POPLA Decisions

LCsFixit

Massive thanks to everyone here! Several hours worth of reading and following your advice resulted in this against

ParkingEye @ Ocean Terminal Southampton.

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Samuel Connop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that driver did not pay for their parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal as follows: • This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used. • 2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. • The Ocean Cruise Terminal is not relevant land. • The signs in the 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. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on the Notice to Keeper, specifically in relation to the PoFA 2012, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The Operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. In PoFA 2012, it states under section 9: (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” In this instance, I can see the PCN was issued on 12 July 20 days after the parking incident and therefore outside of the relevant period. As a result, the operator has not complied with the requirements of PoFA in attempting to transfer liability to the keeper, meaning the Parking Charge Notice has not been issued correctly.

Coupon-mad

Yay, a ''golden ticket'' (any non-POFA one) from ParkingEye always means a win for the keeper.

No idea why PE didn't bail out earlier because this has cost them £27 to POPLA for no reason!

Just to add, it is very refreshing to see a first post from a POPLA winner who used the advice on this forum as it is intended, as a self-help resource, and didn't need to bleat ''I can't be bothered to read the NEWBIES thread because it contains too many words...someone help'' like so many newbies do...

Good job done.

DollyDee_2

Just curious, was Samuel Connop with "old" POPLA as well?

Coupon-mad

Don't think so but he's an original with 'new' POPLA, since they started in late 2015, I recall.

Umkomaas

DollyDee wrote: »

Just curious, was Samuel Connop with "old" POPLA as well?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Don't think so but he's an original with 'new' POPLA, since they started in late 2015, I recall.

Definitely one of the first Assessors. I recall I asked a poster who was quoting his name as to whether they'd made a typo with it (I thought it would be ConnoR), but 'nope', (definitely ConnoP).

i haven't seen many of his adjudications of late, but hopefully after 2 years on the job, he's getting a better handle on things than some of the later starters.

DollyDee_2

After searching the forum it was Beautiful-Moose's thread that I half-remembered, Samuel reviewed a very flawed unsuccessful POPLA decision by Emily Christoli and agreed with it, followed by someone else doing the same.

B-Moose eventually got the ticket cancelled by the Housing Assocn.

That was a new POPLA one though.

bluetoffee1878

Yet another win for a friend.

Parking Eye 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.

I used quite a lot of the popla threads linked in the newbie thread and through the kitchen sink at them and they folded.

Appeal was based on the following;
1. Insufficient and non prominent signs
2. Non compliant notice to keeper
3. ANPR accuracy
4. No evidence of land owner authority
5. ANPR signage requirements
6. ANPR and signage planning permission

If anybody is interested in the full appeal I can post, but it's quite long. I included images of the signs including the drivers view at the entrance and exit. Also some google maps images showing that there is a second potential access point not covered by the cameras.

The images also showed how busy it is to access and egress so no grace period taken into account.

I put in a few points re Beavis and how this was very different so could not apply.

Also I cross referenced the NTK point by point with POFA. To show it did not comply.

Finally I took a punt on PE having no planning or advertising consent as they tend to not bother with this.

Not sure which point scared them off, but another satisfying win nonetheless

poadb

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73006403

I personally thought I would win based on my argument that they failed to comply with BPA CoP and advise motorists that rules for parking had changed - but I won based on their own contract with the land owner. Go figure.

“
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Emily Chriscoli

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid payment being made.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on this land. The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is insufficient. The appellant believes that the operator has failed to adhere to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant believes that the operator’s evidence has been tampered with. The appellant feels that the signs on site do not clearly explain that the car park is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras or what the data captured by the cameras is used for. The appellant believes that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs on this land. Section 7.1 of the 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.” In response to this, the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract it holds between itself and the landowner. I note the contract was signed on 10 May 2017. However, there is no reference in this document to the length of time the contract will run for. As a result, I cannot determine whether or not the operator had the relevant authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the PCN in question. For clarity, I acknowledge the reason the operator issued the appellant with a PCN. I do not believe that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. As a result, I am satisfied that on this particular occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. 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.

bluetoffee1878

Hopefully the link works. This is the full appeal that PE decided not to contest

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwrishue0sgyyb6/Popla%20appeal%20redacted.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Thanks for that, bluetoffee1878!

Which Aldi is this, with that second entrance with no camera on St Oswald Street? In case a newbie has the same site.