POPLA Decisions

Fruitcake

mwnci wrote: »

Decision: Successful - Custom House Quay, Falmouth - Civil Enforcement Limited

Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw

… I note that the appellant has raised landowner authority. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.” The operator has failed to provide evidence of a contract. Therefore, it has failed to comply section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, I will allow this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.

Well done, and thanks for letting us know.

A reasonable person would assume that if there had been a contract the scammers would have shown it. They didn't, therefore the assumption must be that there is no such contract in place.

Please now complain to the BPA and DVLA that the scammers are operating on this site without landowner permission.

Please aso complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

beamerguy

Well done mwnci :beer:

CEL are simple scammers who are approved by the BPA, nuff said

The_Deep

I would also bring this to the attention of the Falmouth Tourist Office, local Trading Standards, and the local press.

malkie76

KeithP wrote: »

And there is the real point.

Your 'comprehensive' PoPLA appeal was obviously too much for the PPC to contemplate challenging.

One of the very good reasons for submitting such a lengthy appeal.

Well done.

All fair points, and I cannot thank this forum enough. I felt I had a cast iron case on signage which I brought to the front of the defence. I’ll never know if ECP logged in to check the appeal or just let it lapse.

Either way I’m £50/£90 better off for overstaying in a retail park car park because a children’s birthday party over ran.

ps I was the driver. I can finally admit it.

beamerguy

malkie76

REMOVE your last sentence please ...... we don't want newbies picking up bad habits do we ??

Coupon-mad

LOL! I don't think it matters now!

Hero878

I just received a PCN from ParkingEye too, at Seel Street Liverpool car park. It states on their website that I was there for 1 hour 10 minutes, but also states time allowed 0 hours 0 minutes. But I had paid for 1 hour so surely it should state 1 hour at least!
I used their appeals process and sent them a photo of my display ticket which luckily I still had. Stupidly I selected Keeper & driver. yikes!
Anyway they replied a week later rejecting my appeal saying I was there longer than I was allowed, they provided a POPLA code though.

I read the newbies thread, post 3. but it seems things are changing all the time and I am unsure to appeal to POPLA or just pay £60 before it rises to £100 in 14 days time?

Certain things unique to my situation include:
1) Pay&Display machines were not fully functional, card payments was not yet ready (they had a sign saying only cash will work). But obviously you only know this when you park up and see the like out of order notice. Luckily I had cash or I could have used the app.
2) I was 10 minute over which falls under the BPA Code of Conduct Grace period act.

Would stating the above two points be enough?

I am unsure about the points regarding signage visibility, landowner rights etc

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you

nigelbb

Hero878 wrote: »

Any advice would be appreciated.

Start your own thread. The forum rule is one case - one thread otherwise it gets confusing for all concerned.

noncorporeal

Hello everyone. Firstly, thanks for a wonderful resource. After reading everything on here I was willing to fight a ridiculous parking charge at the Adelphi hotel in Liverpool, issued by ParkingEye. See below for the details. It may be of interest to someone.

Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle registered for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the time on the ticket is 14:11. The two hours paid for thus ended at 16:11. According to the PCN, the vehicle in question left the Britannia Adelphi car park at 16:21 and the PCN is in breach of British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes’ The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability [I never actually identified myself as a driver, so I'm not sure where this comment came from]. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on the site, which states: ‘parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day,7 days a week’ and ‘Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100’ The operator has also provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 14:04:57, and exiting at 16:21:10, totalling a stay of 2 hours 16 minutes 13 seconds The operator has provided a printout showing that the motorist vehicle registration number does appear in their systems on the date of the event having p[aid for two hours of parking starting at 14:11 and ending at 16:11 The appellant states that they paid for parking at 14:11 for two hours parking and that they left at 16:21 and that their departure is in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice. In this case it appears the operator is calculating the length of stay based on the time spent in the cart park between the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) entrance and exit cameras being triggered. However the appellant has based his stay on the amount paid for and shown on the ticket. Having reviewed the signage on the car park it is not clear that the length of stay is calculated by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras rather than that stated on the ticket and therefore I am satisfied that the appellant would base their stay on the times given on the ticket and that their paid for time would end at 16:11 and section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice would apply, which states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on this basis and there is no need to address any other issues raised by the appellant.

beamerguy

Well done :T

I wonder who it is that sits in the Parking Eye office who does not understand about grace periods. ????

Maybe a word from the BPA in Parking Eye's shell like ear is in order