POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

charlyp2 wrote: »

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she left the car park within the allowed grace period as stated by the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice section 13. The appellant says that she made payment for parking at 12:38 and left at 14:45, which was within 10 minutes. As evidence, the appellant has provided a copy of the paid parking ticket, an image of the site from google maps and a copy of the BPA code of practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that she was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering her liability as driver of the vehicle. 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 Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.

The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal.

The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. I am satisfied that the operators signage adheres to the requirements of Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

These captured the vehicle, entering the site at 12:34 and exiting at 14:45, which is a total stay of two hours and 11 minutes.

Upon review of the signage, the terms do not explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period.

The appellant says that she made payment at 12:38 after entry to the site. On review of the evidence, I accept this as fact. The appellant made payment at 12:38 for £2.00 against vehicle x that allowed parking until 14:38. The appellant says that as she left the site at 14:45 this is within the grace period set out by the BPA code of practice. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code Practice states: “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 signage on site does not dictate that parking starts at the point of entry and as the appellant did make payment within a reasonable time, I do not consider the operator issuing a PCN for a 7 minute overstay as reasonable. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Well done - a very useful POPLA appeal for us to quote, in cases where the PPC has played the ANPR time off against the (truer) PDT machine time, in order to engineer a scam PCN.

You added to your thread, these details (thanks):

The adjudicator was Jessica Lawton

and the code is 6061998156

the date of the decision was 18 Sep 2018

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74805979#Comment_74805979

ParkingEye, of course (who else) playing with people's lives and money, over their despicable, greedy, misleading, so-called 11 minute 'overstays' that are nothing of the sort.

captainslack

Won at Gatwick McDonalds, was a simple non-POFA case (although appealed on several grounds!).

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxx.

MET Parking Services 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team



Thanks for the amazing advice on this forum

beamerguy

captainslack wrote: »

Won at Gatwick McDonalds, was a simple non-POFA case (although appealed on several grounds!).

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxx.

MET Parking Services 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team



Thanks for the amazing advice on this forum

Well done :T

Proves to you that MET were scamming you

Yet another scammer with BPA membership:eek::mad:

minster.sucks

Can't post a link to my background I'm afraid too newbie. POPLA didn't comment on a few things I'd picked up on in my appeal which is disappointing. Hurry up and wait I guess!

Interesting also that at the bottom of the POPLA page was a link to the payments page of MB suggesting I should make payment.


Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
JeXXXXX LXXton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not followed the Protection of Freedom’s Act (PoFA) 2012 and it has not identified the driver. The appellant says that the operator has no landowner authority. The appellant says the signage at the site is not clear, prominent or legible from all spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of parking. The appellant says that the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras are neither reliable or accurate and the signage does not display what the data is used for.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I have not been able to confirm the driver of the vehicle from the evidence and admissions provided by the appellant. It is evident that the operator is seeking to make use of keeper liability provisions as outlined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Therefore, I must consider whether the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant met the requirements laid out within this act. Having considered the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on 21 June 2018 does meet these requirements and this was sent within the “relevant period” outlined within PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) also. Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, which entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified. 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 Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.

The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which states, “All users must pay for their parking duration in full… Parking Charge £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle, BXXX XXX, entering the site at 1X:XX and exiting at 1X:XX, which is a total stay of two hours and 28 minutes. In the first instance, I feel it important to highlight to the appellant that on the date of contravention a payment for two hours parking was made for vehicle BXXX XXX at 1X:XX allowing until 1X:XX for parking on site. This therefore makes it evident that the motorist was aware of the requirement to make payment for parking on site and thus evidences that the signage on site was sufficient and is in line with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and is “conspicuous” and “legible” and written in “intelligible language”. This payment further indicates that the vehicle was on site on the date of contravention and therefore the appeal that the ANPR technology is not accurate or reliable is not supported by this. Equally, the appellant has provided no evidence to show that the vehicle was parked in a different area or place on the date of contravention. Unless sufficient evidence can be given to dispute that a vehicle was not onsite for the recorded time, this is deemed a reliable way to monitor a vehicle’s stay.

The appellant states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to issue manage the car park and issue the PCN. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: "If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner". Section 7.3 continues: "The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement". On review of the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land and that this meets the criteria set out in the BPA code of practice, section 7 in its entirety.

The appellant says that the signage was insufficient notice of the sum of the Parking Charge itself. 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 sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

The appellant says that the operator does not show on the signage what the ANPR data is used for. The appellant has raised concerns regarding a breach of section 21.1 of the BPA code of practice. All the signage at the site displays the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras, and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site. Further the signage does stipulate “Minister Baywatch Ltd may apply to the DVLA for the registered vehicle keeper details and issue a Parking Charge Notice to the registered keeper by post”. It further states “When you use this car park Minister Baywatch Ltd collects and processes certain data to ensure that you are complying with the terms and conditions… This is collected via Automatic Number Plate recognition cameras”. I am satisfied that this is in line with Section 21 of the BPA Code of Practice, the ANPR system is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Therefore, this appeal must be refused.
:(

Umkomaas

Original thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5891408/popla-draft-appeal-met-parking-gatwick-mcdonalds

@OP - just ignore MET, and see what their next move is. You do know that an adverse POPLA decision is not binding on you, don't you?

MET's likelihood of more significant action (come back if they're daft enough to try):

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html

Thank you very much for updating us - you'd be surprised at the number who milk every drop from the forum then can't be 4rsed to update us, whether positive or negative news! Typical take all, give SFA back Britain!

beamerguy

"Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable"

Barry Beavis I assume ??

Sad, you clearly had the tea boy assessing your appeal

What on earth does the Supreme court have to do
with this ?????

POPLA don't understand about the dodgy ANPR and now,
total lack of understanding of the Beavis case

Steve Clark of the BPA should really get to grips with POPLA
and point out what the Beavis case was all about ???

Pigs will fly as Steve seems to struggle keeping his
scamming membership in check

Fergy_1964

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxx

Parking Eye Ltd 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

beamerguy

Fergy_1964 wrote: »

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxx

Parking Eye Ltd 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Good news:T

Once again, Parking Eye trying to scam the motorist ????

ANOTHER BPA MEMBER ???? SHAMEFUL

oldnfat

Original thread :
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74846055#Comment_74846055

Response :
Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA. An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxx.

Parking Eye Ltd 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.

Thankyou to everyone who offered their help and advice ...much appreciated.

Ship_Lifter

Basically did not know there was ANPR, signage was not on the machines, took around 6 mins to park, get change and bought 4 hours. Got back and left just outside time.
Total 12 mins over and got the dredged notice.

Read a lot of the threads and the BPA code of practice, and the real main winning point is the 10 mins of grace period before and after. I brought a ticket without noticing the ANPR (so not well placed signage) and if it was made absolutely clear don't buy a ticket until you are about to depart there would be no problems.
I am used to that in some of the other car park, so as far as I can see it's a money making scam.

So if you fall in within these grace periods DO APPEAL to POPLA after the direct Parking Eye appeal that will always fail. If unsuccessful pay the £100, but don't be scared to try, as I would rather loosed the £100 fairly than pay the £60 unfairly and keep funding them.

My GPS phone log on Google Maps also helped.
I even asked Parking Eye to tell me what time I brought the ticket, as I entered the number plate in to the machine and they obliged with an official email, so had proof of the time I brought the ticket!
Good Luck!!

Appeal Decision - Successful
Assessor summary of operator case
In the case the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 10 July 2018 for either not obtaining the appropriate parking period or remaining for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has advised that it took them some time to purchase the appropriate parking period and they exited the site 6 minutes after returning to the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they feel a reasonable grace period should be allowed to the parking period.

The appellant has also advised that there is no information on the signage about the camera systems being used at the site, and it is not made clear that driver’s are able to pay before leaving only that extra time is able to be purchased.

To support the appeal they have provided several photographs of the signage at the site which confirms the operator’s evidence is accurate, and they have also provided ‘GPS’ mapping data to show that they were parked at the site for the length of time described.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge.

Once it has satisfied the burden of proof, it then passes to the appellant to show any inaccuracy in the operator’s case file. In the case the operator has issued a PCN on 10 July 2018 for either not obtaining the appropriate parking period or remaining for longer than permitted. The appellant has confirmed that they were the motorist at the time of the contravention as such I am assessing the charge under driver liability.

The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate recognition images which show that the vehicle remained at the site on 25 June 2018 between 11:29 and 15:41. It has provided transaction logs to show that the appellant obtained a 4 hour parking period at 11:36 on the date of the contravention. The terms and conditions of this site are: “Up to 9.5 hour £5.00… at any time before exiting the car park – your full, correct vehicle registration will be required…

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100…” The appellant has advised that it took them some time to purchase the appropriate parking period and they exited the site 6 minutes after returning to the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they feel a reasonable grace period should be allowed to the parking period. The appellant has also advised that there is no information on the signage about the camera systems being used at the site, and it is not made clear that driver’s are able to pay before leaving only that extra time is able to be purchased.

To support the appeal they have provided several photographs of the signage at the site which confirms the operator’s evidence is accurate, and they have also provided ‘GPS’ mapping data to show that they were parked at the site for the length of time described. Section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “13.1 - If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you.

If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.” “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.”

The appellant has taken less than the 10 minute grace period allowed at the start of the parking contract, they have also advised that they returned to the vehicle and left the site immediately. As they have left the site within 10 minutes of parking contract ending, I find that they have made an appropriate payment to cover the parking period and have not remained for longer than permitted. Accordingly, I allow the appeal as the PCN has been issued incorrectly, and have no need to review any other evidence or information provided.