POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

Well done

Private Parking Solutions ...... another scammer of the BPA

Steve Clark of the BPA should run a childrens hour every week to train his scammers

But as this was Tesco, tell the CEO of Tesco about the scam running in this car park by PPS

bellboy1972

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
XXXXXXXXX


Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant advises that the operator has based the PCN being issued on witness evidence. They advise that no compliant Notice to Keeper was issued. They explain that the operator has failed to show that who it is pursuing was the driver. The appellant does not believe that the operator has the land owner’s permission to operate. They advise that the signage at the site is not prominent. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal.




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. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the PCN correctly.

beamerguy

Well done, thanks for posting this up

Note the comments on the main thread

:beer::beer::beer:

thegentleway

Another win:

Dear thegentleway,

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ###########.

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

Umkomaas

thegentleway wrote: »

Another win:

Dear thegentleway,

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ###########.

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

You seem to have done this without having started a thread - very well done - but as we don't have any background, could you give us an idea of the main appeal point(s) you think might have caused PE to throw the towel in? They are a pretty dogged outfit in chasing other people's money!

beamerguy

thegentleway wrote: »

Another win:

Dear thegentleway,

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ###########.

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

Well done :j

Assume Parking Eye rejected your appeal with them direct

So why did they obtain your data ?

FedUpofBWLegal

Unsuccessful POPLA appeals (2 separate PCNs) - Britannia - BWLegal

Hi, I followed instructions here and appealed to POPLA as the Keeper of my vehicle after receiving two separate parking 'fines' for two consecutive days. The Driver of the vehicle had just started her new job and had genuinely missed a sign at the entrance of the 4-storey car park in the middle of a retail park thinking it would be free. She missed the sign because just before the entrance (and exit) of the car park, a pedestrian path crosses the entry path so it's a rather dangerous place to be looking anywhere other than nearby for crossing pedestrians.

I had appealed to POPLA on the following grounds, with the main one being insufficient signage:

- NtK was never served
- failure to prove keeper liability
- lack of standing or authority
- inadequate signage
- ANPR unreliable

Following Britannia's lodging of documents in the portal (including a redacted witness statement on Britannia letterhead supposedly proving standing or authority!), I also added pictures which show very inadequate signage (small letters, just a small sign on the first floor) and I also added pictures of the dangerous entry and exit. In my rebuttal, I re-iterated my case that the pictures show there is inadequate signage but it looks like each assessor has decided against my case. I entered two almost identical pleas, but have pasted in the assessors' decisions individually below (they look similar but take a different approach to keeper liability it seems to me, as a layman).

Despite my rebuttal, both assessors seem to lay the burden of proof with me when it comes to ANPR and even suggest that I should prove Britannia do not have standing or authority, which is interesting I guess for future reference.

POPLA assessment and decision

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
J* M*
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to failure to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that a complaint Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served, not keeper liability can apply. The appellant explains the operator has not shown the individual whom they are pursing is in fact the driver who may be potentially liable for the PCN. The appellant says the burden of proof rests with the operator to show they have not complied with the terms and conditions, and show they are personally liable for the PCN. The appellant says the operator cannot do this. The appellant questions the operator’s authority to operator on the land. The appellant says the signs within the car park are not clear, legible or prominent from all parking spaces. The appellant says there is insufficient notice to the amount of the PCN.

The appellant says the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read the terms regarding the PCN amount. The appellant says the amount is out of proportion, and not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case. The appellant says they are asking the operator to provide proof of where their vehicle was parked. The appellant says the cameras used by the operator are unreliable and inaccurate. The appellant says the operator’s records do no show a parking time, just photographs of a vehicle entering and exiting the car park. The appellant says this does not discount the possibility of a double dip visit. The appellant says the operator must have signage at the site that states the information within 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant says the operator has failed to inform drivers about cameras and what the data will be used for. The appellant says they have not seen evidence of how the operator complied with other requirements in that section. The appellant says they put the operator to strict proof to the reliability of the camera compliance. The appellant says they require the operator provides records of date and times when the cameras at the site were maintained. The appellant has also questioned the synchronised time stamp of the camera with the time stamps of the photographs. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided several photographs of the site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The signage at the site states “CHARGES APPLY MONDAY TO SUNDAY – 24 HOURS A DAY. £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket or permit”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for nine hours two minutes. The operator has provided a list of vehicles that are allowed to be on the site because they have made a payment, the vehicle registration is not on the list.

The operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to failure to make a valid payment. As the appellant has made several grounds of appeal, I will address each in turn. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle was. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided 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, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator does not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle; it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and UK Serviceable address within timescales noted on the PCN. Within Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner, confirming that the operator has the authority to pursue charges on the land. I note the appellant’s comments; however, they have failed to provide any evidence to suggest the operator does not have authority from the landowner to manager parking on the land in question.

