POPLA Decisions

jonny_power

Just got a successful appeal notification from POPLA for using the Wigan DW car park for an NHS blood test (the NHS clinic is in the gym). This may be useful for some because I know locally the car park/ParkingEye have caused a load of grief.



Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: [redacted]
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked on the site at DW Sports and did not register his details as outlined on the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he was attending the clinic for blood tests and that he did purchase a pay and display ticket.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 terms and conditions state: “Gym members must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details into the terminal at reception upon arrival to obtain a 4 hour parking permit”, “Beauty clinic and hairdressers customers must provide their full, correct vehicle registration details to a member of staff on arrival to obtain a parking permit” 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. There are no tariffs available. The appellant does not dispute parking on site but states that he was attending the clinic for blood tests on the day of the contravention. On reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, there appears to be contradicting views regarding the terms and conditions at the site. Using online mapping tools I can see that the car park in question is immediately adjacent to a pay and display car park, and I am satisfied that the appellant has parked in the “Members Only” car park. I therefore deem it necessary to review the signage at the “Members Only” car park to see if the terms and conditions were clear to the appellant. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, under section 18.1 states: “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”. Section 18.3 continues: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Firstly, the entrance sign states “Patron Only Car Park”, not “Members Only”. While I acknowledge that it also says “Patrons must register at reception”, I am not satisfied that a motorist would be able to read this from their moving vehicle. The terms and conditions signs state “For use by DW Sports customers only” and that “Gym members” must log their registration. I am satisfied that one does not need to be a member of the gym in order to be a customer at the gym. As the appellant says he was attending the clinic in the gym that day, I conclude that it is reasonable for him to have concluded he could park. However, as he is not a member of the gym, it is also reasonable for him to conclude that he did not need log his registration at reception. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

That's very interesting and well explained by the Assessor. I am concerned they are stepping outside both sides' evidence though, by using online mapping tools (streetview) because that seems to be outside their remit.

A great result !

Redx

popla win by kshah against PARKWATCH , the win was on no contract shown as being in force when the incident occurred

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5529547

so no "due diligence" by Parkwatch ensuring that their evidence was true on the day in question , or covered that period of the day in question , lol

SomethingWitty_2

Hello

Received PCN at a Chiltern Railways car park operated by CTT collections. They were not relying on POFA. I was not the driver.

Using advice from these boards, and on Pepipoo, submitted a POPLA appeal making a number of points, chief among these that CTT didn't know who the driver was and could not pursue me as they were not relying POFA. Strangely, their operator evidence shows signage which states that railway byelaws apply even though they weren't saying this was a byelaws case.

In any event: I won! Thanks to all :T

Looking at last year's POPLA annual report CTT only had 3 challenges at POPLA in 2016, all of which they won. So, they probably aren't used to losing!

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case:
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the driver failed to purchase parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has stated the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, have not been complied with. They have questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land and disputed the signage at the site. The appellant has disputed the charge being a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case the appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Having reviewed a copy of the PCN, I can see there is no reference made by the operator to suggest the keeper is being held liable. The operator has also confirmed it is not seeking to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper, using the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA 2012). In this case it appears the operator is pursuing the driver for the PCN. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge.

monkeyofficeboy

[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 #########[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] APCOA 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.[/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]
[FONT=&quot]This relates to Birmingham Broadway Plaza, APCOA gave up the ghost![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cannot post the link for the thread due to being a new user
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks
[/FONT]

Umkomaas

Great result m-o-b. Here's the link to your thread for others to read. APCOA soon give up with a forum-assisted appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5569201

Success1

I successfully appealed my PCN with Popla. It was issued by Indigo at a railway station. I paid for parking using a telephone service with my debit card. They took the payment but claimed never to have received the follow up text with the reg number. I proved that I had paid and that I sent the text. I initially appealed to indigo but that was rejected. It appeared that they never really investigated my issue. Only when I phoned them did we get to the issue. Anyway I appealed on the basis that I paid and that I sent the reg number by text and also threw in several other issues. The appeal rejection letter came from another company, the the ticket was called a Penalty not a Parking Charge (and therefore in breach of the code of practice). I pointed out that the breach I was accused of (not displaying a ticket) was not valid because when paying by phone no ticket is issued. I also questioned whether they had authorisation from the landowner.

Indigo never provided any evidence, so I won without any consideration of the issues (which I would have liked).

I nearly paid up. But I felt strongly that I was not in the wrong. I'm glad I appealed.

GaryUK

jonny_power wrote: »

Just got a successful appeal notification from POPLA for using the Wigan DW car park for an NHS blood test (the NHS clinic is in the gym). This may be useful for some because I know locally the car park/ParkingEye have caused a load of grief.



Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: [redacted]
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked on the site at DW Sports and did not register his details as outlined on the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he was attending the clinic for blood tests and that he did purchase a pay and display ticket.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 terms and conditions state: “Gym members must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details into the terminal at reception upon arrival to obtain a 4 hour parking permit”, “Beauty clinic and hairdressers customers must provide their full, correct vehicle registration details to a member of staff on arrival to obtain a parking permit” 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. There are no tariffs available. The appellant does not dispute parking on site but states that he was attending the clinic for blood tests on the day of the contravention. On reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, there appears to be contradicting views regarding the terms and conditions at the site. Using online mapping tools I can see that the car park in question is immediately adjacent to a pay and display car park, and I am satisfied that the appellant has parked in the “Members Only” car park. I therefore deem it necessary to review the signage at the “Members Only” car park to see if the terms and conditions were clear to the appellant. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, under section 18.1 states: “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”. Section 18.3 continues: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Firstly, the entrance sign states “Patron Only Car Park”, not “Members Only”. While I acknowledge that it also says “Patrons must register at reception”, I am not satisfied that a motorist would be able to read this from their moving vehicle. The terms and conditions signs state “For use by DW Sports customers only” and that “Gym members” must log their registration. I am satisfied that one does not need to be a member of the gym in order to be a customer at the gym. As the appellant says he was attending the clinic in the gym that day, I conclude that it is reasonable for him to have concluded he could park. However, as he is not a member of the gym, it is also reasonable for him to conclude that he did not need log his registration at reception. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.

My wife was issued a ticket under exactly the same circumstances. I appealed that shortly after appealing my own ParkingEye ticket issued at Charnock Richard (successful outcome referred to a few posts prior to this one). In her case, ParkingEye didn't challenge the POPLA appeal. That was about 3 weeks ago. Incidentally, I also wrote to the gym manager, but he wasn't very helpful and claimed he couldn't tell ParkingEye to overturn the ticket.

sk82

My appeal has been rejected by POPLA. It was the thread entitled ECP POPLA appeal

Coupon-mad

Never mind, it's only ECP. No-one pays them.