POPLA Decisions

athensgeorgia

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Rebecca Fryer

Assessor summary of operator case
In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case
I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

Operator Name SR Security Services

Original thread is here

KeithP

athensgeorgia wrote: »

Decision Successful

Well done.

athensgeorgia, can you please add a link to your original thread to your post above?

Also perhaps mention in you original thread, where you showed us your PoPLA appeal, that you won.

Umkomaas

Operator Name SR Security Services

Bouncers R Us and Security Guard outfit.

We have them in SA - Armed Response Units (ubiquitous), shoot first, ask questions later!

I wonder why they didn’t put their case to POPLA? Double writing expert on holiday?

athensgeorgia

KeithP wrote: »

athensgeorgia, can you please add a link to your original thread to your post above?

Also perhaps mention in you original thread, where you showed us your PoPLA appeal, that you won.

Done.

Umkomaas wrote: »

I wonder why they didn’t put their case to POPLA? Double writing expert on holiday?

I don't know but glad they didn't. I was thinking at the time I wonder if they have responded just as the email from POPLA came in.

BustaRythm

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Linda McMillan

Date: 12 April 2019

Reported:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75698752#Comment_75698752

PPC: NCP

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the charge as the appellant parked without payment of the parking charge.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises the following grounds for appeal: • He says that there are no suitable parking spaces available and there is seasonal traffic obstruction: • He says that the photographs taken show the time of entry and exit but do not establish the time for which the vehicle allegedly parked: • The appellant says that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association’s (BPA) grace period: • He says that the entrance signs are inadequate and not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces: • The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority: • He says that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: • He says that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras are neither reliable nor accurate: • He states that the vehicle images in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice: • He says that the signs no not warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for. The appellant has supplied a word document expanding on this and has supplied templated paragraphs taken from various sources to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated on their appeal to the operator that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The appellant questions within is appeal if the operator has the authority from the landlord to issued PCN’s on this land. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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”. As such, I would have expected the operator to provide me with a copy of the authority it holds. As it has not done so, I cannot be satisfied that it holds the necessary permission. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal and supplied further documents, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Thanks for all the help and advice guys! :T

Umkomaas

Well done, excellent win. :T

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”. As such, I would have expected the operator to provide me with a copy of the authority it holds. As it has not done so, I cannot be satisfied that it holds the necessary permission.

In view of this quite clear statement from POPLA, why not give NCP a dose of their own medicine by making life uncomfortable for them?

Write to the DVLA and complain that POPLA has grave doubts that NCP has authority to operate at this site. Ask that the DVLA investigates and reports back to you. In particular they should calculate how many charges have been issued, and should there be no valid landowner authority, NCP should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid. Email in the first instance:

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

If you get a fob off from that approach, follow it up with a full blown Freedom of Information request. It will be more difficult for them to hide under FOI.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

sleepingbb

Sorry, I will fix it although the assessor did put the decision in one big mess without paragraphs…


Date: 11 April 2019

Reported:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75706926#Comment_75706926

PPC: Britannia

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Paul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to “parked longer than the maximum time permitted”.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: They advise that there is no evidence of landowner authority. They state that are no entrance signs and the signage in the car park is not prominent clear or legible from all spaces. They explain that the operator has not complied with the ICO Code of Practice regarding the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. They state that there is no evidence of the period the vehicle was parked. They advised the images on the PCN are non compliant. They advise that the ANPR cameras are neither accurate or reliable. They state that there is no planning permission from the local authority for the pole mounter ANPR and no advertising consent for signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will there-fore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle.

When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator 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, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “Camera controlled 1.5 hours max stay terms and conditions apply see notices in car park for more details” and “…Maximum stay 1 hour 30 mins…£100 parking charge notice may be issued to vehicles which: Exceed the maximum stay period…”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at xx, and exiting at xx, totalling a stay of two hours and 26 minutes.

In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. 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 has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed these as follows: They advise that there is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.

They state that are no entrance signs and the signage in the car park is not prominent clear or legible from all spaces. The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code Of Practice 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.” The operator has provided several images of the car park signs, including the entrance signs, and I consider these signs are “conspicuous” and are “easy to see, read and understand”. I am satisfied that the signage meets the minimum requirements of the Code of Practice. There is no requirement in the Code of Practice for the operator to place signs in all parking spaces.

They explain that the operator has not complied with the ICO Code of Practice regarding the ANPR cameras. They state that there is no planning permission from the local authority for the pole mounter ANPR and no advertising consent for signage. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As these issues hold no impact on the appellants ability to comply with the terms of the car park, I cannot consider these grounds relevant to my appeal. If the appellant wishes to pursue any dispute regarding these matters, they will need to contact the relevant authorities.

They state that there is no evidence of the period the vehicle was parked. The site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if a vehicle has remained in the car park for longer than the maximum stay period, a PCN is issued. There is no requirement in ANPR operated car parks to provide evidence of the time a vehicle was parked.

They advised the images on the PCN are non compliant. I have reviewed the images provided on the PCN. I am satisfied that the images are date and time stamped and meet the minimum requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has requested the original images form the operator. As previously stated, POPLA’s role is to assess if the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant will need to contact the operator directly requesting the original images. They advise that the ANPR cameras are neither accurate or reliable. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. 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 that the ANPR cameras are not reliable or accurate, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Hi, could you add about ten paragraph breaks to that decision, please?

Thanks (I see you;ve edited it now).

BTW all the driver needed to do was cover their numberplate when leaving.

I am serious. You DO NOT have to hand these scum firms your VRN on a plate.

nikkietoni

Assessor Name:
Rebecca Fryer

Decision: Successful

Assessor Summary of Operator Case:
In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed to show why it issued a PCN to the appellant.

Assessor Summary of your case:
I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed I do not need to consider the appellant’s submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5967661/help-with-ticket-from-apcoa-birmingham-airport-drop-off&page=1

Hero878

Hero878 wrote: »

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

My appeal with POPLA was successful!!
I emailed POPLA yesterday as my case had been awaiting decision for over a month since ParkingEye submitted their evidence and I had commented back. Within an hour POPLA emailed me confirm a decision had been made.

I won simply on the grounds of the grace period as even Parkingeye themselves admitted that they allow for a minimum of 10 minutes for the grace period in the evidence pack that they submitted.
The assessor also stated that i had clearly paid for parking and with the correct registration, as ParkingEye said I had 0hrs 0mins of allowed time...cheeky !!!!!!s!
Wish I could contact ParkingEye and tell them they were wrong but I guess POPLA has done that for me

Thanks to everyone who helped me in my post regarding this.