POPLA Decisions

BindiBahji

Appeal unsuccessful :mad:
Original thread here

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: [removed]

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the vehicle either failed to purchase the appropriate parking time or remained on site longer than permitted

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: Keeper Liability not established: Notice to Keeper failed to meet strict requirements of POFA 2012. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. No evidence of landowner authority. Unclear and insufficient signage. No signage to indicate that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are in use. No evidence supplied that the operators ANPR system is reliable. Grace periods as mandated in British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice were not stated nor adhered to.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic images of the motorist’s vehicle entering the Reel Cinema Blossom Street York car park at 08:47, and exiting at 13:32 on 11 October 2016 following a stay of three Hours 45 minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, “PAY & DISPLAY. All vehicles must clearly display a valid pay & Display ticket or if appropriate be included valid permit or if appropriate be included on an authorised user list or have paid by phone (when available). Enter your correct vehicle registration details at the pay and display, machine…Parking Charge £100”. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each of these below. No keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. The Notice To Keeper (NTK) is not compliant. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of Schedule 4, paragraph 9, that she does not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has met all of these requirements. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant has advised that the signs in this car park are poorly placed, easily obscured by other vehicles and completely hidden in some areas. Further the appellant has advised signs are few in number, unremarkable, not immediately obvious, mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the Legibility of a sign, especially one that must be read BEFORE the action of entering a car park, parking and leaving the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site. In relation to signage, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice 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 on to state in section 18.3 “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. After reviewing the evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator, I have no reason to consider that the signage in force at the site is not compliant with the guidelines as laid out in the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that the motorist was not afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms of the contract before parking and accepting them. As the driver of the vehicle has remained at the site for duration of time, they have agreed to the terms and conditions and as such, a contract has been formed between the motorist and the operator. The signage does not state that ANPR are cameras are in use. While I recognise the appellant’s comments, I can see from the signage at the site that it advises the site is controlled by ANPR cameras. No landowner authority to form/enforce contracts with drivers. She says it is contended that the operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land. The operator has provided a contract between itself and Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions. From this I can see that Bransby Wilson is an authorised agent, and that it has authorisation to appoint the operator to operate on the land. As such I am satisfied that a contract meeting the specifications as laid out in the BPA Code of Practice was in existence at the time of the alleged parking event. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) accuracy. The appellant says that there is no evidence the ANPR system is reliable. While I note the appellant has questioned the accuracy of the ANPR technology used by the operator, this technology has previously been verified and is generally accurate. In the absence of any evidence that casts doubt on the validity of these images, I can only conclude that they are an accurate reflection of the times the appellant entered and exited the location. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park The amount being requested £100 exceeds the ‘appropriate amount’. The BPA Code of practice states in section 19.5 “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”. As such, as a surcharge is not part of the parking charge, it is a handling fee for payment using specific means, the operator can justify this and thus, it is not a breach of the BPA Code of practice. Grace periods as mandated in BPA Code of Practice were not stated nor adhered to. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice, advises,” You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”. From the evidence provided by the appellant, I am satisfied that the driver had decided to stay and therefore accepted the terms and conditions of the car park. Furthermore, the BPA code of practice section 13.4 states, "you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the grace period at the end of the period should be a minimum of ten minutes”. After reviewing the photographic images of the site, I consider 45 minutes to be in excess of a reasonable grace period to allow the appellant to enter the site, read the terms and make payment, and to exit the site after the contract has ended. 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 adhered to for whatever reason, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. Ultimately, POPLA’s remit is to assess if the operator has issued a PCN correctly, in accordance with the conditions of the contract, relevant law and the BPA Code of Practice and the operator has complied with the relevant sections when issuing the charge. As the motorist has parked without making a valid payment for the full duration of their time on site, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. The operator has complied with PoFA, and the keeper is now liable for the charge. As such, I can only conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Apologies for the lack of whitespace: this is how it appears on the POPLA site.

mnkut

prjohnsonnn10 wrote: »

Well done - any chance that you could post up the POPLA reference number and Assessor name as i have a similar case where the contractual authority has no expiry date. Thanks

All done! Hope it helps

mnkut

BindiBahji wrote: »

Appeal unsuccessful :mad:
If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park[/URL]

Apologies for the lack of whitespace: this is how it appears on the POPLA site.

