POPLA Decisions

tyndall1979

I have recently had an appeal rejected by POPLA. The issuing PPC is Gemini Parking Solutions LTD.

Below I have posted the correspondents between myself and Gemini, and also the notice of rejection by POPLA.



First letter of appeal


0000171822
Vauxhall Astra
Dark Grey
MK61 AYS
I feel that the issue of this PCN was completely immoral. My partner went into labour on the night of 5th/6th August at
02.30 in the morning, we arrived at the small maternity car park, immediately next to the maternity department, in the
grounds of Queens hospital to find that all the bays had been taken, so was forced to take the next closest parking
area which happened to be the disabled parking area. We didn't have any time to deliberate where we could park as
we had spoke to the maternity department by telephone before our arrival, who told us to come in to Queens
maternity triage immediately because our unborn baby was not moving.
To be forced to pay this PCN in these circumstances would be completely inhumane and immoral.
Kind regards.


Notice of rejection from Gemini

Parking Charge Number: 171822
Vehicle Registration: MK61AYS
Date PCN Issued: 06/08/2017 Location: Queens Hospital Contravention: Parking In A Disabled Bay POPLA Verification Code: 4162357611

You recently contacted us to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 171822 that was issued to the driver of vehicle registration MK61AYS on 06/08/2017 at Queens Hospital, Rom Valley Way, Romford, Essex, RM7 0AG. This PCN was issued because the vehicle broke the following parking regulation: Parking in a Disabled Bay.
We have noted your comments that your partner went into labour on the date of contravention, you went to park in the maternity car park but soon found out that all the bays had been taken. You have also stated that as you could not park in the maternity car park you were forced to park in the next closest parking area which happened to be the disabled parking bays. Please be advised that all vehicles parked in a disabled bay must display a valid blue badge to validate their stay.
We have carefully considered your appeal. Unfortunately, for the reasons below, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
• Parking regulations are displayed on clearly visible signs at the entrance and throughout the location.
• Those regulations include that all vehicles parked in designated disabled bays must have a valid blue badge clearly displayed. Please see below for photographic evidence.
• As the above vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without a valid blue badge displayed, our Enforcement Officer issued a PCN. We are satisfied that this was the correct action.
• Unfortunately, the mitigating circumstances cited as part of your appeal do not provide sufficient evidence that this PCN was issued incorrectly.
When parking on private land, the motorist agrees to abide by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. This location is private property and is managed by Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd on behalf of the land owner.
Gemini Parking Solutions fully complies with the guidelines set by the British Parking Association. Please note that photographic evidence is taken with every PCN that is issued.
Payment at the discounted rate £45.00 can be made within 14 days from the date of this letter. Regrettably payments made after this period will be for the full amount of £75.00. Failure to pay the amount may result in further costs being incurred and may also result in Gemini Parking Solutions Ltd, reluctantly instructing a Debt Collection agency to collect any sum due.
Yours Sincerely,
Appeals Centre
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Should you wish to make a second appeal, this can be done through POPLA – the independent appeals service.
Any appeal to POPLA must be received within 28 days of the date on this letter. Please note that if you do appeal to POPLA, you lose the right to pay the discounted rate of £45.00. Should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour, you will then be required to pay the full amount of £75.00.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.’


Notice of rejection from POPLA

POPLA assessment and decision
20/09/2017
Verification Code
4162357611
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name[Removed]
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a disabled bay without displaying a disabled badge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that his partner went into labour and was advised to go to the maternity triage unit
as a matter of urgency. He states that the maternity unit was full so he was forced to park in the closest
possible zone, which happened to be the disabled parking area. The appellant believed that this would not
be a problem. The appellant has provided proof of the birth of his daughter to support his appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state: “Disabled badge holders only. A valid blue badge must be
clearly displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle. All vehicles that are not parked in accordance with
the terms and conditions for this site will be issued a Parking Charge Notice”. The operator has issued the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked in a disabled bay without displaying a disabled
badge. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle at the time of the
parking event. Upon review of this, it is evident that the appellant parked in a disabled bay without
displaying a blue badge. The appellant’s case is that his partner went into labour and was advised to go to
the maternity triage unit as a matter of urgency. He states that the maternity unit was full so he was forced
to park in the closest possible zone, which happened to be the disabled parking area. The appellant
believed that this would not be a problem. While I acknowledge that the appellant’s wife was in labour,
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. Even if a motorist presents circumstances setting out
reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was
formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. As the appellant parked in a disabled bay
without displaying a disabled badge on display, he has failed to adhere to the site’s terms and conditions.
As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.



