POPLA Decisions

Fluff15

A parking ticket for my mum won thanks to the information on this forum. I will update this post shortly with a redacted version on dropbox of the letters I submitted so it can help others in the future, as I didn't start a thread about it. PPC was Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd (OPC) and it was an ANPR camera overstay claim.

EDIT: link to dropbox is here

Decision below:

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Sophie Taylor
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle exceeded the maximum period permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a 22 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • The operator has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice in relation to grace periods. • The notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The operator has no authority to issue PCNs on the land. • The signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. • The amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • There is no planning permission for the signage. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Reviewing the evidence provided in relation to this case, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant, who is the keeper of the vehicle. Considering the correspondence between the two parties involved, I am not satisfied that the appellant, has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. However, as the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, I must consider the appellant’s liability as keeper of the vehicle. The only way that the keeper can assume liability is through the operator issuing the PCN using the provisions of PoFA, in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper (the appellant). Reviewing the notice issued, I am not satisfied that it complies with the requirements of PoFA, as it simply invites the driver to pay, and does not make any attempt to notify the keeper that they may become liable for the charge after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. The appellant as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge, and as such, I am unable to conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

beamerguy

fluff15 good news and well done :beer:

Who is the parking company

Fluff15

beamerguy wrote: »

fluff15 good news and well done :beer:

Who is the parking company

It was Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd, on a ANPR system for a free car park. My poor mum said she was going to pay for it, I told her no way :beer:

Umkomaas

The appellant has provided a 22 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion.

The only way that the keeper can assume liability is through the operator issuing the PCN using the provisions of PoFA, in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper (the appellant). Reviewing the notice issued, I am not satisfied that it complies with the requirements of PoFA, as it simply invites the driver to pay, and does not make any attempt to notify the keeper that they may become liable for the charge after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. The appellant as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge

Well, Sophie luv, that was very thorough of you, but a complete waste of time, as clearly you had in front of you the perfect appeal point to kill this off without any further question. No matter what any other appeal point said, the PPC was doomed - unless you were looking for anything you could find that could have possibly helped them?

Well done Fluff15 :T

Fluff15

Umkomaas wrote: »

Well, Sophie luv, that was very thorough of you, but a complete waste of time, as clearly you had in front of you the perfect appeal point to kill this off without any further question. No matter what any other appeal point said, the PPC was doomed - unless you were looking for anything you could find that could have possibly helped them?

Well done Fluff15 :T

Thanks Umkomaas! I have updated my post with a link to the redacted appeal. A couple of things I would have changed after submitting the appeal and reading some more were adding in GDPR and ANPR, and now in light of the recent BPA announcement on grace periods, I wouldn't have gone so heavy on that either.

Umkomaas

I would have changed after submitting the appeal and reading some more were adding in GDPR and ANPR

Well they would have counted for nothing (other than giving the PPC something else to deal with) as POPLA will not comment either way on those issues.

Efficient

Using the information on this site I appealed against NCP who have recently installed ANPR cameras at Cambridge Station. Accuracy of ANPR times, grace period, signage and keeper liability were the main points raised. Result: withdrawn by the operator.
Hope this helps others. The new road layout is a bad joke.

Thread here for any further discussion. forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75386584

(Can a mod put in a better link here please? System won't allow new users to.)

Umkomaas

^^ https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957301/cambridge-station-square-greater-anglia-ncp-anpr-rail ^^

:T

beamerguy

Well done, just proves that NCP were scamming you in the first place

NCP = BPA MEMBER SCAMMERS

ParkingatBrum

Just wanted to say a massive thank you to everyone on this forum who helped me challenge APCOA and the ridiculous parking rules they have at Birmingham Airport. I cannot post the link of my thread, but have a look at my post history for it.

With your help the didn't even contest the appeal, they must have known they had as much chance of winning as Rolf Harris has at being the face of the next £20 note. It is greatly appreciated.

To anyone else who has one of these nonsense parking notices come through this forum can look quite daunting, but look through all the advice in the newbie section, take each step at a time, do some research and you can save yourself some cash!

Thank you all once again :beer: