POPLA Decisions

Bogadala

Very Helpful Info. Many Thanks.

AMK077

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time using the correct Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM), in breach of the terms and conditions of the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is they was they bought a ticket but for some reason only the last part of the VRM was recorded.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided evidence from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. This evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 15:03 and exiting at 15:28. From this I am satisfied the appellant had remained at the site for a total time of 24 minutes. The operator has provided evidence of signage at the site. The signage states: “PAY AT METER … Enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff … £100 Parking Charge Notice will be issued to vehicles which: … fail to purchase a valid ticket or permit” I appreciate the appellant made a payment with the expectation of purchasing parking time, entering their VRM. However, the appellant did not enter the full VRM. The operator has provided evidence of other VRMs having been entered correctly around the time of the parking event. From this, I conclude that the machine was functioning correctly. The terms and conditions specify the full VRM must be entered. They also state PCNs will be issued for failure to comply with them. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they follow the terms and conditions. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By entering the site, the appellant accepted the operator’s terms and conditions. By remaining on the site in excess of the purchased parking time using the correct VRM, the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site on this occasion. Therefore, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly

AMK077

Hi, I'm looking for some advice as to whether I should pay the PCN as my POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. I paid for parking but only entered the last three digits of my VRM. I thought I had entered the full VRM, but must have pressed the keys too quickly. Many thanks in advance.

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time using the correct Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM), in breach of the terms and conditions of the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is they was they bought a ticket but for some reason only the last part of the VRM was recorded.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided evidence from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. This evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 15:03 and exiting at 15:28. From this I am satisfied the appellant had remained at the site for a total time of 24 minutes. The operator has provided evidence of signage at the site. The signage states: “PAY AT METER … Enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff … £100 Parking Charge Notice will be issued to vehicles which: … fail to purchase a valid ticket or permit” I appreciate the appellant made a payment with the expectation of purchasing parking time, entering their VRM. However, the appellant did not enter the full VRM. The operator has provided evidence of other VRMs having been entered correctly around the time of the parking event. From this, I conclude that the machine was functioning correctly. The terms and conditions specify the full VRM must be entered. They also state PCNs will be issued for failure to comply with them. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they follow the terms and conditions. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By entering the site, the appellant accepted the operator’s terms and conditions. By remaining on the site in excess of the purchased parking time using the correct VRM, the appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site on this occasion. Therefore, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly

DoaM

Wrong thread for advice. But the answer to your question is No.

If you want to debate WHY the answer is No, start a new thread please.

Iguana_En_Fuego

Link to original thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5590569

POPLa Descision 18/04/2017

The RK received the POPLa decision whilst I was on Holiday, hence delayed update to this thread. The RK and myself are thankful to the forum regulars for their help and guidance throughout.

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: **

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s has questioned the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant does not believe the amount of the PCN is genuine pre-estimate of loss to the operator. The appellant states the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply, as it is not relevant land. The appellant states the signs on site are not prominent, clear or legible. The appellant states the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue PCNs. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (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 contract between itself and the landowner. While I appreciate that the contract states that the agreement began on 01 December 2014 and was only valid for 12 months, therefore I do not consider this to be sufficient proof that the operator still has the authority to issue PCNs.

I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

OP Final Comment

The appeal was won on the invalid contract, which is reassuring as the contract was presented as part of the operators evidence pack and subsequently firmly rebutted by me. It would appear that the adjudicator looked at both the original appeal and the rebuttal of the operators evidence before making their decision. I would have preferred a decision based on the some of the other legal arguments presented, but a win is a win and the RK is very happy.

intex310

Hi All!

POPLA decision: Successful against Premier Park Ltd.

Assessor made it under unlit signage.

Thank you all!

Here's the link

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5593421

AndreasA

ParkingEye at Aire Street Leeds
Case was won!
A huge thank you to everyone who helped!
Link to the original thread:
ParkingEye at Aire Street Leeds

Coupon-mad

AndreasA wrote: »

ParkingEye at Aire Street Leeds
Case was won!
A huge thank you to everyone who helped!
Link to the original thread:
ParkingEye at Aire Street Leeds

Well done again - your thread is very interesting and useful for others. That thread is worth everyone taking the time to look at the appalling photo 'evidence' dated 2014 (and possibly allegedly altered?) evidence pack linked there.

I am not accusing PE, I am just asking the regulars and newbies alike, to look at the mystery of the *possibly photoshopped (?)* sign that was there one minute and not the next, then at a different angle, near the P&D machine...

Molts

"Good morning Molts
Thank you for contacting David.
I am sorry you received a parking charge when visiting us recently, but don�t worry I have now arranged for this to be cancelled.
Thank you once again for getting in touch and please come back and see is soon.

Kind regards,
Mxxxxx Hxxxx
On behalf of David Potts
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC"

A couple of tweets, a Facebook post and a scathing email to David Potts, CEO. About 10 minutes work, job done. Parking Lie spanked although still awaiting confirmation from those shysters!
To be fair @Morrisons were very responsive (I forgave the typos!) which goes to show, well worth landowner/retailer complaint coupled with PPC appeal where appropriate.

Beaten before having to go through POPLA hassle I know but thought possibly not worthy of a new post! :j

Coupon-mad

To be fair @Morrisons were very responsive

And to be fair, so they damn well should be, having signed up to FIVE YEAR contracts which (by all accounts, as we've seen loads reported) allow Parking Eye carte blanche to sue their customers senseless: disabled, elderly, the lot.

Morrisons, Aldi and Asda should be absolutely flamed and shamed.