POPLA Decisions

thegentleway

beamerguy wrote: »

Nice cars.

Mine is a 5 series

Others might be along soon to talk to you about Data,

Cool, would be good to do something about the DVLA giving our data to these charlatans.

The_Deep

vitg wrote: »

Happy to have received this in an email yesterday!


Dear Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx,

Thank you for ... is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

maxxpayne

Decision
Successful



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided a copy if the Parking Charge Notice.


See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5949406/popla-appeal-won-tower-hamlets-nsl

Jakeh_2

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

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

Britannia Parking Group 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

Jakeh wrote: »

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

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

Britannia Parking Group 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

Perfect :T

Just proves to you that Britannia were scamming you in the first place ....... another BPA scammer

Standupforyourself

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the total duration of parking time was not paid for.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal as follows: • The area is not relevant land and is Council owned. The appellant says that the land in question is owned by Ilfracombe Town Centre as confirmed in writing by REDACTED who is an asset manager at the Ilfracombe Town Council. The appellant has provided a link to the website for Ropery Car Park. The appellant has mentioned The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 paragraphs 1 and 3 in relation to relevant land. • No keeper liability as the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver who was liable for the charge. They say that they are the keeper and no admission of the driver has been made. They say that the burden of proof rests with the operator to prove this. • The signage was not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum itself. They say that it does not meet the BPA Code of Practice section 18 requirements. • Use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) as the appellant says that the operator is put to strict proof that the ANPR technology complies with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the ICO. They say that the BPA Code of Practice section 21.1 has not been met. • No evidence of land owner authority. The appellant says that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance of the BPA Code of Practice. They say that is cannot be assumed that an agent is contracted to issue PCN’s just because there is signage erected. They say that witness statements are not sound evidence. They say that the operator must meet section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge. As such I need to consult with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. 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 PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the provisions laid out in section 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper. As such I will be considering the keeper’s liability of the parking charge. When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Up to 4 hours £4.00…Ilfracombe Town Council is not involved in the parking management of this car park & cannot intervene in any disputes…If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle, REDACTED entering the site at 11:21 and exiting at 14:53, totalling a stay of three hours and 31 minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was registered against a payment covering three hours parking only. The PCN was issued as the total duration of the appellant’s stay was not paid for. 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 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 there is no keeper liability as the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver who was liable for the charge. They say that they are the keeper and no admission of the driver has been made. They say that the burden of proof rests with the operator to prove this. As discussed at the start of my assessment the operator is pursuing the keeper for the PCN. The operator has complied with PoFA 2012 when transferring liability from the driver to the keeper. The appellant says that the area is not relevant land and is Council owned. The appellant says that the land in question is owned by Ilfracombe Town Centre as confirmed in writing by REDACTED who is an asset manager at the Ilfracombe Town Council. The appellant has provided a link to the website for Ropery Car Park. The appellant has mentioned The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 paragraphs 1 and 3 in relation to relevant land. No evidence of land owner authority. The appellant says that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance of the BPA Code of Practice. They say that is cannot be assumed that an agent is contracted to issue PCN’s just because there is signage erected. They say that witness statements are not sound evidence. They say that the operator must meet section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. This shows that the operator began an agreement with Ilfracombe Town Council on 18 October 2016 to enforce parking on its behalf. The contract is for a period of 36 months from the commencement date, and from this point will become a 12 month rolling contract until notice is served by either party. I am satisfied that this evidence is sufficient in proving that the operator has an agreement with Ilfracombe Town Council. The appellant raises the use of ANPR cameras as the appellant says that the operator is put to strict proof that the ANPR technology complies with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and the ICO. They say that the BPA Code of Practice section 21.1 has not been met. 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.” It is stated on the signage that: “Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes.” I am satisfied that this requirement of the BPA Code of Practice was met as it was explained what the cameras were being used for. This also meets the requirements of the ICO. The BPA audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is accurate. The appellant has not provided me with any evidence to disprove that the ANPR cameras were not working on the date of the event, as such I consider that they were fully accurate. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states in section 19: “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.” I acknowledge the appellant’s comments. However, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on private land. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the total duration of parking time was not paid for these terms and conditions were not met. Further they say that the signage was not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum itself. They say that it does not meet the BPA Code of Practice section 18 requirements. It also states in section 18.3: “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 viewed the images of the signage on display I am satisfied that the signage was conspicuous, and easy to read and understand. 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 Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, 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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 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. The Act then moved on to define “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 decision, 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. Upon consideration of the evidence provided I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge.

beamerguy

Did you ever claim that the charge was unfair ??????

If not, POPLA are on another rubbish bender quoting the Beavis case thus proving how out of touch POPLA are and still in dinosaur mode

No worries, let a real judge decide as they often make POPLA look stupid

Standupforyourself

no i didnt as no pre estimate of loss is not really a valid argument to POPLA is it?

However, in front of a judge it will be as can clearly outline the differences between this case and the Beavis one which was about overstaying a free parking period. In this case the charge due would be about 30p...

beamerguy

Standupforyourself wrote: »

no i didnt as no pre estimate of loss is not really a valid argument to POPLA is it?

However, in front of a judge it will be as can clearly outline the differences between this case and the Beavis one which was about overstaying a free parking period. In this case the charge due would be about 30p...

Well the judge will know that Beavis is not applicable.

Sounds like you got a POPLA tea boy on this one especially all the rubbish waffle

Which Parking company

Standupforyourself

No, it was an experienced assessor from i what i gather.

Premier P.