POPLA Decisions

AngelHarmony

This was against my PCN from Parking Eye at Derby & Burton Services

POPLA Assessment & Decision: 02.08.17

Decision - Successful
Assessor Name Alexandra Wilcock
Assessor summary of operator case
The appellant parked on site without a valid permit, authorising the vehicle to park on site.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the signage is not clear. The appellant states the signage is not adequate as per the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. She advised that the terms and conditions do not apply with the Roadway Services Area’s- Highway’s Agency circular 01/2008, set by Parliament. She says the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate landowner authorisation to issue Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the site in question. The appellant states the signage fails to inform motorists that the site is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems. She says the operator has failed to comply with Consumer Rights Act 2015. She states the amount demanded by the operator is a penalty. The appellant states as a disabled motorist under the Equality Act 2012 she is entitled to reasonable adjustments. She advised it is her legal right to take a break due to personal needs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant says the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate landowner authorisation to issue PCN on the site in question. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly and to rebut the appellant’s grounds for appeal. I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims, that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. Section 7.3 of The BPA, Code of Practice states “The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate”. I appreciate the operator has stated in its summary that the operator does have landowner authority to enforce parking restrictions however; the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate this. As I am not able to determine whether the operator has landowner authorisation to issue PCN’s due to no evidence of this being provided, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Umkomaas

I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Tees this up nicely for a potential claim against PE for a breach of the DPA in continuing to pursue this PCN when it has been proved it was 'issued incorrectly' as corroborated by POPLA.

As DPA claims materialise, PPCs will hopefully start to learn that they just can't continue to pursue charges with impunity, in the hope of breaking down the motorist through harassment, when they are on thin ice.

lmh503

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameMatthew Yorke
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator did not provide any evidence.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that a compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never served. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant says that 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 appellant says that the signage does not create a contract.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done Imh503. Sounds almost like the assessor was on the same side as us judging by his comments.

MetroBot

Britannia Parking Group 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.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5652611

RayBoy1528

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5655567

POPLA assessment and decision
03/07/2017

Verification Code
******

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Louise Dack

Assessor summary of operator case

On ****** vehicle ******* was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the period of time paid for.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site, the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system, a period has not been applied and that the signage on site is inadequate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal however; I will concentrate this appeal on landowner authority.

The appellant states the operator does not have authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN). In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, the operator has failed to provide a contract of landowner authority and as a result I am unable to confirm if the contract meets the requirement of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7.

Therefore, in this case, I am unable to confirm that the operator has landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Another case where PE have been found by POPLA not to have landowner authority and the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Tees another one up potentially for a claim for a breach of the DPA principles.

Disco1972

RESULT..! Submitted my appeal to POPLA yesterday and this morning POPLA emailed saying APCOA don't want to contest the appeal so the appeal is successful and no charge needs to be paid!

The entire process went exactly how you all advised it would, fantastic!

In the end for me it was about beating APCOA than paying £100. The more you learn about what they're doing and creaming money off motorists the more angry it makes you! Can't believe BHX are allowing this to happen to their customers.

Massive thanks to Umkomass, Redx, Coupon-mad and others that took the time to help me. I read so much of the information you have posted over the years helping others, really appreciate your efforts.. Keep the good work up.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5670148

donkler

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: ?
Assessor summary of operator case
Not Parked Correctly withing the markings of the bay space

NCP Refused Appeal
Popla Accepted with the simple NTK rule, exactly as below
Popla Ref 4361797909. NCP do not wish to contest the appeal
Many thanks to Coupon-Mad

A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

The_Deep

This is exactly what happened to me. APCOA know they have no case, but continue to try to fleece the gullible.

I shall be sending them an LBA tomorrow and complaining to Trading Standards.