This whole acceptance of terms regardless of validity signage garbage may be becoming a trend in POPLA... seems like there interpretation of BPA CoP is changing favourably to private parking firms. *suspicious*

Umkomaas

BindiBahji wrote: »

Appeal unsuccessful :mad:
Original thread here

Apologies for the lack of whitespace: this is how it appears on the POPLA site.

Do Bransby Wilson own that car park? Because Minster Baywatch is Bransby Wilson and Bransby Wilson is Minster Baywatch!

http://www.minsterbaywatch.co.uk/car-park-management

They've shown POPLA a contract written by themselves!

More investigation for you to do, methinks!

Coupon-mad

Ridiculous - complain that the Assessor used old evidence of signs that are not there and preferred them over your own recent current photos. Why?

And accepted a landowner contract signed by the parking operator themselves.

In a complaint to complaints@popla.co.uk you must address it to the Lead Adjudicator and you need to show that your evidence (particularly the recent photos if they prove 3 out of 5 signs are just not there) 'was overlooked'.

Not a general rant. They will only look at evidence that was missed, so push those words.

Apart from that, people lose at POPLA every so often and some decisions (like this one) are terrible.

It doesn't mean you have to pay, you are merely back to square one as if you had never tried POPLA.

Molts

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 8663506884.

UK Parking Control 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

ET6116/001

Windscreen PCN issued following on street parking on a private road in a residential area. UKPC essentially brought in to "manage" permit parking in residential bays but thought they would chance their arm at fleecing a few more motorists, other than just the residents, by placing random inadequate signage along the access roads which are unrestricted other than UKPC's dubious signage.

UKPC have obviously been heavily influenced by the PPC and associated legal 3rd parties "Bible of Incompetence" as they contrived to issue the PCN for the wrong road and on a road which does not in fact exist. Even in spite of this the initial appeal was rejected, however, they soon threw in the towel following a forum based POPLA appeal covering all the usual suspects and suitably adjusted to suit the case in hand.

Scores on the doors - Molts/forum support 5-0 Private parking scumpanies.

Thanks once again for all the invaluable input - you are truely helping me become somewhat of a local hero! :beer:

Umkomaas

Maybe time for a DPA breach claim against them?

If you now want to turn the tables you could sue them for misuse of your data under the DPA. It's not for the faint hearted or for those who think it's an easy run, assuming the forums will do most of the work - they won't. If you're prepared to put your back into this, here's some apposite blogs from the Parking Prankster to set you thinking.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

Latter part of this blog:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

On PePiPoo, regular contributor 'Lynnzer' seems to be taking a lead in pushing for the pursuit of DPA breaches by PPCs. He has written a number of well constructed Letters Before Claim requiring the PPC to pay the motorist between £250 and £750 as compensation for the stress they have been put under by the PPC, or risk the matter resulting in a formal claim at the Small Claims Court. .

Do a search there to get the hang of what this is all about and whether you might want to take this fight back to the PPC.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

Molts

Maybe time for a DPA breach claim against them?

If you now want to turn the tables you could sue them for misuse of your data under the DPA. It's not for the faint hearted or for those who think it's an easy run, assuming the forums will do most of the work - they won't. If you're prepared to put your back into this, here's some apposite blogs from the Parking Prankster to set you thinking.

I would love to Umkomaas but this case was a little complicated as the day to day keepers vehicle was a company lease vehicle so I responded immediately to the windscreen PCN appealing on the keepers behalf so as to prevent the NtK going to the lease company and being auto-paid. As a result I submitted the keepers address by choice expecting the standard rejection but relying on a strong POPLA appeal to win.

If, however, you think there is still a case just because they pursued the PCN at all then I would happily investigate further but as there was no DVLA application for RK details I'm assuming there is no DPA breach to pursue.

Umkomaas

Looking a bit more complicated than a simple NtK to an individual. DPA breach is somewhat new territory the forums are exploring and only a couple of cases (relatively straightforward ones) have gone through, so there's no pattern yet emerging to be encouraging more complex cases.

Anyway, glad you won your POPLA appeal. A great result in its own right. Well done.

urban_fox

Sorry this post is entered in the wrong place.