POPLA Decisions

royal600

Can I use these points in my defence (for court)?
Should I cut down the detail, or use all which applies in my defence?
Thank you

Le_Kirk

royal600 wrote: »

Can I use these points in my defence (for court)?
Should I cut down the detail, or use all which applies in my defence?
Thank you

To which points do you refer? Did you mean to post on a different thread?

thegentleway

Big thank to all the very helpful people of this forum!

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: Incorrect Use of Bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided an eight 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 Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• 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.
• 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.
• The wording of the signage forbids parking, as such there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.
• No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Parking for Dr G Shields Only. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked at the site at 02:15. The PCN was issued for Incorrect use of bay.
In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant, as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
PoFA 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified.
As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge.
When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Parking for Dr G Shields Only” and “Staff Permit Holders Only. A valid staff permit must be displayed at all times… Failure to comply with the above terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70”.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked at the car park at 02:15. The PCN was issued for incorrect use of bay.
The appellant has provided an eight 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 Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• 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.
• 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.
• The wording of the signage forbids parking, as such there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.
• No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. In this case, the appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to enforce parking charges. Under section seven of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states,
“7.1 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.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.”
In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided an authorisation document, However, this document only gives authority for one day from 28 September 2018 to 28 September 2018. The document does not indicate that the agreement is a rolling agreement. The date of the contravention was 20 October 2018. Having reviewed the available evidence I cannot be certain what dates the contract is in force.
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, this it issued the PCN correctly.
In the present case, the operator has not provided satisfactory evidence that it has landowner authority. As such, I cannot determine whether the operator has authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site. I am unable to determine whether the operator was authorised to issue the PCN.
Accordingly, the Appeal is Allowed.
While I acknowledge the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

beamerguy

Good news thegentleway

Who is the PPC ?????

Whoever they are, they are just one of the scammers membership approved by the BPA

thegentleway

beamerguy wrote: »

Good news thegentleway

Who is the PPC ?????

Whoever they are, they are just one of the scammers membership approved by the BPA

The unscrupulous blood sucking charlatans were Parking Eye Ltd in this instance.

beamerguy

thegentleway wrote: »

The unscrupulous blood sucking charlatans were Parking Eye Ltd in this instance.

Yup ..... just another BPA scammer.

Benjo1407

Thanks for all the help that is posted on here. I sadly did not win my appeal. Now I just wait for them to take me to court? :eek::eek:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver remained in the car park for longer than the authorised stay or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they are registered keeper of the vehicle. They do not believe that they are liable for the charge as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). They advise that the operator has not allowed the relevant grace period. They advise that there is no entrance sign and the rest of the signage is not prominent or clear. The appellant disputes that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They appellant questions the accuracy of ANPR systems. The appellant has provided a document to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, I must ensure that the operator has complied with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I must consider if the notice meets the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper that was sent on 29 November 2018 meets the requirements and was sent within the “relevant period”, as outlined within the act. As such, liability for the PCN is with the registered keeper of the vehicle, which in this case is the appellant. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions, “2 Hours Maximum Stay, The car park is for the use of Caxton Gibbet Park customer when on the premises only, If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100 Parking Charge”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver remained in the car park for longer than the authorised stay or without authorisation. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle entered the car park on 25 November 2018 at 12:52 and left at 15:08. A total stay of two hours and 16 minutes. These show that the vehicle exceeded the maximum allowed stay as set out in the terms and conditions. The appellant advises that they are registered keeper of the vehicle. They do not believe that they are liable for the charge as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). They advise that the operator has not allowed the relevant grace period. They advise that there is no entrance sign and the rest of the signage is not prominent or clear. The appellant disputes that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They appellant questions the accuracy of ANPR systems. The operator has provided a copy of the contract it has with the landowner. Based on this document I am satisfied that it has the relevant authority to issue PCN. ANPR systems are regularly audited by the operators for this reason they are considered to be accurate unless evidence is provided which casts doubt on its accuracy. The appellant has not provided any evidence of this nature. Within the operator’s evidence pack it has provided date and time stamped photographic evidence showing the signage at the site. It has also provided a site map to show where this has been installed. Based on these images I am satisfied that there is an entrance sign. In addition, there is signage throughout the site. I am satisfied that the signage is easy to see read and understand. Under contract law a driver must be given a reasonable grace period to read and comply with the terms and conditions for the use of the site. This period is to allow a driver time to read and comply with the terms and conditions and to leave if they are unable to comply. In this case the only requirement of the driver is for them to park. This time would for part of the two hour parking period. At the end of a parking contact a driver must be allowed a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the site. The evidence provided shows that the driver exceeded the maximum allowed period by 16 minutes, this exceeds the allowed 10 minutes grace. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

Umkomaas

Which parking company please?

The appellant disputes that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner.

Did you get to see that in the PPC's evidence pack?

They do not believe that they are liable for the charge as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).

In what way did the NtK not comply with PoFA?

They appellant questions the accuracy of ANPR systems. The operator has provided a copy of the contract it has with the landowner. Based on this document I am satisfied that it has the relevant authority to issue PCN. ANPR systems are regularly audited by the operators for this reason they are considered to be accurate unless evidence is provided which casts doubt on its accuracy.

Did the PPC provide POPLA with evidence of regular auditing? If not, why side with the operator rather than the appellant? If an issue is raised by an appellant, the operator should respond to rebut the appellant's assertion. That's the way British justice works, surely? How does an appellant have access to a PPC's maintenance/audit records without them being produced in the evidence pack?

Just as they've produced a landowner contract on the basis the appellant queried its existence, then the same should apply to the maintenance/audit records of their ANPR equipment.

Benjo1407

Umkomaas wrote: »

Which parking company please?
MET parking

Did you get to see that in the PPC's evidence pack?
Yes, annoyingly can not see it anymore. It named parking company and has start and end dates.

In what way did the NtK not comply with PoFA?
I don't know I'm sure I didn't include that in my original submission but met put it in their evidence statement

Did the PPC provide POPLA with evidence of regular auditing? If not, why side with the operator rather than the appellant? If an issue is raised by an appellant, the operator should respond to rebut the appellant's assertion. That's the way British justice works, surely? How does an appellant have access to a PPC's maintenance/audit records without them being produced in the evidence pack?

Just as they've produced a landowner contract on the basis the appellant queried its existence, then the same should apply to the maintenance/audit records of their ANPR equipment.

Nope no evidence submitted for this, POPLA have just taken what MET said.

Coupon-mad

MET never sue anyone, ever.

But keep all paperwork for 6 years in case that changes. No worries, as long as if you move address in the six years you email/write to tell them to erase your old address and to rectify the address data to the new one.

Safe to ignore as long as you see all letters to be sure no court claim ever arrives.