POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

rachity wrote: »

A well-regarded company.
Not!


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

Yes, we know all about UKPC, nothing new on trust pilot

MA61

beamerguy wrote: »

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

They swoop down like vultures early in the morning and get the tickets on and scarper as quickly as possible is my guess.

(Predictably) where I challenged them to show chain of contracts from the leaseholder in my POPLA appeal they said it was commercially sensitive. I was ready to make them produce those in court, thankfully I don't need to go through all that rigmarole now.

Umkomaas

Jopson Verses Homeguard Services,

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.

Looks like our Assessor has a problem with ‘verses’ versus ‘versus’ (or vice versa)

Anyway, she reached a correct decision.

MA61

Umkomaas wrote: »

Looks like our Assessor has a problem with ‘verses’ versus ‘versus’ (or vice versa)

Anyway, she reached a correct decision.

She also says keeper instead of driver at some point also.
But anyway, who am I to complain? :beer:

beamerguy

MA61 wrote: »

They swoop down like vultures early in the morning and get the tickets on and scarper as quickly as possible is my guess.

Not forgetting the wheelie bins they hide behind and their fraudulent fakery with pictures

The BPA still love UKPC ....... it's the money you know ?:eek:

Topper80

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Richard Beaden
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice as the vehicle exceeded the maximum allowed period of two hours on site.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant advises that the signage at the site is unlit and unreadable. They advise that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They advise that there is no contact with the landowner. They advise that the operator has not demonstrated that the individual it is pursing is the driver.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.
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 free parking, Car 2 to 6 hours £5.00, Tariffs include the first 2 hours free parking. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice as the vehicle exceeded the maximum allowed period of two hours on site. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle entered the car park on 14 January 2018 at 06:03 and left at 09:08. A total stay of three hours and 5 minutes. The appellant advises that the signage at the site is unlit and unreadable. They advise that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They advise that there is no contact with the landowner. They advise that the operator has not demonstrated that the individual it is pursing is the driver.

Within Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “Sign should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.”

Within its evidence pack the operator has provide photographs of the signage it has installed at the site. The photographs provided do not show the signage in darkness or dusk/dawn.

Based on this evidence I am not satisfied that the appellant would have been able to see the signage when they pulled onto the car park. On this basis I am allowing the appeal. As I have allowed the appeal I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

Artegal

Wow. What a sensible POPLA assessor. Congratulations on your successful appeal, Topper.

daheem24

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Gemma West

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment.

Reported: MSE Thread titled CE LTD 169/193 Soho Road - POPLA Appeal Successful (MSE Forums won't allow me to post links because I'm new)

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he did not receive a copy of the Notice to Keeper and therefore the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has questioned landowner authority. The appellant states there is insufficient notice of the amount of the parking charge on the signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
It is a parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly and that the parking charge is therefore owed. In the present case, the appellant has challenged the signage. Having reviewed the operator’s evidence pack, I am not satisfied the amount of the parking charge is clearly highlighted. 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 Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. 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. The Act then moved on to define “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. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the charge is in small writing with a lot of other information and does not stand out from a distance. I appreciate that the amount of the charge is in bold writing, however it does not stand out from a distance. The main terms and conditions about what vehicles parking is permitted for is clear, as this is on its own in bold text. However, the amount of the sign is in smaller writing than this and not in bold so does not stand out. I therefore, cannot conclude that the wording of the notices to be clear, and cannot determine, that the charge is conspicuous or legible. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the charge is in small writing with a lot of other information and does not stand out from a distance. I appreciate that the amount of the charge is in bold writing, however it does not stand out from a distance. The main terms and conditions about what vehicles parking is permitted for is clear, as this is on its own in bold text. However, the amount of the sign is in smaller writing than this and not in bold so does not stand out. I therefore, cannot conclude that the wording of the notices to be clear, and cannot determine, that the charge is conspicuous or legible. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

I would have thought CEL signage across the country is pretty standard, so this decision might be very useful for future cases, despite its rather juvenile construction:

However, the amount of the sign is in smaller writing than this and not in bold so does not stand out.

My primary school-aged grandson can construct better sentences than that!

EDIT TO ADD

daheem24 has provided a link to the photos of the signage (thank you) that CEL themselves produced for POPLA (oh dear!).

Major self-inflicted wound - one we should exploit fully.

https://www.docdroid.net/kFHw6qh/399-image-plan-2018-06-07.pdf

Darkside007

Operator Name Local Parking Security
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.