POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Shall I ignore PP from now on, unless the court notice will be sent?

Yes, like everyone else does - search the forum for 'Premier Park POPLA lost'.

TattieHead

Operator Information and Evidence
Submitted 16/02/2018


We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course

Verification Code
**********


Operator Name
Anchor Security Services

Operator Case Summary

Please find attached PDF for Care Parking response.



POPLA assessment and decision
02/03/2018

Verification Code
**********


Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
L**** M*******

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the charge for the contravention !!!8220;Abused Patron Parking!!!8221;.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant!!!8217;s case is as follows: !!!8226; The appellant questions the witness evidence on which it bases its allegation: !!!8226; He states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) placed on the windscreen is invalid: !!!8226; He states that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the statutory wording: contained within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: !!!8226; He states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been liable for the charge: !!!8226; The appellant states that there is a lack of standing authority for the landowner: !!!8226; He states that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces: !!!8226; He states that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has included a 12 page document expanding on the above grounds for appeal.

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. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, !!!8220;2 Hour Max Stay. You must remain on site at all times your vehicle remains in this car park!!!8221;. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The PCN has been issued for !!!8220;Abused Patron Parking!!!8221;. In this case I would take this to mean that the driver has left the site and as such, has breached the terms and conditions. This being so, I would have expected the operator to provide me with proof that the driver did indeed leave the site. On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided a screenshot taken by the operative on site that states, !!!8220;2 females left the site going towards the shopping centre!!!8221;. This does not states that the females seen exiting the vehicle or were in anyway related to the vehicle in question, only that two random females were seen going towards the shopping centre. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant!!!8217;s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant!!!8217;s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued 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.

Coupon-mad

Link to your thread, TattieHead:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5775111

Love the 'two random females' in that decision, still making me chuckle!

beamerguy

I would imagine that Care (bear) parking has been
following the jokers UKPC on here with their left site
rubbish.

Did they miss that UKPC are expert fakers and hide
behind wheelie bins

Next time Care Bear, try a bit of upskirt photography,
you are in the right members club ???

Computersaysno

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Link to your thread, TattieHead:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5775111

Love the 'two random females' in that decision, still making me chuckle!

So basically unless the parking scum have a continuous video of the driver getting out of the car and leaving the site they will lose every single time at POPLA...love it!!!


Of course what POPLA should now do is issue a dictat that all 'leaving site' cases will automatically be lost unless they prove the driver left the site...but that's never going to happen!

Beckie1406

I've had success with a non pofa "golden ticket" with parking eye. Grateful to members who helped.

A link to the post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5755580

beamerguy

Beckie1406 wrote: »

I've had success with a non pofa "golden ticket" with parking eye. Grateful to members who helped.

A link to the post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5755580

:beer::beer::beer:

And Parking Eye wonder why they are called COWBOYS

doubled1989

Gah ANNOYING

Lost Popla

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict guidelines set out in section 9 of the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012, therefore the liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signage at the site states !!!8220;Maximum Stay 20 Minutes!!!8221;. The operator offers a facility to pay additional time prior to leaving the site. The operator offers a facility to pay for parking using the paybyphone system, failing this there is a helpline number to call for assistance. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant!!!8217;s vehicle registration, YY54 MVD, was captured entering the site at 11:02 and exiting at 11:40. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 37 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant for exceeding the maximum stay. The appellant has stated that they are the registered keep of the vehicle. They state that the parking operator has not shown that the individual it is pursing is the driver who may have been liable for the charge. They state that no presumption can be made about liability in this case and the appellant reserves the right not to name the driver. They state that the signage is not prominent and is obscured; therefore inappropriate, illegible and confusing. They state that the charge amount is not clear and the text is too small. In addition the appellant states that there is no contract with the landowner. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The appellant has highlighted that they feel that the charge amount is not sufficient on the signage or that the signage itself is prominent causing an excess of charge. 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 the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are!!!8221;. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: !!!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!!!8230;Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. 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. POFA 2012 defines !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows: !!!8220;(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!!!8221;. 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. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states !!!8220;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!!!8221;. Within the contract supplied I can see that the contract with the landowner commenced on 28 February, 2017. It further states that the agreement is in place until terminated in accordance with the provisions given. For the purposes of this contract the termination provision is three months in writing by either party. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. The photographic evidence provided by the appellant supports that given by the parking operator. Overall, I am satisfied that there is sufficient signage to alert motorists to seek out terms prior to parking. If a motorist is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or feels that the terms and conditions cannot be complied with, there would be sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. 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 offered. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

doubled1989

What can I now do?

Umkomaas

doubled1989 wrote: »

What can I now do?

Go back to your post and put some paragraphs into that massive wall of text so we know the reasons for the POPLA refusal. You really shouldn't expect regulars, who are reading dozens upon dozens of threads every day, to have to plough through that enormous block of words.

Help others to help you.