POPLA Decisions

DMCG11

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Reference number
POPLA validation code:
Vehicle registration
The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:
1) A valid permit for this location was displayed
2) The minimum grace periods were not allowed by the operator
3) The signage not clear and legible
4) Questionable authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle
5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
6) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge

1. A valid permit for this location was displayed
This vehcles permit for this location was displayed in the rear windscreen of the car, given that there were many other permits in the front windscreen, which could have led to confusion. There was a litany of different permits in the front windscreen, as this car is permitted to park at various locations across London.
The sign also didn’t specify whether to display in the front or rear windscreen, the lack of clarity gave the impression that the rear windscreen was an acceptable place to locate the permit.
Therefore, as the car has a valid permit, which was displayed on the car at the time the ticket was issued, I am not sure why this ticket was issued or how it can be valid.
I have inserted below images of the permit displayed in the rear windscreen of the car:




Image 1) Permit for the car in question

Image 2) Image of the permit displayed in the rear windscreen, with parking ticket visible through vehicle

2. Lack of Observation and Grace periods either side of allowed parking time.
The car entered the car park at 11.40 and parked shortly afterward. The ‘Observed Time’ detailed on the ticket was 11.44 – the time of issue was 12.19. There is a free 30-minute period of parking allowed within this car park – the period observed was 35 minutes. The charge that was levied is unreasonable for overstaying in the car park for 5 minutes. British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
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.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
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.
Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods and account for situations like above
Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation ...
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.!
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes’ observation' period is acceptable depending upon various factors (e.g. Christmas shopper queues) and then you must allow a MINIMUM of another ten minutes at the end - and Mr Reynolds says: ''there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.'
The Signage on entry to the High Cross Centre Car Park is not clear detailing the grace period, when the parking period begins and its parking charges, see signage as follows:

3. 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.
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 showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.
18.4 - If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations.
The signage before entering the car park states “permit holders only” which the driver complied with. The sign on entry has no reference to when the parking period begins (see above– Image of entry sign).
The signage for the terms and conditions has very small font which is difficult to read and understand. They are unreadable due to the small font that has been used and at the height at which the sign has been placed.
So, for this appeal, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

4. Questionable authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle:
4.1 – the image taken from the rear of the vehicle appears to have been angled so that the stanchion hides the permit that was clearly on display as per the images above. This also appears to have been taken from such a distance that the parking permit is not visible, and they have not provided a close up image of the rear windscreen of the vehicle. Please see image provided by Private Parking Solutions below:



4.2 – time stamps. By close examination of the photographs, the details are added as an overlay boxes on-top of the photos in the upper left-hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these white boxes and text with authentic looking metadata. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged. I would challenge Private Parking Solutions to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge Private Parking Solutions that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of photographs, as the date stamps have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data)

5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.1 “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 BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided any evidence of this.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
6. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
The appellant has not been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing 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.

As a result of the above points, I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
Best Wishes

DMCG11

This is the appeal ive just submitted, no idea if i'll win or not!

Umkomaas

DMCG11 wrote: »

This is the appeal ive just submitted, no idea if i'll win or not!

This isn’t the place for it. The sticky is only for cases that have been decided by POPLA.

Would you mind deleting it from here until such time as you have a POPLA decision. Do you have another thread running about this case? Do you need a critique of your appeal (although that’s a bit late if it’s aleady been submitted)? Keep it all on your own thread if you have one already open, please.

Sheriff_Bob

:TSuccessfull Popla Appeal vs Spring Parking Ltd,
As Spring Parking did not provide any evidence to Popla!
I believe their NTK was issued late!
However we are still recieving threatening Letters from Debt recovery Plus Ltd for the same PCN, pay fine or possible court action!
I am ignoring the DRP bullies for now...

Umkomaas

I am ignoring the DRP bullies for now...

Strong email complaint to the BPA and DVLA - this should not be happening. Ask the BPA to sanction both Spring and DRP.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

SharkMan

Success for https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5716629
Tower Road Newquay

Within his appeal to the operator, the appellant has named himself as the driver. As such, I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and that the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 do not apply. While I note that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my report will focus solely on grace periods as this supersedes other aspects of the appeal. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant did not make sufficient payment for the duration of his parking session. The appellant states that he was not allowed a grade period in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. I refer to Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.” The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 11:06 and exited at 15:18 on the day in question, staying for a total of four hours and 12 minutes. The operator’s payment system shows that the appellant made a payment at 11:18, 11 minutes after entering the site, to entitle his vehicle to park at the site for four hours. Due to the size and capacity of the site during the summer time, I would consider 11 minutes a reasonable amount of time to find a space and purchase a parking ticket on this occasion. As the signage does not clearly state that parking time starts upon entry to the car park, in this instance, I consider the time the ticket has been purchased to be the start of the parking contract formed. Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice proceeds to state: “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”. As the appellant purchased the parking ticket at 11:18, I would consider that his parking contract would have ended at 15:18. The ANPR cameras captured the appellant’s vehicle exiting the site at 15:19, one minute after the end of his parking contract. This is within the ten minutes provided by the BPA Code of Practice minimum requirements. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

I’d complain to the BPA and DVLA that PE put you through this unnecessary appeal when they could clearly see (as could POPLA) that at this time of year the ‘overstay’ was well within Grace Periods parameters and ask that they be put on warning that this must not be repeated. Totally unfair to a naive consumer who is blissfully unaware of the extent of the latitude available, because he/she would have lost this appeal and a potential cost to them of £100.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Well done on your win. Shady stuff from PE - trying to catch the unwary and snatch £100.

JustThisGuyYouKnow

ParkingEye - Tower Road

Decision: Successful

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 provided POPLA with a PDF document, which contains his evidence and several grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant does not believe that the operator has applied a reasonable grace or observation period. • The appellant believes that there was no contract entered into between the driver and the operator. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this site. • The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is inadequate. • The appellant does not feel that the signs make it clear that the car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, or what the data captured by these cameras is used for. • The appellant has questioned whether or not the operator has the relevant planning permission granted on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has described the events on the date in question. He explained that the date in question fell on a Bank Holiday weekend, and that the driver spent time trying to locate an available parking space. Given that the location of the car park is a popular tourist destination and factoring in that it was the August Bank Holiday weekend, I am willing to consider the possibility that the car park was busy on the date in question. The appellant goes on to explain that upon realising there were no available parking spaces, the driver decided to leave the car park in question and sought alternate parking arrangements. To substantiate his claims, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of a receipt from an online system showing that a payment was made for the appellant’s vehicle registration to Cornwall Council. According to Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, parking operators must allow a driver “a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide whether to stay or go”. In this instance, the images captured by the ANPR cameras show that the vehicle entered the car park at 12:41 and exited the car park at 12:52. As a result, the vehicle remained in the car park for a total of 11 minutes. Under the aforementioned circumstances, I believe that 11 minutes is a reasonable period for the driver to enter the car park, try to find an available parking space and leave the car park when they realised this was not possible. By seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract. I conclude that the operator issued this PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal in his PDF document. However, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.


Just to note, this was one of two cases ... the other was also Successful on the fact that ParkingEye failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority.

Thanks all. :beer:

Umkomaas

Why not whack in a complaint as advised in my post #2809?

Another PE ‘try-on’ forcing you to do all this work when they knew this was holiday season and there would be difficulty in finding spaces. Additionally their own usage logs would prove that the car park was likely rammed - otherwise they would have surely produced them to POPLA to undermine your assertion about the car park congestion.

Good result nonetheless.

Coupon-mad

By seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.

That's a good point by POPLA and good evidence from you, to prove your point.