Surely there must be a point where morality takes precedence over regulation.

Any advice on how to proceed with this would be greatly appreciated.

Regards.

Marty.

Umkomaas

Surely there must be a point where morality takes precedence over regulation.

Any advice on how to proceed with this would be greatly appreciated.

Pity you didn't come to us for help initially, because you wouldn't be in this position now, for sure. While using your mitigating circumstances is fully understandable, unfortunately they don't win POPLA appeals. POPLA do not adjudicate on mitigation.

The bottom line however is that the POPLA decision is not binding on you. So we'd recommend that you just ignore it and see what happens next. You'll likely get powerless and totally ignorable debt collector letters. You need to be alert to getting a Letter Before Claim or real court papers.

While some PPCs are uber litigious, Gemini are not one of these. They've tried a few Court claims, but if you do get one, it is eminently defendable with help from the forum and I'm sure a judge will be asking very pointed questions their way. Plus, after 1 October it is going to be more complicated for PPCs to be banging out court papers willy nilly as they have of late. To me, it looks like the pendulum will swing more in your direction than theirs.

One other point, what has the hospital said about this? Have you kicked up a fuss with them? Even at this stage they can demand that Gemini drop the charge.

Coupon-mad

Gemini would have been so easy to beat at POPLA, if you'd appealed as registered keeper. All you had to do was not say who was driving. What a shame. Never mind, it's only Gemini, no-one pays them!

A complaint to PALS might have got it cancelled immediately, too, on the basis that a pregnant lady in labour is protected by the Equality Act 2010 (not such strong protection as the provision for disabled people is, but it requires that a pregnant woman is not treated unfavourably due to an aspect relating to her condition).

You would actually have been better to park out of a bay/at a kerb than in a disabled bay, in my view. Or parked there just to help her out and into the care of midwives, then moved the car quickly.

tyndall1979

Thank you for your replies. I hadn't thought of getting in touch with the hospital (PALS) until you both mentioned it. I shall do that to seek their advice.

I will keep you updated.

Thank you again.

KeithP

tyndall1979 wrote: »

Thank you for your replies. I hadn't thought of getting in touch with the hospital (PALS) until you both mentioned it. I shall do that to seek their advice.

Perhaps you need to be a bit more assertive than 'seeking their advice'.

Umkomaas suggested 'kicking up a fuss' and suggests "they can demand that Gemini drop the charge".

Maybe you should be insisting that your behaviour was entirely reasonable and the PPC have acted totally out of proportion to the alleged 'offence'.
PALS have it in their power to get these things overturned or at least progressed through the hospital management system.

Coupon-mad

I agree, you are being too nice - do not ask for 'advice'. Get ANGRY about this scam charge.

But this is 'POPLA Decisions' so not the place for discussion!

Alex4567753

Original thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5689142

PPC - Euro Car Parks (ECP)

Location - Kay St, Bolton

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Jamie M****

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not shown the individual they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. There is no evidence the operator has authority to operate on the land. The PCN is a penalty. Photographs of the appellant’s vehicle do not contain a date and time stamp, nor clearly identify the vehicle entering and exiting the site. Signs do not warn drivers that cameras will be used at the site to record vehicles entering and exiting the site. Photographic evidence is open to being doctored.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The signage at the site states, “THIS CAR PARK IS PATROLLED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE. DISPLAY A VALID TICKET CLEARLY INSIDE YOUR VEHICLE”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for 20 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. The appellant states signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. The operator has not shown the individual they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. There is no evidence the operator has authority to operate on the land. The PCN is a penalty. Photographs of the appellant’s vehicle do not contain a date and time stamp, nor clearly identify the vehicle entering and exiting the site. Signs do not warn drivers that cameras will be used at the site to record vehicles entering and exiting the site. Photographic evidence is open to being doctored. In relation to signage, Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (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”. The operator has provided images of signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver had insufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. This is because only one photograph has been date stamped, due to this I am unable to determine if the signage is at the site and whether the motorist had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with them. As such, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

ClaraStarr

I have just won both my POPLA appeals for PCNs from the CE run car park on Greenwich High Road. I submitted appeals to do with bad/poor signage, broken machines and bad contract stuff and they did not bother to contest! So it's worth the time and effort. Thanks so much to all Money Saving Expert forum users such as Coupon Mad & Redx for your much appreciated help!

Appeal that I sent listed in original post if anyone wants to see. (as below.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5691665&highlight=advice+needed+greenwich

TalkGirl_uk

Another win at POPLA against ParkingEye, this time at the Holy Trinity Church Newquay.

