POPLA Decisions

rob84_2

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
[Removed by Forum Team]
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • No evidence of Landowner Authority • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. • No keeper or driver liability.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site which terms and conditions state “1 ½ hours max stay; this car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £90 parking charge notice; (£50 if paid within 14 days)”. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle XXXX XXX entered the site on 3 December 2016, at 18:46 and exited the site at 21:45. The appellant remained at the site for a period of two hours and 59 minutes. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant exceeded the maximum stay allowed. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • No evidence of Landowner Authority • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. • No keeper or driver liability. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In this case the operator has provided a copy of the signed agreement between the landowner and the operator. However the agreement does not state an effective from date or the term of the agreement. I am not satisfied that the agreement within the operator’s evidence confirms that is has written authority to operate on the land. The operator has failed to demonstrate that it meets the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal I do not need to look at these. I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Mr_Benn

PCN from Euro Car Parks


Institute Road , Kings Heath


"Decision Successful "


They said that the appeal was successful because the
photographs provided by the operator show that the charge is printed in small writing along with other information. The terms and conditions are in a reasonably sized font, however the charge is a lot smaller than the rest of the information. Which was one of the points I made.
Bizarrely it was strange winning on that point as I was sure it would be won on the fact they had also used info from someone elses case ! But they didn't even have to go that far down my letter before throwing the case out of the parking window. Surprised that Euro Car Parks lost on that technicality , but I guess it may reflect how many people actually challenge them.


I spent ages on this , and it does show that the hard work, and help from people on this site , can win the day.

MontgomeryBurns

This relates to Empark at Stansted :beer:

Decision Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The vehicle stopped in a no stopping zone.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised landowner authority. The appellant states the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has raised Section 14.3; 18.3 and 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has raised the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states the evidence is corrupt. The appellant states there was no grace period.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having considered the evidence provided by both parties, it is clear that the operator has issued the charge for stopping/waiting in an area that does not allow for this type of activity. Furthermore, the operator has subsequently issued a parking charge for failing to adhere to the terms and conditions at the location. However, if no contract were formed, there would be no basis under which to seek payment of the charge from the motorist. As such, I must examine the signage in place at the location to establish if a contract has been formed between the operator and the appellant. Specifically, I note that the signage in place at the location simply states: “Restricted Zone no stopping at any time to drop off or pick up. WARNING ENFORCEMENT CHARGE OF £75”. From this, I acknowledge that the operator has made it clear that motorists should not stop at any time. However, it is my belief that the wording used on the signage is a statement of the restrictions in place and does not amount to an offer of a contract with the motorist in question. Additionally, I have considered the signage in place at the location and note that this refers to an “enforcement charge”. I consider this to be a misrepresentation of authority in accordance with Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within this, it states as follows: “14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority”. 14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.” From this it is clear that parking operators who are approved by the British Parking Association should not misrepresent its authority to the public. Having considered the use of the phrase “enforcement charge”, it is my belief that motorists could mistakenly believe that the parking operator is carrying our enforcement work “under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority”. From this, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to adhere to the minimum requirements of the BPA Code of Practice also. As I am not satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence to POPLA to document that it issued this PCN correctly.

Treehugger321

Should assessor names be allowed on the forum?

Umkomaas

Treehugger321 wrote: »

Should assessor names be allowed on the forum?

MSE staff got a bit sniffy about showing them a few months ago, so they tend to be left out now.

Treehugger321

Quite rightly I think, they are only doing a job. There are some on this page an the previous page with names on.

Umkomaas

Quite rightly I think, they are only doing a job.

Not very well in many respects. The background and experience of the current cadre of POPLA Assessors is in somewhat sharp contrast to the legally qualified backgrounds of previous London Councils' managed POPLA Assessors.

Don't forget that this is a complex area of contract law (as admitted by the Lord Justices of the Supreme Court in the Beavis case) that POPLA Assessors are dealing with. One wonders what former nail technicians, soft !!!!!! authors and call centre staff bring to this particular party?

This is real legal stuff, not some 'guess and go' on Twitter. The original purpose of naming the Assessor was as a reference where 'precedents' were set, which could be subsequently requoted, but seemingly there appears to have been a complaint made to MSE from wherever, possibly the PPC network, the BPA, or POPLA itself. Who knows?

Coupon-mad

I understand it was POPLA who most likely complained.

Should do their job better then, and stop swallowing what the BPA tell them, as if the BPA are some sort of authority and not just their paymasters and a body run by their member operators, with their member operators very, very clearly at the heart of their thinking.

It was utterly astonishing (particularly in the first months of this 'service') when no-one had bothered to teach the Assessors that without POFA compliance, an appellant can't be held liable to pay the money, if not shown/known to be the driver. It is hardly difficult stuff yet they were telling people to pay the charge when they weren't even driving and no NTK at all was served! The statute is one set of (generally in most cases) ten main points, where #10 isn't in play...nine mandatory rules in most cases, that's all.

Then we had the person who said they were satisfied that a Harbour car park wasn't under statutory control of byelaws, because the PPC's signs didn't mention them. Even though the appellant had shown POPLA those very byelaws and the map including the car park...

Then the bright spark who read some similar byelaws and decided a car wasn't on the list of the motorised vehicles covered in the section of those byelaws about leaving/parking a vehicle.

The we had the gobsmacking decision that the very obviously WRONG timeline of 'within 29 days' was suddenly compliant when 'within 28 days' had not been, in a certain PPC's NTK. And when challenged on that (because the statute's timeline is several days different from either of those phrases) POPLA actually protested that they were right. Suggestion being that (never mind trite law - contra proferentem) they could and would interpret 'ambiguous' words in their way. Even though that wasn't the most favourable to the appellant because it meant people lost appeals over that issue.

And still the POPLA website has those horrendous choices for appellants to slip up on ('I didn't see the signs' - oh come on, stop assuming the appellant is the driver, POPLA. Stop telling clueless people to appeal 'in your own words' - BPA speak, perhaps). And it tells appellants that using the appeal reason 'OTHER' is less successful, even though that very clearly cannot be true, not least because that statement was there from day one.

To earn respect across the board, POPLA has to be independent and be SEEN to be independent.

LondonCouncils version of POPLA managed it.

Umkomaas

they could and would interpret 'ambiguous' words in their way.

As in:

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

On what authority do the come to this decision?

And their rationale has always been rational !!.

Myriddin

Had 2 more uncontested POPLA appeals against Civil Enforcement Ltd - as usual they left it to the very last day to withdraw. That's a dozen now from the same site with the same result each time. What a tedious bunch of muppets!

I'm beginning to wonder if they even look at these appeals! I might submit the next one in binary code!