POPLA Decisions

Wildwood17

I won! I'm so happy because it was starting to stress me out. THANKYOU everyone who gave advise you all do a marvelous job.

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAlexandra Wilcock
Assessor summary of operator case
The driver abused patron parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. He says the operator has not demonstrated that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The appellant advises that the signage within the car park is not prominent, clear or legible for the parking spaces. Also, he states that there is insufficient notice of sum. He states that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the operator has the appropriate authorisation to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) on the site in question.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the PoFA 2012. As the driver of the vehicle was unknown on the date of the alleged contravention, a Notice to Keeper was issued. To transfer the liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle, the Notice to Keeper must follow the requirements of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012, 9(4) the notice must be given by- (a) Handling it to keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5) 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 end. (6) 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 days” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales”. The operator has provided a copy of PCN. From this I can see that the date of the contravention was the Sunday 29 October 2017. Therefore, under PoFA 2012 the 14 day period starts from Monday 30 October 2017, as such, the PCN would have needed to be received by Monday 13 November 2017. I can see from the evidence provided the PCN was issued on Monday 8 January 2018. From this, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued eight weeks after the PCN should have been received by the appellant. As such, I conclude that the PCN has not followed the strict guidelines of PoFA 2012 meaning that the liability has not been successfully transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. As such, the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal on PoFA 2012, I will not take these into account.

Umkomaas

Therefore, under PoFA 2012 the 14 day period starts from Monday 30 October 2017, as such, the PCN would have needed to be received by Monday 13 November 2017. I can see from the evidence provided the PCN was issued on Monday 8 January 2018. From this, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued eight weeks after the PCN should have been received by the appellant. As such, I conclude that the PCN has not followed the strict guidelines of PoFA 2012 meaning that the liability has not been successfully transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. As such, the PCN was issued incorrectly.

8 weeks late, and yet they still pursue Keeper Liability - are they stupid, or just still don't understand this stuff yet - 5+ years on?

Answers on a postcard, please!

mae

Sorry posted in wrong place

Molts

On behalf of a colleague at Shorne Woods Country Park, Gravesend.

They took it to the bitter end but their evidence pack was woeful. I tore it apart but appeal won based on no authority to issue PCN's. The "authorisation instruction" they supplied as evidence was beyond a joke.

Won with standard template appeal tailored to the circumstances and a strongly worded evidence pack rebuttal.

Verification Code
2413517026

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameSophie Taylor
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to “No valid pay and display/permit was purchased”.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a document listing the grounds of their appeal. In the document, the appellant states that: • The operator has not issued the Notice to Keeper correctly according to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and therefore they cannot be held liable as the keeper. • The operator has not provided evidence of its authority to issue PCNs on the land. • The signs fail to warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. • The signs 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 justified any loss. • The evidence is open to doctoring.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association 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”. The operator has provided evidence of an authorisation instruction. However, reviewing this document I am not satisfied it is sufficient to show the operator has authority to issue PCNs as it does not give me the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. As I cannot ascertain that the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the land, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Coupon-mad

Well done Molts. Knew you could do it!

Going back to post #2923 from Wildwood17, this is wrong isn't it?

The operator has provided a copy of PCN. From this I can see that the date of the contravention was the Sunday 29 October 2017. Therefore, under PoFA 2012 the 14 day period starts from Monday 30 October 2017, as such, the PCN would have needed to be received by Monday 13 November 2017.

Unless I've added it up wrong, POPLA should have said that the PCN would have needed to have been received by Sunday 12 November. They are right to start counting from the day after, but then they haven't counted that day, the Monday, as day one.

Molts

Unless I've added it up wrong, POPLA should have said that the PCN would have needed to have been received by Sunday 12 November. They are right to start counting from the day after, but then they haven't counted that day, the Monday, as day one.

Haha yeah this one always wrecks my head but I agree, day one should be the Monday. Luckily in this case the PCN was issued well outside the relevant period.

I can only assume the POPLA assessor is getting confused with dates of service:

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so !!!8220;given!!!8221; for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose !!!8220;working days!!!8221; means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales!!!8221;.

Easily done by a lay person but POPLA assessors should be getting it right.

Edna_Basher

Your adding up is correct C-M. Any 14 day period beginning on a Monday must end on a Sunday.

It's not the first time POPLA have made this elementary mistake - thankfully in this case there was no harm done because the PCN was issued many weeks after the end of the relevant period.

Perhaps we should all club together and buy POPLA a set of Fisher Price counting beads.

beamerguy

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Perhaps we should all club together and buy POPLA a set of Fisher Price counting beads.

Good idea but my guess is that even counting beads
would be too complicated for them

AceOfBass

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Vikki Worrall
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator's case is that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant had failed to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, I have summarised them as follows:- !!!8226; There is inadequate and unclear signage at the entrance to and around the site. The appellant states that the driver did not have an opportunity to consider the contract or the amount of charge. In addition, the charge is disproportionate. Furthermore, the car park is unlit and therefore the signage is difficult to read at night. He also raised issues relating to the font size. !!!8226; The Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore no keeper liability has been established. !!!8226; The operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing was the driver at the time the PCN was issued. !!!8226; The operator does not have the required landowner authority to issue and pursue PCN!!!8217;s at the site. The appellant has provided a 12 page document, including photographs the appellant had taken, expanding on these grounds. And raised additional issues in his comments on the operator's case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, however, my report will focus solely on signage at night, as this supersedes all other aspects. The appellant has raised concerns over the signage at the site with particular reference to the car park or the signage not being illuminated, and therefore, the signage could not be read in the hours of darkness. The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) which captured the appellant entering the site at 19:44 and exiting at 21:19. From the ANPR evidence, it is clearly dark when the appellant arrived at the site. Therefore, the operator would need to provide evidence that the signs on site would be illuminated. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that !!!8220;Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including the hours of darkness if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or using the lighting for the parking area.!!!8221; It is noted that the operator has advised the signage at the site are readable and understandable at all times, and that a vehicle!!!8217;s headlights would light up the signage, the payment machines and also the car park. While I note that the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site and the location of these and the payment machines, most of these are taken during the hours of daylight. Of the photographs taken at night, these are taken of the two payment machines only and the entrance of Planet Ice itself. Therefore, the photographic evidence provided by the operator does not sufficiently confirm that there would have adequate lighting on the signage at the site itself. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. From the photographic evidence I am unable to determine if, when the appellant entered the site that he would have been aware of the terms and conditions associated with the car park due to the signage not being illuminated. Therefore I do not consider that this PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds, however, as I have allowed this appeal, I have not considered them further.

---

Despite my best efforts to derail the standard appeal with overly-long evidence pack comments, i got a win based on the operator failing to prove there was adequate lighting on the signage.
Thanks to everyone who contributed or offered opinions. I am very very grateful!!

Original thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5756275

Computersaysno

[QUOTE=AceOfBass;73903451, i got a win based on unlit signage.

[/URL][/QUOTE]

Almost....You got a win on the PPC scum failing to send enough pictures for the POPLA assessor to make a judgement on the adequacy of the lighting of the signage. She didn't actually say 'the lighting is inadequate'


So the next person along at this site might not succeed on this point if the PPC scum sent more/enough photos....