POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Nice wins for you both!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5770530

The first one v Euro Car Parks at Lullingstone Country Park, Eynsford Kent, was rare, POPLA actually understanding that Council owned land is not a site where the POFA applies or where a keeper can be held liable:

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.

POPLA could have gone for the easy option but didn't! shaleman's comments exposed this:

ECP have provided no evidence of landowner authority for parking enforcement in the Car Park at Lullingstone Country Park, Eynsford. Instead they have supplied a copy of a contract for parking enforcement in Brockhill Country Park, Hythe.

ECP have omitted the picture of the grey wooden sign at the entrance to the Car Park where the carved wording is too low on the sign to be read without the driver stopping.

FarmerDave

Many thanks for all the help and advice from lots of people on this forum. I would have never managed to have a successful appeal without reading lots of examples here. I would particularly like to mention the huge effort made by Coupon-Mad for the amount of time you must spend and the research you do. There are others also - too many to mention!

In this instance the driver parked in the Britannia Multistorey Carpark known as Dex in the city centre of Newcastle upon Tyne. The all-day charge in this carpark has recently increased from £4.50 to £5. The driver paid £4.50 and Britannia sent the PCN to the keeper by obtaining details from DVLA. I appealed to POPLA by using a modified version of the standard letter obtained from the Newbies thread.

Interestingly the assessor noted "British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.11 states “where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”

The full decision was as follows:

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Louise Dack

Assessor summary of operator case
On 16 November 2017, vehicle XX03XXX 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 a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served and as such no keeper liability can apply. They say that the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. In addition, they say that a valid pay and display ticket was purchased. The appellant says that the evidence provided by the operator is incorrect and the driver purchased an all-day ticket, not a two hour ticket.

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 ‘’Restrictions and charges apply to all vehicles at all times…All day £5.00…Please enter the full and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff…£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the period of time paid for. The appellant states that a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served and as such no keeper liability can apply. They say that the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. In addition, they say that a valid pay and display ticket was purchased. The appellant says that the evidence provided by the operator is incorrect and the driver purchased an all-day ticket, not a two hour ticket. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and they have submitted a copy of their pay and display ticket which shows that a payment of £4.50 was made. In addition, they have provided a copy of the Britannia Parking website, showing full day parking advertised for £4.50. In addition, this screenshot is dated 19 September 2017. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.11 states “where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site; however the photographs have not been time and date stamped for me to be able to confirm that the motorist would have been aware of the terms and conditions of the car park when parking their vehicle. While I appreciate that the operator has provided photographic evidence of the applicable tariff, this is labelled as ‘new tariff and I am unable to determine when the new tariff came into force. As such, I am unable to conclude that the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the car park. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.


Since I am new to this forum, I do not know whether I should publish my full appeal letter or anything else for people to read, as I think this page is just for decisions.

Nonetheless a great result, and many thanks again

daveruk

Successful POPLA decision

Many thanks to everyone on here, decision was never in any doubt - no signage visible at night, no signage at entry plus many other valid points made as recommended on this forum. Logging onto Popla portal, said this was a "gesture of goodwill"....

Dear XXX (me)

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXX.

Britannia Parking Group have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Coupon-mad

Hahaha, two Britannia PCNs smashed at POPLA, reported one after another. Well done!

Since I am new to this forum, I do not know whether I should publish my full appeal letter or anything else for people to read, as I think this page is just for decisions.

Nonetheless a great result, and many thanks again

What you posted here was fine and good encouragement for other newbies.

Glad the advice here helped!

Umkomaas

Many thanks for all the help and advice from lots of people on this forum. I would have never managed to have a successful appeal without reading lots of examples here. I would particularly like to mention the huge effort made by Coupon-Mad for the amount of time you must spend and the research you do. There are others also - too many to mention!

Another 1-post DIY-er. Well done FarmerDave on beating Britannia and especially by doing this yourself just using the detailed forum stickies, without any handholding from the forum regulars. Great stuff.

_CraigS

Umkomaas wrote: »

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!

Thanks to everyone here that contributed so that there was plenty enough information on here to pull together a full, robust response. It's obviously still down to luck whether you get a competent assessor or not though!


POPLA have responded to the complaint, essentially agreeing that the assessor failed to properly consider the case put to them but they're still rejecting it based on:

• The operator's word that the contract is still in place
• "Within 29 days" is sufficient to transfer liability under POFA
• Buying a ticket with their phone torch to see the machine implies that the driver entered into a contract to pay £100 and fully understood the conditions that they would be timed from entry to exit not from parking like a standard Pay & Display
• Operator submitted photos at night that use a flash and aren't actually legible

Thank you for your email dated 19 February 2018, which was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Premier Park.