Original thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5684787&highlight=holy+trinity

Assessor comments
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver either did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with sub-paragraph 9. The appellant says that the operator have failed to adhere to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to grace periods. The appellant says that the operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts. The appellant says that the signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver either did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted. The site operates using an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras captured the appellant’s vehicle registration, RA07 RFF, entering the site at 19:27, and exiting at 20:37. The total period of stay was one hour and 10 minutes.

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the NtK, as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. Parking charge notice’s issued are done so out of a driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract, by parking the vehicle on relevant land. Parking operators are able to transfer this liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if it has not been able to identify the driver. If a parking operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

After reviewing the evidence provided by the appellant and operator, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. The parking charge notice that was issued was sent via post on 20 July 2017 to the registered keeper. The registered keeper has then responded with an appeal, within this they have stated, “Therefore, there will be no admission to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.” The rejection letter that was sent is addressed to Sir/Madam, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that this letter was sent to the registered keeper as these are the only details the operator held, as the appellant did not provide any details for the driver. Therefore, it would appear that the operator is holding the appellant liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has advised that the parking charge notice was not issued under PoFA 2012. Therefore, as the PCN was not issued under PoFA 2012 only the driver can be held liable for the charge.

After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I acknowledge that the appellant has been sent the case file on 13 September 2017 to review. However, as I have allowed this appeal I do not feel that there is any detriment to the decision as the comments would have no bearing on my decision. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

dynamic_imager

Appeal rejected by POPLA. PPC is Premier Park

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver failed to pay for the duration of their stay.
Assessor summary of appellant case:
The appellant’s case is the operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper (NtK) in compliance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.
The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority.
The appellant has questioned the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) accuracy and compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
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.
Reasons for the Assessor’s determination: When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site will set out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, a motorist should review the terms and conditions before deciding to park.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “Please pay for your stay: If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.”
The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice because the driver failed to pay for the duration of their stay.
The site operates using an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras captured the driver’s vehicle registration, xxxxxxxx, entering the site at 13:16, and exiting at 20:49. The total period of stay was seven hours and 33 minutes.
The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that a payment for a period of seven hours has been made against the vehicle registration number at 13:24.
The appellant’s case is the operator failed to deliver a NtK in compliance with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
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.
Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper.
I acknowledge the appellant has raised multiple issues with the NtK, which I will now respond to.
The appellant has made comments that the NtK did not specify the period of parking to which the notice related. The site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. Therefore, this is the time that the parking relates to as there is no way of determining when a vehicle has been parked.
The appellant has made comments that the NtK did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay the charge or did not describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose. Upon reviewing the Ntk I can see that it states, “We have issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) xxxxxx to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner where the driver became liable for a parking charge...The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park.”
I am satisfied that this wording is compliant with PoFA 2012.
Finally, the appellant has made comments about the wording in relation to when the operator can transfer the liability to them as the registered keeper.
Section 6 of PoFA 2012 states, “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”
The timescales set out within PoFA 2012 are based on the given date. A registered keeper has 29 days from the given date to either pay or provide driver details in order to prevent liability from transferring to them.
As the appellant will not be able to read the NtK from the operator until the notice is given, the reference to within 29 days relates to the given date.
I accept that the appellant may assume that the 29 days begins on the date of the notice. However, this assumption does not mean that the NtK fails to meet the requirements of transferring the liability from the driver to the appellant as the registered keeper.
The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.
I am satisfied that this does not have an effect on my decision as the operator have issued a compliant NtK. Therefore, the operator has transferred the liability onto the appellant as the registered keeper.
The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority.
Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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”.
As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.
The operator has provided a copy of the contract that they have with the landowner. Upon reviewing this, I am satisfied that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice and therefore the operator had the authority to issue PCNs on the day in question.
The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance with the British Parking Association BPA Code of Practice.
POPLA is an evidence-based service, and I can only base decisions on the evidence provided. In this instance, the appellant has not provided any evidence to disprove the accuracy of the ANPR cameras to show that the vehicle left the site.
In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the BPA audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking.
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 operator has provided images of the signage at the site
The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”.
Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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”.
Signs do not need to be viewable from every parking space on a car park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions before they decide to park.


I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions.
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.
I have already covered section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice.
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 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.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.
POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the parking charge notice in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the driver’s vehicle has been on site without making a sufficient payment to cover the full duration on the site, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly.
Accordingly, the Appeal is Refused.