POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

No worries, same as this thread, complain to your MP:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5702159

HTH.

dynamic_imager

Very little evidence from Premier Park was provided for the appellant to view. No evidence of landowner authority or signage. POPLA have not shared this information and there was no evidence pack.

Coupon-mad

dynamic_imager wrote: »

Very little evidence from Premier Park was provided for the appellant to view. No evidence of landowner authority or signage. POPLA have not shared this information and there was no evidence pack.

There had to be an evidence pack & signage photos & landowner authority proof.

Complain to POPLA about their process failing. Complaint email is in the POPLA FAQS.

beamerguy

dynamic_imager wrote: »

Very little evidence from Premier Park was provided for the appellant to view. No evidence of landowner authority or signage. POPLA have not shared this information and there was no evidence pack.

With lack of evidence, how can the POPLA assessor even reach
a decision. ????

POPLA are of huge concern as to their capability to operate
an independent service ???? A very dodgy operation

dynamic_imager

Operator Name
Premier Park
Operator Case Summary
We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by the BPA Auditing Team. Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorist. We enclose copies of the signage at this site. The signage clearly states that CAMERA ENFORCEMENT IN OPERATION. Motorists can pay at the machine or by phone. When payment is made at the machine, the motorist must enter the full vehicle registration, validate what has been entered before proceeding with the payment. It also states that by entering or parking on this land, contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. PCN will be issued manually or by post to you or the registered keeper via Premier Park making a DVLA request. All signs say 'take receipt' at the end of payment instructions. Nowhere on site does it say you do not get a receipt. If the machine does not produce a receipt, then the process has not been followed correctly. The vehicle entered the site at xxxx. We can confirm that a 7 hour parking session was purchased at xxxx which expired at xxxx. The Appellant exited at xxx. 13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice. 13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. 13.4 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 parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. The Appellants vehicle did not exit the site until 25 minutes after the parking session had expired. 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 sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. If he felt, for any reason, that he was not able to adhere to the terms and conditions, then he would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site. The Appellant remained on site and therefore agreed to the terms and conditions. The Appellants vehicle was parked on site for 7 hours and 33 minutes with payment only being made for 7 hours. Therefore, an unpaid parking session occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that this appeal be refused. With regards to the appellant’s remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Details on the case be found at supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.



In actual fact the appellant made no remark whatsoever that the parking charge notice was punitive or unreasonable so this must be a standard Premier Park response to POPLA.

Coupon-mad

The ''case summary'' is just a statement filled in on the Portal and is not the evidence pack.

So as already advised, you need to tell POPLA you could only access the ''case summary'' statement and nothing else was visible to you at all - no evidence pack, no photos, no landowner authority, nothing - so their process has failed and what are they going to do about it?

The_Deep

we refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Details on the case be found at supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Bur it is not similar, In fact it is dissimilar in several aspects.

Beavis CP was not a P&D, could only stay for two hours, no facility to pay for extra time.

PE were de facto land owners, they paid £1000 pw to farm the CP.

No commercial interest in the site.

No need for high volume throughput, stay as long as you like if you pay.

PCN out of proportion to loss, therefore a penalty, therefore not a genuine estimate of loss/unfair term in a consumer contract.

I cannot this getting past a judge.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

... PE were de facto land owners, they paid £1000 pw to farm the CP ...

TD, why do you keep bringing up this irrelevant point, when you've been told dozens of times that it's a non sequitur, and that you are misleading people by advising that they should rely upon it?

It was established at the first Beavis hearing that PE had no proprietary interest in the land, as admitted by their witness, and as evidenced by the contract between themselves and BAPF.

It was also clearly stated in the judgment that the commercial arrangements between PE and the landowner had no bearing on the enforceability of the parking charge. All the £1,000 represented was a guaranteed level of commission in advance, rather than the more usual arrangement of paying the landowner £x per paid PCN retrospectively.

Coupon-mad

Tower Road NEWQUAY

POPLA decision with POPLA code, Assessor finds that 13 minutes to leave this large car park in Summer is perfectly reasonable and within grace periods policy:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5691633&page=2

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name [Removed]
6062267320

29.9.17


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was on site for longer than the time paid for.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that the operator has not provided a sufficient grace period for the driver to read the signage within the car park or to exit the site following the parking period. • They say that they believe the operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land and they require seeing an un-redacted copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. • The appellant says that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the charge amount.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly.

The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the time paid for. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 17:44 and exited the site at 19:02. A total stay of one hour and 17 minutes.

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says that the operator has not provided a sufficient grace period for the driver to read the signage within the car park or to exit the site following the parking period.

The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states in section 13.2, “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”.

The parking operator has provided evidence, which shows that the appellant purchased one hours parking time at 17:49. This is four minutes after the appellant’s vehicle has entered the car park. I am satisfied that this falls within a reasonable grace period to enter the site, find a space and make a payment for parking.

The BPA Code of Practice continues in section 13.4, “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 parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”.

From the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle exited the site at 19:02. This is 13 minutes after the parking contract expired. Due to the site in question, the time of year and the appellant’s explanation that there were pedestrians in the roadway, along with people carrying surfboards and other traffic, I am satisfied that 13 minutes falls within a reasonable period to exit the car park. As I am satisfied that the duration of the overstay falls within the grace periods permitted with a parking contract, I can only conclude that in this instance, the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

Kshah786

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664329&page=3#topofpage

Won against CPP at coventry hospital