POPLA Decisions

Pdmum

Sorry, wasnt sure where it would be relevant so posted on both.

FredaGrey

Appeal vs Euro Car Parks invoice for £90 for alleged overstay in free car park: DecisionSuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to ;Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a nine-page document listing the grounds for appeal in this case, which I have summarised as follows. The appellant states that: The operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and so they cannot be held liable as the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has not provided evidence of its authority to issue PCNs on the land. !!!8226; The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and she feels that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The signs do not warn motorists that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are in use, nor what the data captured will be used for. She queries the reliability of the ANPR cameras. The operator has not provided a grace period. The appellant has provided evidence of a sign.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has queried the operators 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.

KeithP

Well done FredaGrey.

For anyone interested, here is a link to her thread to show how she did it with very little direct help from forum members:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5780395

MouseTrap

Hey Coupon Mad - just a heads up that there's a load of weird typos in your "NTK never served" template - repetition of "!!!8217" within the text.

I thought it's worth pointing out because obviously a lot of people copy/paste this text into their appeals and some people might not notice these typos in time to take them out!

Cheers

beamerguy

MouseTrap wrote: »

Hey Coupon Mad - just a heads up that there's a load of weird typos in your "NTK never served" template - repetition of "!!!8217" within the text.

I thought it's worth pointing out because obviously a lot of people copy/paste this text into their appeals and some people might not notice these typos in time to take them out!

Cheers

The problem is the site that does not understand some devices/progammes
Hope MSE can sort it soon

Insamniac

In the popla template for "The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge" it says this "always underneath any point #1 which alleges 'no keeper liability' for whatever reason (either non-compliant NTK, no NTK at all, a 'driver only PCN' like CEL ones, or byelaws ones - or even an appellant who lives in NI or Scotland who parked in England/Wales)."

abit confused with the #1 part what part is this meant to be?

this is regarding a NCP charge in a retail car park, do i need to do a popla appeal with more than one areas of complaint IE about signs and chasing the registered keeper? or just choose one and go down that route,

NCP didnt give me pictures that i requested and the pitures on the original pcn only hsow car entering and leaving..

sorry if this has been answered before

Regards

KeithP

Insamniac wrote: »

sorry if this has been answered before

Yes it has been answered before. Many times.

Your best starting point is the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

If you have further questions then please start your own thread.
This thread is for people to post PoPLA appeal decisions and your query isn't one of those.

Please no further responses on this thread, but start your own thread if necessary. Thanks.

fatbeetle

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/motorist-reveals-how-beat-parking-1276432
Just in case this was missed.

m00se

Operator Name Local Parking Security
Operator Case Summary
We advise that the car park at Bath Road Premier Inn operates on an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system therefore the camera will pick up your vehicle registration entering and exiting the car park. Before exiting the car park, you need to visit the pay station located in the Premier Inn reception to pay for parking, You will need to enter your vehicle registration into the machine and this will inform you how long your vehicle has been parked for and how much payment is required for your stay. Payment is then made. Once you have visited the machine and made a payment, you can then exit the car park. The barriers operate automatically therefore will allow you to exit the car park, whether payment has been made or not. The appellant has stated in their appeal that they were unaware that the parking charges are additional to when making a booking at the Premier Inn, we can confirm that on the Bath Road Premier Inn website it is clearly states that !!!8216;Chargeable onsite parking, Pay and Display parking is available onsite at £10.00 per 24hours!!!8217;. This information has been attached and highlighted in pink. The signage located throughout the car park clearly informs all drivers/car park users that parking should be purchased upon exiting the car park, using the machine located in the Premier Inn reception all information required is clearly stated on the signage for appellants to see. As no payment for parking was made upon leaving the car park, the parking charge notice was correctly issued. It is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. By remaining on site, the appellant has agreed to comply with the terms or risk the incurrence of a PCN. The legal basis of the Parking Charge Notice is based on the contract entered by drivers who park on private land. The terms and conditions upon which the contract is based is clearly stated on all signage located throughout the car park. When parking on private land the motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions for parking in return for permission to park, it is the motorists responsibility to ensure they abide by any clearly displayed conditions for parking. The terms and conditions for parking including the parking charges applicable are clearly stated on the signs located throughout the car park. Local Parking Security Ltd are a fully approved member of the British Parking Association and as such abide by all current legislation and regulations with regards to parking on private land.

