POPLA Decisions

gd14sts

:T :j :rotfl:
1st of 2 from Fistral Beach. NO CONTEST.
Another success for the great advisers of mse forum. Confident for the same outcome in round 2.
Again many thanks to all

Richhg

Hi All

A brief tale of success :

Got a PCN through the post at the end of July18 from Eurocarparks. Overstayed my welcome at Gatwick North Shell station at the beginning of July, waiting to pick people up from a delayed flight. I didnt pay any attention to the notices as it was very late

After researching on these forums it was clear that the PCN had arrived outside the 14 day period. This was mainly due to a delay in the lease company, who are still the registered keeper, not sending it on to me in time. They freely admitted that they had a backlog and offered to pay the full fine (£100) and charge me the reduced amount ( £60), I refused.

I appealed on line and kept the communication to a bear minimum, just stating that I was not liable as I had not received notification on time.One thing was crucial, i had kept the envelope with the franking date on so I could prove when I had received the letter

As expected the appeal was rejected and I immediately sent the details to POPLA. I have just received notification from POPLA that my appeal was successful and there is nothing to pay

Full verdict below

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameMark Horne
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the vehicle was leased to him by Lex Autolease. The appellant did not receive the PCN from Lex Autolease until 27 July 2018. The appellant advises that this was beyond the 14-day notification period. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a photograph of a letter that was franked on 25 July 2018.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant the keeper. However, the lease company is the registered keeper. The only way a parking operator can transfer liability to from the registered keeper to the hirer is by using the provisions of the PoFA 2012. Paragraph 4 (1) of PoFA 2012 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.” As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. Th operator is attempting to transfer liability to the appellant, however, it has not followed the PoFA 2012. When the appellant contacted the operator stating that he was the keeper, the operator should have made the appellant aware that it was still holding Lex Autolease liable. The lease company was still within the 28-day period to provide a statement on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm, a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of the statement of liability. As such, the operator was unable to transfer liability to the appellant at this stage. If the vehicle hirer company had provided this information, the operator would have been able to transfer liability by issuing a Notice to Hirer to the appellant. If the lease company failed to provide this information, it would have remained liable as the registered keeper. The operator has failed to adhere to the PoFA 2012 because the liability was never transferred to the appellant. The appellant can therefore not be held liable for the charge. As such, on this occasion I must allow the appeal.

KeithP

Take care Richhg.

It looks like PoPLA have just reminded ECP that the lease company are still liable as the registered keeper.

ECP may well look to the lease co to pay their charge of £100+, and the lease co will probably pay it and in turn will bill you.

Coupon-mad

That's twisted reasoning but a good outcome.

How does the POPLA Assessor know that the lease firm didn't include the necessary documents when they replied to the PPC scammer? They don't. Just because a typical 'ScammersRus' PPC didn't include the documents THEY were required to include with the NTH, doesn't mean the lease firm was the failing party.

anar

Hi, guys!

As expected, POPLA's decision was unsuccessful.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Chris Markey

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice for your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge; 2. no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; 3. the entrance signs and the other signs in this 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; 4. failure to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach; 5. proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park; 6. the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate; 7. no evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements; and 8. vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge; 2. no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; 3. the entrance signs and the other signs in this 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; 4. failure to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach; 5. proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park; 6. the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate; 7. no evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements; and 8. vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. Assessor Summary of reasons I am unsure of the driver and will therefore consider Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The terms and conditions at the site state: “Maximum stay 3 hours… Cameras in operation 24 hours a day (Monday to Sunday)… This car park is patrolled, failure to comply with the following may result in the issued of a £90 Parking Charge Notice… The car park is for the sole use of Templars Shopping Park customers…Parking onsite for the use of facilities away from the car park are not permitted… Parking within parked bays…Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays (No Concessions for Disabled Badge Holders)… Parent & Child Parking Only Within Marked Bays… We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay 24 hours a day (Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays)”. In this instance the parking operator has issued a PCN as it alleges the motorist’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle xxxxxx entering the site on 26 June 2018 at 14:31 and 18:45 a total stay of four hours and 13 minutes. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge; 2. no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; 3. the entrance signs and the other signs in this 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; 4. failure to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach; 5. proof of shopping and no payment machines in the car park; 6. the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate; 7. no evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements; and 8. vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. I note that when the parking operator requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, the DVLA returned the details the appellant is acting on behalf of. As such, I believe that the parking operator was correct to issue the PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle given the DVLA named her as the registered keeper at the time. The appellant states that the claimant has not complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of Schedule 4, paragraph 9, that they do not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the parking operator has met all of the requirements. As such this 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 states there is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice. 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. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. I am satisfied that the witness statement provided by the operator meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states the entrance signs and the other signs in this 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. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract 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, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant states the parking operator failed to comply with the data protection Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Codes of Practice applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach. The operator is not required to provide this as part of its evidence. If the appellant does not feel that the operator is signed up to this code of practice the appellant can raise this directly with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. The BPA Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras within Section 21. The parking operator states it fully complies with this. In relation to Section 21.1 the parking operator uses ANPR cameras in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. All signage contains the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site. As already stated I am satisfied with the parking operator’s signage at the site and therefore satisfied they have complied with Section 21.1. I acknowledge the appellant’s request stating they want proof of the ANPR quality check relating to the date the PCN was issued to the registered keeper. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. ANPR cameras are used to capture images of vehicles when they enter and exit a site. This then calculates the length of the vehicle’s stay. 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. As such, photographs of a parked vehicle are not necessary. Ultimately, 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. 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. By remaining parked on site in excess of the maximum period allowed, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

beamerguy

Another POPLA assessor who has no clue about ANPR.

Only recently, BBC Watchdog showed POPLA their errors
regarding ANPR and the CEO of the BPA confirmed it
was NOT 100% accurate

"In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate."

Then the BPA will be happy to show the last audit report on this
car park .... that's if it was ever done ???

SAR the BPA for this information

Coupon-mad

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate.

Send an email to Steve Clark at the BPA and ask why POPLA are still spouting this template custom paragraph, months after he told the Lead Adjudicator it is not true:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

anar

Basically, POPLA ignored most of my grounds of appeal. They ignored the fact that the images sent by ECP were old and undated, they ignored the fact that the main goal to park there was for shopping (receipt was sent as a proof), they ignored the fact that ECP stated a wrong time calculation of stay in the park, because they said at a certain point, I.e. 3h40 and then 4h10.
Well, I'll send an e-mail for Steve. But, by the way, what can he do for me in the case?

Thanks,

Fruitcake

A Grace Periods appeal point might have saved this, but with the rubbish this assessor has spouted I'm not even sure about it.

The operator produced a witness statement, not a contract, so no actual proof of landowner authority.

What a load of cobblers and more proof that PoPLA is not fit for purpose.

Coupon-mad

anar wrote: »

Well, I'll send an e-mail for Steve. But, by the way, what can he do for me in the case?

Nothing for the case but it's to stop POPLA using that lying wording.

You don't need any help; it's only ECP who are easy to ignore and don't sue.