IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

POPLA Decisions

edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
4.2K replies 904.4K views
1309310312314315419

Replies

  • Hi All

    Update on the POPLA appeal, unfortunately was unsuccessful.

    From the comments the assessor did not look at the correct signage provided in the rebuttal, instead reviewed the incorrect signage provided by PE.

    Anything I can do about this or ride out the debt collectors letters until I get an LBCCC and court claim?

    See appeal decision below:

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameAlexandra Roby
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that he is a member of the gym and was using its facilities that day. As a member of the gym, the appellant advises that he is entitled to use the car park for two and a half hours for free. Out of human error, the appellant states that he may have forgotten to register his vehicle to park, or entered his vehicle registration number incorrectly. Despite this, he believes that he should not have to pay the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The appellant has provided an email from the gym to confirm that he was using the gym between the times that he parked.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state: !!!8220;Permit holders only. This area is for the use of Hastings staff and St George!!!8217;s Heights resident permit holders only. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Chare of: £100!!!8221;. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation. Images from the operator!!!8217;s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle entered the car park at 06:27 and exited at 08:00 on the day in question, staying for a total of one hour and 32 minutes. A system generated print out has also been provided, showing that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was not registered to park at the site that day. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that he is a member of the gym and was using its facilities that day. As a member of the gym, the appellant advises that he is entitled to use the car park for two and a half hours for free. Out of human error, the appellant states that he may have forgotten to register his vehicle to park, or entered his vehicle registration number incorrectly. Despite this, he believes that he should not have to pay the PCN. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator 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, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. While I appreciate the appellant!!!8217;s version of events and his evidence, upon review of the signage, the car park does not appear to be for gym members. It clearly states that the car park is for Hasting staff and St George!!!8217;s Heights residents. Regardless, the appellant was not registered to park at the site that day. Ultimately, it is a motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation, he has failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
  • edited 4 August 2018 at 7:02AM
    Adam-and-the-antsAdam-and-the-ants Forumite
    6 Posts
    edited 4 August 2018 at 7:02AM
    I have just rec'd my popla decision....it was SUCCESSFUL!!!! :j:j:j:j:j:j Thanks so much for all the info i gained off here, it really has been invaluable. It may have taken a while to put my case together, and ALOT of reading and studying....but i wouldnt have known where to start if it wasnt for this forum. I wouldnt have even had a clue!

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Michael Byrne
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has Landowner Authority to issue the PCN. The appellant states has failed to identify that it is pursuing the driver of the vehicle who may have been liable for the PCN. The appellant does not consider the signage prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has advised that the parking charge was not made prominent on the signage. The appellant states that the driver therefore did not have the opportunity to read about the £85 PCN, which they consider out of proportion. The appellant states that the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Code of Practice rules for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and surveillance cameras. The appellant considers the photographic evidence to be doctored and does not show evidence of the vehicle contravening the terms of the car park. The appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s PCN appeal letter to support their case.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Maximum stay 2 hours...Cameras in operation Monday to Sunday 06:00 hours to 19:00 hours...This car park is patrolled...Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £85 PCN...Parking limited to 2 hours". The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle XXXXXXX entering the car park at 14:10 and leaving at 16:39, totalling a stay of two hours and 29 minutes. The appellant has advised that the parking charge was not made prominent on the signage. The appellant states that the driver therefore did not have the opportunity to read about the £85 PCN, which they consider out of proportion. 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: “…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.” 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 BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. 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 “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” 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 not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, I do not consider it necessary to consider these, as I have already allowed the appeal on the above basis. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and must allow the appeal.
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ^^ Euro Car Parks ^^

    Helps to know who the PPC is when copying and pasting POPLA adjudications.

