POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Premier Park have had a pretty good run with POPLA of late, glad to see them fail on this. I was starting to think they might have some favoured standing! :cool:

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Premier Park have had a pretty good run with POPLA of late, glad to see them fail on this. I was starting to think they might have some favoured standing! :cool:

You are right, I think most now consider POPLA as a
"flip a coin" operation most likely reflecting back to the
BPA esteemed elite membership of scammers

AceOfBass

Computersaysno wrote: »

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....

I've edited the post to clarify it was the operator's failure to prove adequate lighting that was the specific reason for the win.

chewbigred

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Louise Dack

Assessor summary of operator case:
On 28 October 2017, vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the period of time paid for.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant states that no reasonable grace period has been allowed, the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site and that the charge is a penalty and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The appellant says that the charge received is prohibited and unfair and that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
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 PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’24 Hour pay and display/pay by phone car park…Charges apply at all times…Pay at pay and display machine…Please enter full vehicle registration via the key pad…This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice if paid within 14 days.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the period of time paid for. I note that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. Please note that my assessment will focus solely on the operator having authority from the landowner as this will supersede the other grounds. The appellant has disputed the operator having authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Within the operator’s case file they have provided a copy of written authorisation from the landowner. Having reviewed this I cannot be satisfied that this meets the requirements as laid out with Section 7 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice and as this does not contain a start and end date to the contract. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator had a valid contract in place at the time of the contravention. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

---

Won using standard templates and advice from this forum. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts.

_CraigS

I've complained to POPLA about procedural failings on this as the decision is based on the fact that a payment wasn't received when the operator has provided evidence that it was (they are claiming an overstay). The assessor also failed to address the key points of my case (these were made clear in a summary at the start of the document), particularly that the car park was unlit so signs were impossible to read at night and she didn't address the rebuttal points, specifically that the contract provided as evidence of landowner authority had expired.

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Georgina Riley

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator's case is that the appellan's vehicle parked at the George, Exeter Road where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking session expired or unpaid.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant's case is that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper was not delivered in compliance with the requirement s of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not correctly transferred liability for the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner. The appellant states that the operator is improperly using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems and that the operator has failed to provide any proof that oy adherence and compliance checks have been completed. The appellant has provided a letter outlining his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle entering the site at 19:26 and departing at 21:55 on 14 October 2017. From this, I am satisfied that the vehicle was at the site at two hours 29 minutes. The operator has provided a system search demonstrating that a payment was not received for parking on the day. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, 'Parking tariff apply at all times'; and 'Camera enforcement in operation. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100'. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA's main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions The appellant states that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the notice to keeper was not delivered in compliance with the requirement s of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not correctly transferred liability for the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. PoFA 2012 relies on the operator providing certain information within strict timescales to the registered keeper within its Notice to Keeper. In order to establish that the correct processes have been followed, I will need to examine the Notice to Keeper, which was given to the registered keeper of the vehicle. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with PoFA 2012 and as such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner. Section 7.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states, 'f 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. In addition, section 7.3 of the BPA's Code of Practice sets out the conditions that the written authority must include'. The operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. From this I am satisfied that the operator has the authority fo the landowner to manage parking at the site. The appellant states that the operator is improperly using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems and that the operator has failed to provide any proof that any adherence and compliance checks have been completed. The appellant has provided a letter outlining his appeal. The signage at the site states, 'Camera enforcement in operation'; and 'Any images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes only'. This would sufficiently highlight to motorists that cameras are in operation at the site and that a PCN will be issued for not complying with the terms and conditions of the site. Section 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, ';You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents';. From this, I am satisfied that the ANPR Systems at the site are maintained and audited to the standard expected and overseen by the BPA. When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. By entering into the car park and remaining in this area, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions in place and agreeing to pay the PCN if they do not comply with them. The terms and conditions of the site states that all parking periods must be paid for. By failing to make payment for parking the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions of the site. In conclusion, from the evidence provided I can only determine that the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions by failing to make payment. Therefore, I determine that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Umkomaas

I've complained to POPLA about procedural failings on this as the decision is based on the fact that a payment wasn't received when the operator has provided evidence that it was (they are claiming an overstay).

Let us know how this proceeds. Well done on taking this forward on your own with no requests for input from the forum.

I suspect the assessor pressed the wrong button for the template response - but if they can't work that one out, they deserve all the flak they get in return, and they need to sort out their apparent self-inflicted mess!

beamerguy

Is it not Georgina Riley who seems to be clueless
and making POPLA look stupid ???

Umkomaas

chewbigred wrote: »

Decision: Successful

---

Won using standard templates and advice from this forum. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts.

Brilliant, another self-help DIY-er using the powerful forum stickies, when so many demand help on whether to send a letter or an email, whether to lick or sellotape the envelope, first or second class ............

So refreshing, and well done. :T

shaleman

Decision Successful
Assessor Name: Linda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator's case is that no pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision
In this case, the motorist's argument is that the land is not relevant land according to Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, and therefore PoFA 2012 does not apply. Specifically he states that the car park is a parking place provided or controlled by a traffic authority which includes county councils. According to the information provided by the operator and the appellant, Euro Car Parks operate this car park on behalf of Kent County Council. From this information, the land does look like it is council owned. As such, I would expect the operator to have responded to the appellant's point directly to explain why it is relevant land. From what I can see, it appears that the operator has not responded directly to this point. Furthermore, POPLA has not been provided with sufficient evidence to show that this is indeed relevant land. As the land appears to be council owned then I am not satisfied that the requirements of PoFA 2012 have been met. Therefore, the keeper cannot be held responsible. As such from the evidence provided, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Many thanks to Edna Basher and the other contributors to the original thread.

studiousowl

Successful at POPLA Vs Car Parking Partnership (Liberty Printers)

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator's case is that the appellant's vehicle parked at XXX where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a restricted area without displaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant's case is that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the signage at the site is insufficient and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge sum. The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs from the site. The appellant has provided a letter containing the details of his appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.


Thank you for all your help!
original thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5636281