POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

Hero878 wrote: »

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.

Well done :j

I wonder what brainless PE bod decided to send a rubbish defence to POPLA

All part of the BPA group of scammers

Umkomaas

Wish I could contact ParkingEye and tell them they were wrong but I guess POPLA has done that for me

Why not let both the BPA and DVLA tell them that too, especially the DVLA as PE accessed your data with no reasonable cause - a potential breach of the DPA.

Write a strong letter of complaint to the DVLA and ask they investigate and report their findings back to you.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

aos@britishparking.co.uk

Also read these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

SamJ84

Appeal successful. Won on signs - the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

Browncross street car park, Euro car parks. Manchester/Salford.

Original thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5965403

Thank you to everyone for your help. I wouldn’t have won this without this forum.

---
POPLA assessment and decision
16/04/2019

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to purchase a pay and display ticket or permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that there was a frustration of contract as the payment machines were not working. They explain that the entrance sign was inadequately positioned, that the signage is not clear or legible. They advise that there is insufficient notice of the charge on the signage. The appellant advises that the signage does not provide a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras and the data they produce. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They advise that the PCN fails to meet the requirements of POFA as they do not provide evidence of the period parked. The appellant advises that the images used on the PCN fail to meet the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant disputes that the operator has planning permission for its signage. The appellant has provided a document containing 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. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to purchase a pay and display ticket or permit. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions, “Up to 2 hours £3.00, Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice, Display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session, We are using cameras to capture images of your vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry and exit 24 hours a day Monday to Sunday including bank holidays”.

The appellant advises that there was a frustration of contract as the payment machines were not working. They explain that the entrance sign was inadequately positioned, that the signage is not clear or legible. They advise that there is insufficient notice of the charge on the signage. The appellant advises that the signage does not provide a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras and the data they produce. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They advise that the PCN fails to meet the requirements of POFA as they do not provide evidence of the period parked. The appellant advises that the images used on the PCN fail to meet the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant disputes that the operator has planning permission for its signage.

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 the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 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. POFA 2012 defines “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 not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any further grounds of appeal.

Coupon-mad

Won on signs - the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

Browncross street car park, Euro car parks. Manchester/Salford.

POPLA:

''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 not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any further grounds of appeal''.

Nice one - and useful for others to know when they search. :T

beamerguy

Good news, well done :beer:

"Appeal successful. Won on signs - the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

Browncross street car park, Euro car parks. Manchester/Salford."

Yet another BPA scammer ......... but, we all thought the BPA did checks on signs etc ........ CLEARLY NOT ????:eek:

Hero878

Umkomaas wrote: »

Why not let both the BPA and DVLA tell them that too, especially the DVLA as PE accessed your data with no reasonable cause - a potential breach of the DPA.

Write a strong letter of complaint to the DVLA and ask they investigate and report their findings back to you.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

aos@britishparking.co.uk

Also read these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

Thank you! I will read into this for sure!

MA61

Sorry it's taken me a few days to upload this. Original thread here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5964473



Decision Successful
Assessor Name Georgina Riley
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at [a residential parking location] where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that it is reasonable to expect a grace period to be granted, as set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13.2 states, “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The appellant states that the PCN is incompatible with the rights under the lease, as decided on the appeal Jopson Verses Homeguard Services, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park. The appellant states that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN itself. The appellant states that there is no entrance signage at the site. The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that it has the authority of the landowner to manage the site. The appellant states that the PCN is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was “plainly engaged” in the Beavis case. The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice by sending the outcome of the appeal after the deadline set in 22.8 of the Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a letter outlining his appeal, a transcript from a County Court case Jopson verses Homeguard Services Limited and a transcript from County Court case Pace Recovery verses, Mr (Redacted) to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant to be the keeper of the vehicle. 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 therefore be considering his/her liability as keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, “Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicle’s driver” and “All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked between 06:08 and 06:09 on 20 August 2018. This evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was not parked within a marked bay or space. From the evidence provided I consider that there appears to be a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms and conditions have been breached. I will now look at the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. As the driver has not been identified within the appeal to POPLA or to the operator, I need to ensure that the operator has shown strict compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with PoFA 2012 and as such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that it is reasonable to expect a grace period to be granted, as set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13.2 states, “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site for two minutes and while the vehicle may have been parked at the site for a long period, the operator has failed to provide evidence demonstrating that a reasonable grace period was allowed. As such, I am unable to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly. As such, I will allow this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration In conclusion, the burden of proof lies with the operator and I determine on this occasion the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the PCN was issued correctly.

beamerguy

Good news :beer:

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site for two minutes

I wonder which brain dead individual at UKPC thought this was a good defence ????

Don't they know that the BPA says "it is raising standards" ????

THE JOKE CONTINUES

Artegal

Congratulations. Terrific result.

rachity

A well-regarded company.
Not!


https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.ukparkingcontrol.com