the recipient to any terms on signs which must be taken as also be incorporated into the contract and read before signing/agreeing to the permit scheme. Therefore the contract is already concluded and cannot be taken to be a day-to-day one concluded by performance each day.

Thornton v Shoe lane. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html

Once a contract is concluded you can't bolt on random crap.

Coupon-mad

henrik777 wrote: »

Once a contract is concluded you can't bolt on random crap.

I admire the concise way you say things and say it like it is, henrik777!

:T

Mr_Stroopwafel

Won at POPLA - thanks again for all for the help!
:beer:

Original thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5495209

Decision Successful
Assessor Name [personal details removed]

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to the vehicle not being authorised to park and a valid permit was not clearly displayed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the alleged offence did not occur and that the operator has failed to comply with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act (POFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the operator has no evidence that the person the person they are pursuing is liable for the charge and that the operator does not have the landowners authority. The appellant has advised that vehicle was parked with the landlords and tenants permission. The appellant further advises that the signage was inadequate and due to this no contract was entered into by the driver due to this. The appellant lastly advises that the operator has breached both the consumer rights act 2015 the consumer contracts regulations 2013, and no grace period has been allowed.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. 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 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) must be adhered to. Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; From the evidence provided, I can see a notice to driver was issued to the vehicle on the day of the parking event. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal; however I have not considered these as I have allowed the appeal.

Molts

POPLA Code 2612466202

Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 2612466202.

First 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

ET6116/001

Thanks to the amazing help on this forum. A very rushed cut/paste and paraphrased appeal to suit the circumstances following a PCN issued in a hospital car park for alleged failure to display a valid residents permit. Threw the kitchen sink at it but the NTK failed in so many areas I cannot imagine a loss even if F1rst Parking bothered to force a proper adjudication.

After including pretty much all of Coupon Mad's epic text on signage the PPC completely lost the will to live and threw in the towel immediately - I sent the appeal after midnight on Sunday and received the POPLA response by Midday on Monday

Coupon-mad

Molts wrote: »

POPLA Code 2612466202

After including pretty much all of Coupon Mad's epic text on signage the PPC completely lost the will to live and threw in the towel immediately - I sent the appeal after midnight on Sunday and received the POPLA response by Midday on Monday

Nice to know they lost the will to live, as fully intended...I reckoned we weren't attacking 'woeful signage' enough and now we do.

nikkietoni

I won the Parking Eye appeal for my son in law at POPLA


Thank you for all the help on this site...so grateful x
This link should take you to my appeal


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5508395

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5508395

Edna_Basher

Although POPLA may have adjourned all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws, it looks like they are continuing to consider cases where Byelaws are in force but where the parking operator has not sought payment for alleged breach of those Byelaws (i.e. where they are applying their usual contractual model).

Hats off to POPLA assessor [personal details removed] for restating POPLA’s position that Southampton Town Quay is subject to ABP Byelaws and is therefore not relevant land.

POPLA assessment and decision: 29/09/2016
Verification Code: 6062356150
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: [personal details removed]

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration [AA11ABC], either did “not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted” at Town Quay, Southampton on 10 June 2016.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states the site is subject to statutory control and is not relevant land under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. He advises the operator has not issued a Notice to Hirer that is compliant with PoFA 2012. He questions the authority of the operator to issue and pursue for payment of PCNs. He says the signage at the car park is inadequate.

Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision

The terms and conditions state: “If you require longer than the 15 minute pick up/drop off period then parking tariffs are applicable after this time” and that “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms and the tariffs available. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 13:01 and departing at 13:48, for a total stay of 47 minutes. In his grounds for appeal, the appellant has stated that the land on which the car park is situated is not ‘relevant land’. This is defined by PoFA 2012 under paragraph 3(1)(c) as any land other than: “land…on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. From the evidence provided to POPLA, I can only conclude that the car park is indeed on land under statutory control and cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of PoFA 2012. As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on PoFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.