In relation to signage, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” I note the photographs provided by the appellant, however, I do have to base my decision on all the photographic evidence provided. The operator and appellant have provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. Upon review, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park their vehicle. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

In regards to the amount of the PCN, I am satisfied ParkingEye V Beavis applies. 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 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. In a camera controlled site such as this one, there is no requirement to show the vehicle parked, only the entry and exit time. As the vehicle was at the site for nine hours two minutes, I am satisfied it was parked during this time.

In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. Furthermore, as the appellant has not stated their vehicle made more than one trip to the car park on the day, I will discount this ground of appeal.

Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. 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 signage displayed within the car park does feature a camera logo and state “This ANPR monitored…Car parking monitored by ANPR systems”. I would therefore be satisfied the operator has made it clear that camera technology is in place to determine the duration of stay of vehicles.

I note the further ground of appeal made by the appellant in regards to the reliability of cameras at the site, however, as mentioned above as they have not provided any evidence at all to question the cameras used at the site by the operator, i will work on the basis the cameras were working fine on the day. It is the duty of the motorist to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they did not purchase any parking time, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

---

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.]

DELETE AS APPROPRIATE The Assessor’s summary of the operator’s case: The parking operator issued a parking charge notice for failed to make valid payment.

The Assessor’s summary of the appellant’s case: The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1) a compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served - no keeper liability can apply; 2) the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge; 3) the operator has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court; 4) the signs in this car park are not clear, legible or prominent from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself; and 5) the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera system is unreliable and inaccurate.

In their comments to POPLA the appellant reiterates their version of events for the day in question. Reasons for the Assessor’s determination: I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering her liability as driver of the vehicle. The terms and conditions at the site state “Pay on arrival… Restrictions and charges apply Monday – Sunday 24 hours a day… up to 1 hour £0.60… up to 3 hours £1.20… All day £3.50… Please enter full and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff… A £100 parking charge notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.” In this instance the parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as it alleges the motorist has failed to make a valid payment.

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 situated at the entrance and exit points. These captured the vehicle details of EN57VUS entering the site at 11:30:00 and exited the site at 18:20:01. The parking operator has issued a PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle after the DVLA returned the keeper details.

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1) a compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served - no keeper liability can apply; 2) the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge; 3) the operator has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court; 4) the signs in this car park are not clear, legible or prominent from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself; and 5) the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera system is unreliable and inaccurate. In their comments to POPLA the appellant reiterates their version of events for the day in question. The appellant states the NTK is not compliant and therefore no liability can apply. The parking operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver. 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. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. 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 the operator has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court. 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

The appellant states the signs in this car park are not clear, legible or prominent from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. For this reason, I will consider whether the operator has provided evidence to satisfy the requirements of section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice in order to consider it meets the requirements of section 21 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states “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.” 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.

Section 18.2 stipulates 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.” Furthermore, within Section 18.3, 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.

The appellant states the ANPR camera system is unreliable and inaccurate. 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. However as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully 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. POPLA is evidence based and can only assess an appeal based on the evidence presented by both parties. The evidence supplied by the appellant in relation to this appeal is insufficient to disprove that provided by the operator.

The parking operator has provided specific evidence documenting the vehicle entering and leaving at these times while the appellant has been unable to provide any evidence, which would cast doubt on the legitimacy of these images. In addition, it has shown that there is no payment registered against the appellant’s vehicle on the day in question and nor as the appellant stated they made payment. As such the appellant is parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the parking operator, thereby agreeing to the parking charge they have now received.

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, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.. Accordingly, the Appeal is Refused.

thegentleway

Umkomaas wrote: »

You seem to have done this without having started a thread - very well done - but as we don't have any background, could you give us an idea of the main appeal point(s) you think might have caused PE to throw the towel in? They are a pretty dogged outfit in chasing other people's money!

Thanks Umkomaas. Couldn't have done it without the information in the forum. I've done a few so getting the hang of it. Appeal points were:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. The 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. The wording of the signage forbids parking, as such there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

No idea which one(s) put them off but after a few appeals they stopped giving me popla codes and just accepted appeals, however I've changed cars so they are trying their luck again!

Umkomaas

@FedUpofBWLegal - if you could put some paragraphs into those enormous slabs of text we can see if there's anything in the decisions that might help you. I did spot one total error by the assessor, but then couldn't find it easily on trying to go back to it.

You do know that neither decision is binding on you, and you are not compelled to pay either of the charges.

thegentleway

beamerguy wrote: »

Well done :j

Assume Parking Eye rejected your appeal with them direct

So why did they obtain your data ?

Thanks bearmerguy, I love beamers too. I've got a silver grey 330Ci and a black 3.0si Z4 coupe.

They did reject direct appeal and supplied POPLA code. I presume they got my gf's data from DVLA.