POPLA Decisions

Molts

As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge

Another Poopla classic! Well done for the win!

Umkomaas

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).

And that didn't appear to be an appeal point raised by the appellant.

In all fairness, where a PPC is pursuing the keeper, with no evidence of who the driver was, POPLA should, by default, be examining the NtK against PoFA requirements, rather than expect a naive appellant to understand and articulate the intricacies of PoFA in an appeal. Currently, unless raised, PPCs are evading scrutiny and potentially winning appeals without necessarily complying with the law.

The_Deep

PoPLA should also be aware that every appeal that they dismiss is likely to cause severe harassment, even perhaps an appearance in court, for the motorist.


t

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

PoPLA should also be aware that every appeal that they dismiss is likely to cause severe harassment, even perhaps an appearance in court, for the motorist.


t

If POPLA cares about that ???

POPLA has fallen into the murky sewers where their
cousins the IPC reside

stevewiz

POPLA appeal Melton House, Watford (Holiday Inn hotel on Clarendon Road). ParkingEye did not contest the appeal. Appeal basis was inadequate signage (including position of the payment machines being opposite side of car park from hotel doors) and contract with landowner.

As I said, appeal not contested, so one of those grounds for appeal was good.

beamerguy

stevewiz wrote: »

POPLA appeal Melton House, Watford (Holiday Inn hotel on Clarendon Road). ParkingEye did not contest the appeal. Appeal basis was inadequate signage (including position of the payment machines being opposite side of car park from hotel doors) and contract with landowner.

As I said, appeal not contested, so one of those grounds for appeal was good.

Great stuff, but not a POPLA decision ...... you should be talking
to Holiday Inn hotel on Clarendon Road, telling them that
very clearly Parking Eye is not fit for purpose at this
location and probably 100's of other sites they have.

The question must be that if Parking Eye can concede so
easily, what is the scam they operate in Holiday Inn's around the UK. The CEO of Holiday Inn needs to answer that and if he
wants his company to allow parking scammers anywhere
near his customers

Email Richard Solomons (CEO)
richard.solomons@ihg.com

IHG Hotels Limited
Trading as Holiday Inn

The only way these companies will understand about
the parking cowboys is to complain to them

Pdmum

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to pay for duration of stay.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper is non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the operator has now shown that the individual they are pursuing is the driver and is liable for the charge, grace periods, landowner authority and the signage is inadequate.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Please pay for your stay. Please enter the full, correct, vehicle registration details at the payment terminal, of the vehicle you are parking. Charges apply at all times. Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.” The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 19:55pm and exited the site at 22:13. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of two hours and 18 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event. The onus is on the appellant to ensure parking time is purchased for duration of stay. I note the appellant’s comments and their reason for parking at the site in question. However, in their appeal the appellant has not provided any evidence to support their submission. In assessing this appeal I have considered the evidence provided by the operator to be true as the appellant has failed to rebut their claims. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered at the site. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states under section 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. 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 exceeded the parking time purchased by 16 minutes, I would not be applying a grace period in this appeal as 16 minutes is more than a reasonable grace period to exit the car park. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the PCN)to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. In the BPA Code of Practice it states under section Section 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 Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a valid contract which proves that the operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices to motorists. In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 it states “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the 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.” Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

No worries, ignore the eejits!

Pdmum

Will someone be so kind to comment on this before i send. Thanks.

Dear Mr Gallagher,
I am writing to complain about the handling of my case xxxxx.
There has been a procedural error which is highlighted in the assessors comments which state “In assessing this appeal I have considered the evidence provided by the operator to be true as the appellant has failed to rebut their claims”
I did rebut the operators claims as on the whole it was contradictory and irrelevant to the issue of the PCN in question.This was posted on the Portal on 11/2/18 and was shown to have been received.
Why has this not been taken into account?
Furthermore I believe decisions are based on factual evidence presented by both parties and application of the BPA Code of Practice and relevant law and are not open to interpretation by an assessor.
Because of the above my case has been compromised and has not allowed a factual and impartial assessment.
Thank you for your time

KeithP

Pdmum, why have you posted that here?
I read it elsewhere earlier today.