POPLA Decisions

Stewil007

I agree, I remember the car park well, as you enter there is a board on one side which you cant read as a driver, you then go to the paymeter and the charges are in a reasonable font but the rest of the blurb appears to be written in size 7 wingdings font!

Fudgeit

MET parking at Stansted BP recently. Received a notice to keeper 33 days after 'breach'. Appealed on basis of no notice affixed to car at the time & notice to keeper issued too late. Rejected by MET, on appeal to POPLA MET did not defend it, appeal successful.


Thanks for the information posted on MSE

beamerguy

Fudgeit wrote: »

MET parking at Stansted BP recently. Received a notice to keeper 33 days after 'breach'. Appealed on basis of no notice affixed to car at the time & notice to keeper issued too late. Rejected by MET, on appeal to POPLA MET did not defend it, appeal successful.


Thanks for the information posted on MSE

Well done you :T

Yet another case of MET trying to scam the motorist.
They rejected and then chickened out because they were wrong and ended up wasting your time and POPLA.

It's par for the course because MET are one of the BPA's scammers

megkram

Just posted this on my original post, sorry will remove if need be as i put it there but omg i am frustrated
So there is something wrong with their systems at the moment, i contacted them and they have sent decision to me via pdf doc to my email, but it wasn't good news, i am frustrated as the assessor just totally ignored the signage and said ecp have provided images, OMG so did i, all their signs are the wrong way round on the carpark when you enter from kay st. iam so frustrated it is wrong , this is a absolute joke, my wife says just pay it and lets be done with it, but honestly guys, i not joking when i tell you that the driver entered and waited for a family member as it in middle of town in a position where you cannot see the signs at all, only sign you see is when you exit saying have you paid and displayed. it wrong , just so wrong this letter below

Dear xxx xxxxxx
Your parking charge Appeal against Euro Car Parks.

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal.
We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx, arising out of the presence of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

The Appellant Appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Refused.

In order to avoid any further action by the Operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 28 days.

The Assessor’s summary of the operator’s case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and the motorist failed to display a valid ticket.
The Assessor’s summary of the appellant’s case:
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The operator has not allowed a grace period which is non-compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces , the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition ( ANPR) data will be used for and the ANPR system is neither accurate or reliable. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • There is no evidence of the period parked, the Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements and the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. • There is a failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR( No information about SAR Rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair proportionate.
The appellant has provided a word document explaining their appeal as evidence to support their appeal.

Reasons for the Assessor’s determination:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and the motorist failed to display a valid ticket.
The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: ”Welcome to Kay Street 24 hour pay and display car park”, ”This car park is patrolled and failure to comply with the following may result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice” and “Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 13:54 and exiting at 14:08 on the day of the incident. The operator maintains a list of vehicles which have made payment on the day against individual vehicle registration details . In this evidence it has demonstrated that no payment had been made for the vehicle on the day of the incident.

On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice.

The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements and the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver.
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.

The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a grace period which is non-compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal however, POPLA can only assess appeals
based on evidence provided by both parties. In this instance the appellant has not provided any evidence to support or explain their ground of appeal. The operator’s evidence shows that the vehicle remained on the site for 13 minutes.

The appellant says that there is no evidence of the period parked.
The parking operator has provided evidence from the ANPR system that the motorist’s vehicle had entered the site on the day in question. I am satisfied that the operator’s evidence proves the case it is claiming. In this instance the appellant has not provided any evidence to refute the operator’s claim.
The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for and the ANPR system is neither accurate or reliable. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site.

From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions.

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 parkingterms 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.”

I can also 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 states that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) 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”.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a statutory declaration, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR( No information about SAR Rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair proportionate.

As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator or the ICO directly.
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 chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties , the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and the motorist failed to display a valid ticket and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site.

I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused.
Accordingly, the Appeal is Refused.
Yours sincerely

Coupon-mad

my wife says just pay it and lets be done with it,

Not a single person here would pay ECP after the minor blip of losing at POPLA. Search the forum for POPLA lost and you will see loads of people happily sitting tight and ECP do nothing.

I've ignored them myself, more than once, and nothing happens. If your wife was going to do this then there was no point trying POPLA, you should have ignored it from the start if she misunderstood that in fact POPLA means nothing and was just a chance to try to swat it.

Nothing more important and not a reason to suddenly give up!

Tentatively

Hi all,


The appeal was successful and the charge cancelled. Many, many thanks to Coupon-mad, Fruitcake, The Deep and Redx.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the driver was unauthorised to park in the reserved bay. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number, XXXXXXX, parked at the site on 5 July 2018 at 14:23. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The PCN that was issued was a Notice to Driver followed by a Notice to Keeper. The Notice to Driver was issued on 5 July 2018. The Notice to Keeper sent via post on 17 September 2018 to Mr Tentatively. An appeal was submitted on 30 July 2018 from Mr Tentatively. Within the appeal they have stated, “There will be no admissions as to who was driving.” Therefore the appellant has not identified as the driver, or named the driver. The operator has then sent the notice of rejection to the registered keeper of the vehicle; therefore, it would appear that the operator is holding the registered keeper liable. The operator has advised within the evidence pack that it is using PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. As the operator has issued a Notice to Driver and a Notice to Keeper the operator will need to comply with section 7 and 7 of PoFA 2012. Upon reviewing the Notice to Driver, I am satisfied that it complies with section 7 of PoFA 2012. Upon reviewing the Notice to Keeper, I am not satisfied that this complies with section 8 of PoFA 2012. Section 7 (4) (b) states, “sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.” Furthermore, Section 7 (5) states, “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.” Based on this, the Notice to Keeper needed to have reached the appellant by 30 August 2018 as the Notice to Driver was issued on 5 July 2018. For this to happen the Notice to Keeper needed to have been sent by no later than 28 August 2018 taking into account Section 7 (6) of PoFA 2012. However, the Notice to Keeper was not sent until 17 September 2018, therefore is not presumed delivered until 19 September 2018, which is 20 days after it needed to have been delivered. As the Notice to Keeper has not been issued in line with PoFA 2012, then the operator is not able to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper and can only hold the driver liable for the PCN. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

beamerguy

Well done :beer:

In your thread you said " --- chancers"

You are too kind Sir, they are blo*dy SCAMMERS

And to top it off, they are scammers approved by the BPA

Hobbs2

Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 8662xxxxxx.

UK Parking Control 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


Many thanks for everyone's help, particularly Umkomaas for the good ideas!

Regards.

Original post: showthread.php?t=5913791&highlight=driver+left+site

beamerguy

Good News Hobbs2:j

UKPC were SCAMMING you in the first place

UKPC = SCAMMER and FAKER approved by the BPA

This is what the BPA call "Driving up Standards" ..... HA ?

Umkomaas

Hobbs2 wrote: »

Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 8662xxxxxx.

UK Parking Control 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


Many thanks for everyone's help, particularly Umkomaas for the good ideas!

Regards.

Original post: showthread.php?t=5913791&highlight=driver+left+site

Well done Hobbs2 - it was a real pleasure to help.

Would you mind copying your post above into your original thread so it brings closure to it? Otherwise, in the months to come, a newbie will be reading it, and without a 'final chapter' will be unsure whether you won or lost.

Clearly with a win being shown, it will give others confidence to deal with 'leaving the site' cases in future. I'll certainly hold your case up as an exemplar for others to follow.