POPLA assessment and decision
23/02/2018

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name Gemma West
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant!!!8217;s case is that he stayed the Premier Inn prior to a two-week holiday in Canada. He explains that on booking it was noted that it was chargeable parking on site; however did not receive notification that he was required to make a payment. The appellant states the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He says that there is insufficient notice of the amount of the parking charge. Furthermore, he states the signage is not clear in the hours of darkness. The appellant has provided a photograph of the signage at the site within his submission to POPLA.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof rests with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. The British Parking Association Code of Practice section 18.3 states, !!!8220;Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your 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 their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; Furthermore section 19.3 states !!!8220;If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions!!!8221;. On review of the operator!!!8217;s evidence, I can see that payment is required at the site. However, the pictures of the signage at the site, do not state the amount of the parking charge. Furthermore, I cannot determine if the appellant entered an agreement whereby they agreed to £85. Therefore, I cannot conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must allow the appeal.

Marcel898

Hi, I have received a PCN for parking in my allocated bay that comes with a rented property for having displayed a copy of my parking permit (original was stored at home).
Charge £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)

1, PPC: Premier Park issued PCN on 23/1/2018 and my appeal was instantly rejected by them.
2, I have tried to cancel it with the property management but they kind of blag it, that they are waiting for Premier park and asking questions why there was only a copy of permit

01/02/2018 PP reduced fine to £30 so I thought their case is weak and appealed to POPLA where they have to pay £27 to enter so I thought they`ll drop it.

3, 02/02/2018 I raised an appeal to POPLA based on the successful stories here with a copy of tenancy agreement, but I guess my initial case was week.

4, Popla Appeal
I have received a parking charge notice from Premier Park (further PP) due to Parking Permit being invalid. The car was parked in my allocated space (bay 106). I contacted the Property Management Company (SDL Bigwood) who contacted PP and they didn`t cancel it for them. At the time PP issued the notice I had a copy of the permit on my windscreen. Original was took down as it was fading from the sun and I wanted to write down the number plate and bay number on it. If I did it on the original the tenants who would rent after me couldn`t use it.

Premier Park countered:
We enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage.
The signage clearly states:
!!!8226; Vehicles must fully display a valid permit in the windscreen area and park within a bay allocated to the permit.
!!!8226; Vehicles displaying a green permit to park within the green lined bays.
!!!8226; Vehicles displaying a yellow permit must park within a yellow lined bay.
!!!8226; Only one vehicle may occupy a single bay at any time.
!!!8226; No double parking within bays is permitted
!!!8226; No parking is permitted outside of marked bays or in the roadways at any time. No exceptions.
If you enter or park on this land contravening the above terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice.
The vehicle was parked in a yellow lined bay but the permit on display in the windscreen of the vehicle was a photo-copy and therefore, the vehicle was not authorised to park.

I have added:
1, I am renting a property which comes with the allocated parking space (contract attached- not mentioning obligation to actually display the ticket).
2, PP do not own the land, and I have not agreed to enter into any contract with them. It's not their land, and they have suffered no actual loss by myself parking in my own bay.

PP countered:
The Appellant has admitted that the permit on display was a photo-copy and therefore, an invalid permit.
When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park.
However, if the Appellant felt for any reason, that he was not able to adhere to the terms and conditions, then he would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site
The permit on display in the windscreen of the vehicle was a photo-copy and therefore invalid. Therefore, a Parking Charge Notice was issued.
It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not.
We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

POPLA decision

The terms and conditions of the site are, !!!8220;Vehicles must fully display a valid permit in the windscreen area, and park within a bay as allocated to the permit!!!8230; If you enter or park on this land contravening the above terms & conditions, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.00!!!8221;. The operator issued a PCN due to invalid permit. The operator has provided photographic images of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked at the site on the date of the parking event; the photographic images captured show the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked displaying a photocopied permit. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that they had a permit and that the vehicle was parked in the allocated space for the property they are renting. The appellant has advised that they had a copy of the permit on their windscreen as the original was fading from the sun. The appellant has advised that the operator does not own the land, and they have not suffered any loss. The appellant has provided a copy of their permit, tenancy agreement and email conversation in support of their appeal. The operator has provided a copy of a contract it holds, after reviewing the document I am satisfied that this complies with the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice guidelines and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on the land. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: !!!8220;!!!8230;the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices!!!8221;. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are!!!8221;. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, !!!8220;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 their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. The Act then moved on to define !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows, 3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments and the reason for parking at the site in question. However, when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed based on the evidence provided by both parties. While I acknowledge the appellant has advised and provided evidence that they are a permit holder. This would not exempt the appellant from complying with the terms and conditions of the car park. If the appellant had concerns that their permit was fading the, appellant would have needed to arrange for a new permit to be issued. POPLA cannot allow an appeal where a parking contract was formed, and the motorist did not keep to the terms offered. 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, by displaying a photocopied permit the appellant parked without displaying a valid permit, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.


Shall I ignore PP from now on, unless the court notice will be sent? Or is there something that can be done to fight greedy Premier parking?

Many thanks,
Marcel