POPLA Decisions

nic66

original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74171533#Comment_74171533

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellants case is that the operator has not complied with the requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has advised that the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has advice that the signage fail to advise drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for, in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that the photographs provided by the operator fail to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the hirer of the vehicle, as they have not been identified as the driver. Accordingly, the provisions laid out in PoFA 2012 will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states: The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that: the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Following from this, it states under Section 14 (2) that: The conditions are that: (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub paragraph (5) (a) notice to hirer, together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13 (2) and the notice to keeper.
From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to the hire company, followed by a further notice to keeper to the hirer. I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it provided the relevant documents to the hirer. From the evidence provided to me, the operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with section 13 and section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. While I note the appellant has advised further grounds for appeal as I have allowed this appeal these require no further consideration.

Thank you so much for your help with this, especially Coupon-Mad and Edna Basher's templates I would not have been able to begin to pursue this, never mind successfully appeal, without the fantastic support and advice found on this forum

Coupon-mad

I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to the hire company, followed by a further notice to keeper to the hirer. I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it provided the relevant documents to the hirer.

From the evidence provided to me, the operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with section 13 and section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

Perfect example of a winning POPLA appeal v ECP from a hirer/lessee, and just shows why not to name the driver!

ThrownOutTheAsylum

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED AT GREENWICH CAR PARK

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not make a payment in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the parking contract was made null and void by the operator. He states that the motorist paid £2.50, however the payment machine only registered £2.00 on the ticket. The appellant states that parking costs £1 for 20 minutes and £2.50 for an hour. Therefore, he believes that the motorist should have been given 40 minutes of parking time. The appellant adds that the payment machine also did not accept the correct vehicle registration number. The appellant states that there is no keeper liability as the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the signage is improperly and inadequately displayed. The appellant has disputed the accuracy and reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. He states that the signage does not clearly state what the ANPR footage will be issued for. The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence that it has any interest in the land, or the authority to pursue charges. The appellant states that the sum is extravagant, unconscionable and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has provided a photograph of the parking ticket to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. 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 not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. While I acknowledge the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park, it has not provided any evidence of the landowner authority. As such, I am unable to establish whether the operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) for this car park. Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must allow this appeal.

stevem365

"Assessor supporting rational for decision"

I had a successful appeal but this bit just sets me twitching. Just one little 'e' does the trick

Chris_Oliver

Thank you to MSE Forum and also all the contributions.
The "ticket" relates to a private residential block where my mother-in-law lives. he owns the lease. My wife and I dropped her off. She is 99yrs old and although she lives independently, she's a little slow!!! Anyway, we parked outside, not in a bay, displayed the daft "permit", helped mum in and 15mns later came out to find a ticket. Thanks to the Forum and contributions we appealed on various grounds
- Mum owns a lease. The rights of the lease trumps a daft "permit" scheme
- HOME GAURD Services Ltd - "loading not parked"
- No Contract between PTL and Land Owner. We provided evidence of this.
The parking company PTL predictably dismissed the appeal. Following advice from here we appealed to POPLA. They have granted the appeal. The decision, which looks to me to somewhat odd (??) is below.

Many, many, many thanks again.
Warm regards - Chris.

Successful
Assessor Name
Louise Dack
Assessor summary of operator case
On 23 December 2017, vehicle SD65OTT was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist failing to display a valid permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the vehicle was not parked on the day of the contravention, however was on site due to being unloaded. They say that a permit was on display. The appellant says that the vehicle was situated outside and closely adjacent to the main entrance to the block of flat 39, where Mrs M Kochowiec owns the leasehold, but some distance from the kerb line. They say that they are the principle carers of Mrs Kochowiec, along with their wife and eldest daughter and on the day of the contravention Mrs Kochowiec was entering her premises needed assistance in doing so as she cannot walk unaided or indeed any distance. In addition, the appellant says that there has been no loss to the operator and they do not believe that that the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site.
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 ‘’Parking conditions apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions below will result in a £100 parking charge notice…Vehicles parked in this area must park in the correct marked bay and clearly display a valid P.T.L permit in the windscreen.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has failed to display a valid permit. The appellant states that the vehicle was not parked on the day of the contravention, however was on site due to being unloaded. They say that a permit was on display. The appellant says that the vehicle was situated outside and closely adjacent to the main entrance to the block of flat 39, where Mrs M Kochowiec owns the leasehold, but some distance from the kerb line. They say that they are the principle carers of Mrs Kochowiec, along with their wife and eldest daughter and on the day of the contravention Mrs Kochowiec was entering her premises needed assistance in doing so as she cannot walk unaided or indeed any distance. In addition, the appellant says that there has been no loss to the operator and they do not believe that that the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. The operator has provided a case file to rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal. Within this case file, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site. This evidence is poor quality and I have not received any clear evidence to show that the appellant has failed to display a valid permit. 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. As the operator has not provided insufficient evidence to POPLA of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site without a valid permit clearly on display, I cannot determine whether they have breached the terms and conditions of the car park.Therefore, I can only conclude that the parking charge was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.[/B]

Coupon-mad

Within this case file, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked on site. This evidence is poor quality and I have not received any clear evidence to show that the appellant has failed to display a valid permit.

Haha, in their rush to follow the money & issue a predatory ticket in minutes, no doubt having watched a disabled lady being helped to her flat, the PTL oik mucked up their blurry photos.



:T

Chris_Oliver

Ha, ha, you're probably very close to the truth there.
Why do these "operators" pretend everything is okay when the appeal goes in to them. They must know they are bother?
Based on the wonderful help posted here, we had a result. Anyone reading, please use the Forum and dont give up!
Thanks again and again for all the help.

scamdodger

I am complaining to POPLA (see my thread 'Insufficient Signage?).
Apart from writing to the email address [EMAIL="info@popla.co.uk"]info@popla.co.uk[/EMAIL], is there any other name or email contact I can use?

Coupon-mad

No, POPLA tell you in their FAQs on the website:

If you have a complaint about the standard of service that we have provided, have any queries regarding the status of your appeal, or if you feel we have not considered the evidence you have provided, please email info@popla.co.uk and we will be in touch soon.

Umkomaas

scamdodger wrote: »

I am complaining to POPLA (see my thread 'Insufficient Signage?).
Apart from writing to the email address [EMAIL="info@popla.co.uk"]info@popla.co.uk[/EMAIL], is there any other name or email contact I can use?

This is a 'POPLA Decisions' thread, not a 'POPLA Complaints' thread. What's wrong with asking this on your own thread?

This stuff gets no easier!