I can see you have raised four specific areas which you feel the assessor has incorrectly responded to. I hope to clarify matters with my response.

1) You believe that the assessor was incorrect to state “The operator has provided a system search demonstrating that a payment was not received for parking on the day”, as the system print out includes evidence of payment.

Having reviewed the operator’s case file, I agree that this was an incorrect statement. It is clear that a payment was made for 14 October 2017. However, the payment was only valid for two hours and your vehicle remained on site for a total of two hours and 28 minutes, therefore the payment made was not valid for the entire parking session. I apologise for this error and will provide the assessor with feedback to this effect. However, I am satisfied that this was simply an administrative error that had no bearing on the overall outcome of the appeal.

2) You are unhappy as you feel the assessor missed one of your grounds for appeal, which was that the signage displayed on site was not “prominent, clear or legible” due to the car park being unlit.

I have reviewed the assessor’s rationale and I agree that she did not address this ground for appeal. Please accept my apologies for this error and rest assured that I will, again, provide feedback to the assessor. In light of the error, I will address this ground for appeal here.

I appreciate you feel that the signage displayed on site is difficult to read due to the car park being unlit. In response to your claims, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage which was taken during hours of darkness. I am satisfied that this evidence adequately rebuts your ground for appeal. Furthermore, by making a payment for parking, the driver demonstrated a basic understanding of the signage displayed on site. Therefore, the balance of probabilities would indicate that the driver could see the signage on the date in question.

I trust this clarifies matters.

3) You are unhappy as you disagree with the assessor’s conclusion that the contract between the operator and the landowner is valid. In particular, you believe that the contract has expired.

In light of your comments, I have reviewed the document provided. I note that page 38 of the operator’s case file holds the first page of the contract and it does state that the agreement is valid “for a period of 12 months from and including the commencement date”. However, the contract goes on to explain that there is a “rolling contract extension option” in place. On page 37 of the case file, the operator has stated: “We can confirm that neither The OHH Pub Company nor Premier Park have applied the notice provisions, and therefore the agreement remains in place”.

As a result, I am satisfied that the assessor made an accurate judgement call when determining whether or not this contract was valid and in accordance with Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

4) You disagree with the assessor’s conclusion that the Notice to Keeper met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).

I have viewed the PDF document you included, where you provided detailed grounds for appeal and I acknowledge the reason you believe the Notice to Keeper complies with PoFA 2012. However, I am satisfied that the assessor’s judgement call regarding this ground was accurate.

Ultimately, I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision. I appreciate that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. However, our involvement with your appeal has now concluded.

You may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: [link removed] or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

In closing, I am sorry that you feel your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, we have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure.

I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint or your appeal, and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter. Please note that if you continue to correspond with POPLA, we will add your correspondence to your case but we will not respond.

Kind regards,

Emily Jones
POPLA Complaints

Umkomaas

What is it with Premier Park and POPLA, because lots of dodgy decisions seem to go their way.

Coupon-mad

Never mind, perfectly defendable and unlikely to go anywhere near a court hearing anyway!

beamerguy

"I have reviewed the assessor’s rationale and I agree that she did not address this ground for appeal. Please accept my apologies for this error and rest assured that I will, again, provide feedback to the assessor. "

POPLA are getting really screwed up ??
The motorist does not want to hear rubbish like this

They are becoming as useless as the BPA and should join
them in that Multi Story car park in the Gobi Desert

"Please note that if you continue to correspond with POPLA, we will add your correspondence to your case but we will not respond."

RUDE, ARROGANT AND IGNORANT .... NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

[Deleted User]

Successful appeal CP Plus

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73922833#Comment_73922833

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case.
The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant did not park in a designated parking bay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the signage at the site does not comply with road traffic regulations and is misleading. The appellant states that there is no signage where the vehicle parked and is unable to be seen by motorists. She has also disputed the adequacy of the entrance signs and believes that the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The appellant believes that there was no contract or agreement for the parking charge as the motorist did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving a large charge. The appellant states that the vehicle was parked behind a metal shed and did not obstruct other car park users. She states that the parking event did not result in a loss for the landowner and has requested evidence that the operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. The appellant has provided photographic evidence to support her appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). I refer to Section 8(4)(a), which states that the notice to keeper must: !!!8220;be given by: (a) Handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period!!!8221; Upon review of the operator!!!8217;s notice to keeper, as the name and address have been removed, I am unable to determine who the notice was actually sent to and whether it was sent correctly to the keeper. As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.