POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Well done. :T

Standard CEL capitulation to a well worked POPLA appeal. Always best to kill off CEL tickets at POPLA, because if thus opportunity is missed, CEL will commence the process of suing in the small claims court.

This isn't to say it will get to the court, but it will involve the motorist in a whole pile of tedious work to head them off proceeding.

Glad you've got this out of your life Splad.

AJ16

original thread here-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73071766#post73071766

Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Adele Brophy
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining in the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, these are: Keeper Liability not established – The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with various section of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 No Landowner Authority the appellant has advised that no evidence has been provided that the operator has the right to pursue parking charges on the land, and they require proof that the operator has complied with Section 7 of the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. BPA Code of Practice the appellant has further advised that the operator has not complied with section 20.5A non-compliance, also the operator has not allowed a grace period. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate the appellant advised that as keeper they cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out. Lack of legible signage no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle 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 Protection Of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that, the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The terms and conditions of the site are, “90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY. This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay 90 minutes. Parking Charge: Up to £100”. The site operates an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The appellant’s vehicle registration number, Y841 OAE, was captured entering the site at 08:41 before exiting at 11:07 totalling a stay of two hours 26 minutes. The operator issued a PCN due to remaining in the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. The appellant has advised that that no evidence has been provided that the operator has the right to pursue parking charges on the land, and they require proof that the operator has complied with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this the operator has provided a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner, after reviewing this I am satisfied that the operator has landowner authority and that the requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice have been met. BPA Code of Practice the appellant has further advised that the operator has not complied with section 20.5A non-compliance, also the operator has not allowed a grace period. Section 20.5 A of the BPA Code of Practice states, “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered”. After reviewing the ANPR images provided by the operator I am satisfied that these meet the requirements set by the BPA. The appellant has stated the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate the appellant advised that as keeper they cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions. The car park is an ANPR controlled car park. Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. Furthermore, section 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents”. The signage displayed within the car park displays a logo associated with ANPR. From this evidence, I consider the terms and conditions of the signage are compliant with section 21.1 and 21.3, I consider this signage sufficient to have informed the appellant that the data captured would be used to issue a PCN where there is a breach in the terms and conditions. The appellant has advised that they require the operator to provide records with dates and times of when the ANPR cameras were last calibrated to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. The appellant has advised that this information is vital to prove that their system differs from the flawed ANPR system in the court case ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 November 2013. I note the appellant’s comments, however POPLA works on a case-by-case basis. Any outside factors, such as previous similar contraventions or other on-going appeals have no bearing on our decision making. There is no requirement for the operator to provide this information, in the absence of any evidence that casts doubt on the images captured by the ANPR cameras, I can only assume they are an accurate reflection of the vehicles entry and exit times. Lack of legible signage no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows, 3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. 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 minute. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle remaining on site in excess of the maximum allowed duration by 56 minutes. After considering all the evidence and comments provided by both the appellant and the operator, I consider 56 minutes to be in excess of a reasonable grace period. When parking on private land, a motorist forms a contract with the operator by parking their vehicle on the site. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the site. In this case, the appellant’s vehicle has remained in excess of the maximum allowed duration, the terms and conditions of the contract have not been met. As such, I conclude that on this occasion the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

Same as I said about another MET one, where someone said who was driving:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's only MET though, looking at your thread. No court history and not a big player.

Lost POPLA appeals are just a stage in a process that usually goes nowhere fast.

She says in her view, MET NTKs are POFA compliant, but I doubt it!

Do what we all did here for years, before POPLA existed! Ignore them and only take seriously a court claim (no updates about debt collector demands, please spare us, and search the forum instead). I've ignored debt letters re a fake PCN several times (before POPLA) and nothing happened.

MET are not known for small claims, just daft letters.

sidvinnon

Original thread here

Operator: Parking Eye

Location: ASDA @ Brighton Marina

Decision Successful
Assessor Name XXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible; there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not demonstrated the person they are pursing is the driver of the vehicle. The operator has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The site is new car park to Parking Eye, no signs warning of the new restrictions and no advertising consent for new signs. Signs fail to warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras data will be used for, which the appellant states is a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The signage at the site states, “3 hours max stay. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The site operates ANPR, the motorist’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, was captured entering the site at 19:00, exiting at 22:43; the period of stay was three hours 43 minutes, an over stay of the maximum permitted time of 43 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and operator and the BPA Code of Practice. When assessing an appeal the burden of proof lies with the operator and it is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s statement. Section 18.11 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect the operator to provide evidence that demonstrates that the signage was in place before the alleged contravention and evidence that the appellant has been allowed a reasonable grace period to become familiar with the changes. The operator has provided a series of photographs from the site, they have been date and time stamped, however this appears to have been added after the photographs have been taken, accordingly I am uncertain the signage was in place on the day of the contravention. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Umkomaas

The operator has provided a series of photographs from the site, they have been date and time stamped, however this appears to have been added after the photographs have been taken, accordingly I am uncertain the signage was in place on the day of the contravention.

Not much different to UKPC then!

Even the POPLA assessor suspects these photos have been doctored by PE.

Maybe @sidvinnon you should report this to David Dunford of the DVLA and ask him to investigate. Altering of evidence to attempt to affect the outcome of your appeal is serious business.

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

FancyPants

From thread 'Hove station, Indigo appeal rejected, now at POPLA stage'



Dear <FirstName Surname>



Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXX7237.



Indigo Solutions 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




To the frequent posters of this forum and all those who help:
:T :beer:

Umkomaas

Indigo really don't want POPLA kicking out a station parking case on 'not relevant land' or the alternative that a private organisation cannot issue fines or penalties. Rock and a hard place for them otherwise!

Well done on seeing this through. :T

DILP666

Hi,
New to the site, great information, but can someone simply provide a link to where I can find a template for responding to Premier Park, Issued me a PCN as the car was in the car park for over 45 mins past the time period which was only 45 mins, spent over £100 shopping.. Crazy people

Umkomaas

DILP666 wrote: »

Hi,
New to the site, great information, but can someone simply provide a link to where I can find a template for responding to Premier Park, Issued me a PCN as the car was in the car park for over 45 mins past the time period which was only 45 mins, spent over £100 shopping.. Crazy people

This is a POPLA Decisions thread!

You need the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1. No links on demand, sorry. We encourage everyone to search the forum to find what they need.

Getting rid of the charge is not quite as simple as 'providing a link to a template', you'll need to know what you're doing to successfully deal with this.

You need to complain to the retailer(s) where you spent your money and get them to get it cancelled.

Coupon-mad

DILP666 wrote: »

Hi,
New to the site, great information, but can someone simply provide a link to where I can find a template for responding to Premier Park, Issued me a PCN as the car was in the car park for over 45 mins past the time period which was only 45 mins, spent over £100 shopping.. Crazy people

You've posted on the top thread, asking for a link to the second thread?