POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

This week I received a notice to pay £160 to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and it had an option to call and speak to someone if I didn't think I am liable for the charge. I sent an e-mail to say I'd call on Saturday

OMG slow down!

This is nothing, don't compound your mistaken appeal stance, by making mistaken calls.

NO-ONE take DRP letters seriously and NO-ONE PHONES THEM! Promise us you will put that phone away!!

Your case and the other Smart one, hodplc, are both Smart Parking cases, which would have been an absolute 100% slam dunk WIN at POPLA, if you had just both come here first and used our templates.

You have to try very hard to lose at POPLA v Smart (sorry but it's true). The way you appealed was doomed, because neither of you appealed as registered keeper, simply pointing out that Smart Parking can't hold a keeper liable if they don't know who the driver was. So easy when you know how.

Newbies need to learn from this, and not make your mistake.

Having said that, no-one here pays Smart Parking. Read the NEWBIES thread post #4 about ignoring the debt letters and having a laugh about them.

Wise up now, please, you and hodplc. Next time do it right!

Mir-kat

Link to thread

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5747313

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Jessica Lawton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failure to make appropriate tariff payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
Further the appellant details that the operator has not applied a grace period.
The appellant states that the operator has no landowner authority and is therefore in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
Further the appellant states that the signage on site is not prominent and the operator has made inappropriate use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I have not been able to confirm the driver of the vehicle from the evidence and admissions provided by the appellant.

When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.

The terms and conditions of the site state, “Parking tariffs apply during the hours shown, 7 days a week… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

It is evident that the operator is seeking to make use of keeper liability provisions as outlined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Therefore, I must consider whether the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant met the requirements laid out within this act.

Having considered the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on 13 September 2017 does meet these requirements and this was sent within the “relevant period” outlined within PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) also. Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, which entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified.

The appellant states that the operator has not provided an appropriate grace period as the driver only remained on site for an overstay of 12 minutes. For this reason, I have considered section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states “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.” Further, section 13.2 details “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.” Section 13.3 states “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.” Further, section13.4 details “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.”

In this instance, I find it important to review the times in which the driver entered the site, made payment and the time the driver left the site following this, in line with the information displayed on the site regarding when the time for parking begins. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 11.27am and exiting at 15.40pm, which is a total stay of 4 hours 12 minutes. From the point of entry, the driver made payment for 4 hours parking at 11.33am.

Upon review of the signage, the terms do not explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period. I deem that 6 minutes after entering the car park a reasonable period. Therefore, 4 hours from the point of purchase is 15.33pm on the date of contravention. The exit time of the vehicle is 15.40pm some seven minutes from the point the paid parking expired.

I am not satisfied that the operator has allowed the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before it took enforcement action and therefore I do not conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I will not review these in further detail.

darkwarrior

I won my appeal against CareParking who manage a Metrolink car park in Oldham! Thanks for all the help everyone, especially Redx, Coupon-Mad, Umkomaas, and Keith P.

Do we normally post our appeal docs here to help others or is it unnecessary?

Here's the outcome anyway and a link to the original thread:

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameEileen Ioannou
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant but failed to supply evidence.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the notice to keeper was not issued in line with the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. As such, the appellant says that the operator has not shown who they are pursing as being liable for the charge. They state that the operator does not have the authority to issue PCNs at the site and that the signage is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Jo_W123

I won my POPLA appeal against total parking solutions for "driver leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained on the premises". For those in a similar position looking for help please see a link to the thread and POPLA decision below. Thanks for all your help!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73726311#Comment_73726311

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant vacated the site.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant. • She states there is no evidence the driver left the site. • The appellant explains the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is the driver. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. • She explains that the signage was not adequate and therefore no valid contract was formed.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections are regularly carried out…By failing to comply with the above terms of use you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £70”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant vacated the site. Within the appellant’s response, she states the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. 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 the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has not provided Notice to Keeper; as such I cannot determine the operator has met the requirements of the PoFA 2012. . In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I must allow the appeal

beamerguy

Jo_W123 wrote: »

I won my POPLA appeal against total parking solutions for "driver leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained on the premises". For those in a similar position looking for help please see a link to the thread and POPLA decision below. Thanks for all your help!

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I must allow the appeal

Well done ...... the driver leaving site (Lo que un mont!n de mierda)
they cannot prove ?
Well these parking whallies could not

TheDoctor0124

Hi
Should I use this for POPLA but also mention that my Notice to Keeper arrived on day 15 after the incident? I beleive that they need to send it within 14 days for the keeper to be liable?
Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

A NTK arriving on day 15 is in time, if you are counting the event as day 1:

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.

bergkamp

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Jessica Lawton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failure to make appropriate tariff payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
Further the appellant details that the operator has not applied a grace period.
The appellant states that the operator has no landowner authority and is therefore in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
Further the appellant states that the signage on site is not prominent and the operator has made inappropriate use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I have not been able to confirm the driver of the vehicle from the evidence and admissions provided by the appellant. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.
The terms and conditions of the site state, “Parking tariffs apply during the hours shown, 7 days a week… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

It is evident that the operator is seeking to make use of keeper liability provisions as outlined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Therefore, I must consider whether the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant met the requirements laid out within this act.

Having considered the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on 13 September 2017 does meet these requirements and this was sent within the “relevant period” outlined within PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) also. Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, which entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified.

The appellant states that the operator has not provided an appropriate grace period as the driver only remained on site for an overstay of 12 minutes. For this reason, I have considered section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states “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.” Further, section 13.2 details “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.” Section 13.3 states “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.” Further, section13.4 details “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.”

In this instance, I find it important to review the times in which the driver entered the site, made payment and the time the driver left the site following this, in line with the information displayed on the site regarding when the time for parking begins. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 11.27am and exiting at 15.40pm, which is a total stay of 4 hours 12 minutes. From the point of entry, the driver made payment for 4 hours parking at 11.33am.

Upon review of the signage, the terms do not explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period. I deem that 6 minutes after entering the car park a reasonable period. Therefore, 4 hours from the point of purchase is 15.33pm on the date of contravention. The exit time of the vehicle is 15.40pm some seven minutes from the point the paid parking expired.

I am not satisfied that the operator has allowed the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before it took enforcement action and therefore I do not conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I will not review these in further detail.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5747313

Umkomaas

I am not satisfied that the operator has allowed the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before it took enforcement action and therefore I do not conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Once again, despite having the timings available to them, PE ‘chances’ another PCN (and pursues it to POPLA) when they know that the grace periods provided by the BPA Code of Practice to protect the motorist have not been breached. Therefore they had no reasonable cause to access the DVLA database.

Just because they are electronically hoovering up thousands of motirists’ data each week, is no excuse for not having sufficient safeguards in place.

Perhaps an invitation to David Dunford to comment on what new processes the DVLA will now impose on PE (who ignore GP requirements regularly) to prevent any other ‘innocent’ motorists having to face all this crap?

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

beamerguy

Following on from the last post

David Dunford must be questioned as to why
Parking Eye are now using "without prejudice"
in letters and requesting a reply from the motorist
using "without prejudice"

This is restrictive practice