    Well done.:T

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5866601
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • oops sorry, didnt realised id missed that out....edited to include it now :)
  • Decision: Successful

    Assessor Name: Michael Byrne

    Assessor summary of operator case:
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant did not park in a designated parking bay.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant advises that the operator did not issue a Notice to Keeper, in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that it is pursuing them for the PCN as the driver of the vehicle. The appellant argues that the operator has not proven that it has landowner authority to issue the PCN. The appellant advises that the signage on site is insufficient, in particularly in regards to the sum of the charge itself.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. POPLA’s role is to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly. Therefore, we require evidence of the PCN in order to determine whether it has been given correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage at the site. In this case, the operator has not provided sufficient evidence of the notice, and as such, I have not been able to assess if the PCN has been issued correctly. Upon consideration of the evidence provided to POPLA, I cannot determine the terms and conditions of the car park were breached. I note the appellant has provided evidence and raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and must allow the appeal.
  • edited 10 August 2018 at 12:04AM
    IbcusIbcus Forumite
    165 Posts
    edited 10 August 2018 at 12:04AM
    APCOA appeal on Wigan Grand Arcade


    Link to original thread:
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5832962

    [FONT=&quot]Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]An Appeal has been opened with the reference 0*********.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]APCOA Parking 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.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]POPLA Team[/FONT]


    From popla track appeals page:
    Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator

    Withdrawn on 09/08/2018
    Verification Code

    0*********

    Withdrawal reasons

    no site images
  • JacknifeJacknife Forumite
    7 Posts
    First Post First Anniversary
    MoneySaving Newbie
    Thanks to everyone for their help with this! Especially CouponMad :T:T:T:T:T

    Decision - Successful
    Assessor Name - Michael Byrne
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display ticket was purchased for the appellant's vehicle.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. These are as follows: - The operator did not issue a compliant Notice to Keeper; - The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge; - The operator has not provided evidence of land owner authority; - The signs of the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself; - The signs do not adequately warn drivers what Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera data will be stored for; - The operator did not provide a grace period; and - The operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and Information Commissioners Office Code of Practice rules for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “24 hour pay and display/pay by phone...Charges apply at all times......Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £70 PCN". The operator has issued the PCN as no valid pay and display ticket was purchased for the appellant's vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle ---- parked on site at ---- without displaying a valid pay and display ticket. The appellant states that they did not notice any indicators of parking restrictions when first arriving on site, such as double yellow lines or signage. However, they clarified whether there were any parking restrictions with a shop owner, who pointed out the parking sign. After reading the terms and conditions, the appellant noticed that the sign advised of a 10 minute waiting period, which she did not think she exceeded until receiving the PCN. The appellant states that they would have purchased a ticket if they knew that they had exceeded the time. The appellant has advised that The signs of the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. 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 “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” 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 not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the above reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I do not conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and will allow the appeal.
  • A bit late, to the extent that I can't access the decision criteria, but we had a successful appeal to POPLA against Care Parking (Anchor) related to abused patronage at Aldi Corporation St Preston in March.


    The appeal was upheld as the NTK arrived after 60+ days and there was no clear evidence of abused patronage.

    I guess they only allow access to the decisions to 28 days as I can no longer access the portal.

    Cheers for the guidance.....:money::T:beer:
  • Link to my original thread here.

    Elite Parking Midlands failed to submit any defence and Popla found in my favour. This was the car park on the site of the old factory on Station Road in Walsall. Just in case anybody searches for it.

    Decision

    Successful

    Assessor Name

    Sophie Taylor

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has not provided any evidence in response to the appellant!!!8217;s appeal, and therefore has failed to support its claim that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant has provided an 11 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points. The appellant states that: !!!8226; The notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. !!!8226; The operator has no authority to issue PCNs on the land. !!!8226; The signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    As the operator has not provided any evidence in response to this appeal, I am unable to confirm that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has left the appeal unchallenged. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    A very proud Mummy to 3 beautiful girls... I do pity my husband though, he's the one to suffer the hormones...
    Krystal is so smart and funny and wonderful I am struck dumb in awe in her presence.

  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yet another operator that either has no legitimate case to pursue, or has insufficient intellect to contest a POPLA appeal. If you are reading this Elite Parking, care to confirm which one? :D
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides