POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

Well done:beer:

What a hell of a load of waffle for a parking eye scam ticket

Ralph-y

well done .....


however



"DO APPEAL to POPLA after the direct Parking Eye appeal that will always fail. If unsuccessful pay the £100,"


is not forum policy



Ralph:cool:

BobTheGoldfish

The ebay link in the example 'signage text' no longer lands on an item and should probably be removed.

Ship_Lifter

May have not been clear and read all together.
If you have been proved to be in the wrong and lost fairly after the POPLA decision, you can pursue it, but may have no choice to pay unless you want to take it all the way to court. So you'll pay the £100 fair and square. But appealing with the correct grounds and information is important to do.

Coupon-mad

Ship_Lifter wrote: »

May have not been clear and read all together.
If you have been proved to be in the wrong and lost fairly after the POPLA decision, you can pursue it, but may have no choice to pay unless you want to take it all the way to court. So you'll pay the £100 fair and square. But appealing with the correct grounds and information is important to do.

No you won't, we win in court 99% of the time...

DidiUK

Disappointed in this outcome because the assessor has essentially ignored my rebuttal to Parking Eye's 'evidence pack' which included pictures dating back to May 2016, all taken up close and none clearly at the supermarket in question. PE also added a signage plan from 2006 which gave no evidence of it actually having been executed. Having visited the carpark, the signage is definitely not clear or legible from all car park spaces and the assessor completely ignored that argument and decided the photos submitted by PE were evidence of sufficient signage.


In my original appeal I also stated the driver was returning to the car park so never stayed for 3 hours, but that was also ignored.


I had already used GPEOL before reading on here that I shouldn't have, so I will have to take that one on the chin. I will now post the whole decision here, hope that's the right thing. Looking at this thread, it seems there is a pattern with this assessor?


Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
JXXXXXa LaXXXn

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining on the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. This includes: 1. The operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 with its notice to keeper. 2. There is a lack of clear signage. 3. The charge is not a pre-estimate of loss. 4. There is no standing or authority from the landowner for the operator. 5. The automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras are unreliable. 6. The operator is breaching the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice in its appeal response.


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. 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, “3 hour max stay… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining on the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle, EN57 VUS, entering the site at 10:59 and exiting at 16:54, which is a total stay of five hours and 55 minutes. 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 . I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on 20 June 2018 does meet the 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.


The appellant says that there is a lack of clear signage and the charge is not a genuine pre-estimation of loss. 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 British Parking Association (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.


Further, the appellant says that the signage fails to comply with the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 require that certain information is provided prior to the conclusion of the contract. However, under section 6 (2) it states that “These Regulations do not apply to contracts – (a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises”. In this case I have considered “automated commercial premises” to mean a place of business where little to no human contact is required for the conclusion and performance of a contract. Following my review of the evidence provided by the operator, I conclude that the car park I question is such a premises, as the parking is managed by ANPR cameras, and motorists park their vehicles without any assistance. Accordingly, I consider that there is no requirement for the operator to provide pre-contract information to motorists before a contract can be concluded, in this instance.


The appellant states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to issue and manage the car park and issue the PCN, which would be contrary to section 7 of British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 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". The operator has produced a witness statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA code of practice, section 7 in its entirety.


The appellant says that the ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate and that the operator offers no information on their signage regarding its use, which is not complaint with section 21.1 of the BPA code of practice. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states “By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems”. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. The appellant says that the operator has failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice with its response to her appeal. On review of the appellant’s comments, I conclude this has no impact on the validity of the PCN issued. If the appellant remains concerned with the operators appeal response it can raise this with the operator or directly with the BPA. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Coupon-mad

In my original appeal I also stated the driver was returning to the car park so never stayed for 3 hours, but that was also ignored.

Double dip scam?

Send PE a SAR, using their privacy page.

Ask for ALL data held of photo images from the ANPR camera of that VRN going in or out, all times on that day. Say that it was a double visit so you require a proper interrogation of the entire ANPR footage between the first in/last out images they erroneously relied on.

Finish by saying that the contact is a subject access request, and a rectification notice, and an objection to processing because this was a double dip scam, that you will be referring to the ICO.

DidiUK

Will do, thank you. Do I involve/inform POPLA? Or is that stage now over?

Coupon-mad

POPLA is now over, so move onto complaining about the double dip. If anyone in the car had a phone with the Google location app, maybe it's still stored the movements of the person/car on that day as proof to the ICO that PE are talking out of their rs.

If not then a SAR, Rectification Notice (to rectify inaccurate data) and an objection to processing is the next step and PE have a Privacy form for such complaints. Use it.

beamerguy

I simply cannot believe that POPLA is so ignorant regarding
ANPR double dipping ??

What sort of assessors are POPLA employing ???
CLEARLY STUPID IDIOTS

This is a problem the BPA either sorts out quickly or, they
will be just another scam IPC/IAS

It's bad enough that there are so many scammers approved
by the BPA but to have a a fair appeals service using useless
assessors surely, this must mean the end of the BPA

Of course we don't know how much these parking companies
are paying these assessors do we ?????