POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

Great news :beer:

Local Parking Security ....... Yet another BPA scammer

I do wonder just how many genuine members the BPA has ??

Not many it seems

mzaalam

:j

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that the motorist failed to pay for the duration of their stay.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant’s case is that she and her family were staying at the Premier Inn. She states that she has stayed before and was aware that payment for parking was collected by the hotel. She states that they provided the hotel with their vehicle registration number and assumed that payment would be taken when they checked out. The appellant states that the signage of the new parking restrictions is not clear and has disputed the amount of the parking charge. She states that it was not her intention to park without paying and has offered to pay the parking tariff. The appellant has provided evidence of her booking and her previous booking to support her appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this case, the operator is pursuing Appellant Name for the unpaid parking charge as she did not provide the operator with the full name and serviceable address for the driver within the timeframe requested. The operator has transferred liability from the driver to the keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Residents: per night…£10.00. Excess charges apply for: failure to pay the parking charge”. I note that the operator has referred to the parking charge as an Excess Charge. I refer to Section 14.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which states: “You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority. As the operator has referred to the parking charge as an Excess Charge I would consider this a misrepresentation of authority as private parking operators are not authorised to issue Excess Charges. As such, I cannot conclude that it was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Artegal

Wow. Great result. I’m really pleased for you.

Coupon-mad

“Residents: per night…£10.00. Excess charges apply for: failure to pay the parking charge”. I note that the operator has referred to the parking charge as an Excess Charge.

That was a very good decision by the Assessor and proves that they CAN find in favour of an appellant purely based upon the BPA CoP.

Even though in other decisions, POPLA say they can't do that as it didn't affect the motorists' parking conduct...

Whch PPC?

And did you bring up the 'Excess Charge' thing or did the Assessor spot it for themselves.

gerbs

Claimant - Care Parking
Decision
Successful Unsuccessful (don't understand this bit, but overall decision is appeal not allowed)
Assessor Name
xxxxxxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking outside of tram service hours.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that railway land is not relevant land. They state the operator has not shown that the individual they are pursuing is the driver. They state there is no land owner authority and that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper.

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. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “This car park is for use of Metrolink Passengers only. A parking charge will be issued when: Parking outside of tram service hours except Friday and Saturday nights…If you park on this land contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of £100.00”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at 03:11 on 21 November 2018, I note that the this was not a weekend and outside the tram hours.
The appellant explains that railway land is not relevant land. They state the operator has not shown that the individual they are pursuing is the driver.

They state there is no land owner authority and that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and will respond accordingly. The land in question is not railway land, the land belongs to Transport for Greater Manchester and is not owned by network rail, it is however managed by Car Parking. The operator has provided a signed document showing land owner authority, this states the area of land it covers, location and also the commencement date and continuation date. I find this sufficient to show that the operator has authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question.

The appellant states the signage is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the signage on site which I find is clear, legible and evenly spread, it states the terms of parking and the PCN amount if these terms are not met.

The images provided by the operator shows the appellants vehicle parked and signage further in front of the vehicle which would be illuminated by the car headlights as he parked (this is incorrect - the signage that is shown has nothing to do with the car parking T&C's).

The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper which was issued on 25 December 2018 and complies with POFA section 8(5) notice to keeper: The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. As the notice to driver was not responded to or identified the operator is legally entitled to pursue the registered keeper for liability.

I find it reasonable that the appellant was given every opportunity to review the signage and comply with the terms of parking on the day of the breach. I must advise the appellant that it is the responsibility of the motorist to seek out signage when parking on private land. 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.

POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. 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 failed did not comply with the terms and conditions by parking outside of tram service hours. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

MistyZ

gerbs wrote: »

Claimant - Care Parking ..........

Successful Unsuccessful (don't understand this bit, but overall decision is appeal not allowed) ............

...the appellant failed did not comply with the terms and conditions

Sorry to hear this. Looks like the decision was rushed and that the assessor didn't even manage to select the words that applied from a bank of stock phrases, hence 'Successful Unsuccessful' and also 'failed did not comply'. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Nesjo

POPLA ruled that my appeal was successful.

My submission:
In its first letter (February 20, 2019, received March 2), Parking Eye claimed “this is private land … as a hotel patron only car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct registration into the terminal in reception” and claimed “parking without a valid permit” (page 19 of its submission). My response: There was a valid permit, as the correct information was entered into their system and payment for parking was made.

In its second letter (dated March 14, received March 23), Parking Eye described the private land differently: “as a paid parking / patron only / maximum stay car park” and claimed “either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, be remaining at the car park longer than permitted, or by not entering registration details…” (page 21 of its submission).

In its response (page 5), Parking Eye introduces a new claim: "This site is a Paid Parking car park, Leisure club members must register for 2 hours 30 minutes hour parking permit as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed).” However, page 72 of the same submission clearly shows advertised tariffs starting at “up to two hours"

Parking Eye acknowledges: "A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2 of BPA code of practice”

My appeal is that Parking Eye’s claims are both contradictory in terms of the minimum parking period, and that no loss has been caused and no material breach of contract has occurred. Payment was made in good faith and the BPA grace period should apply. As Parking Eye’s own evidence confirms, the vehicle in question exited the car park two minutes after the allotted paid period expired. Furthermore, this does not take into account the time - on entry and on departure - that the vehicle was mobile within the car park and not actually parked, nor the time required after parking to set up and pay for parking via a mobile device, especially for a first-time customer.

:beer::beer:

Nesjo

In my earlier excitement, I forgot to share this:
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without a valid permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that this was the driver’s first ever use of the car park where ANPR technology was used, the appellant has also raised grace periods.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100.” The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 10:20 and exited the site at 12:30. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of two hours and 10 minutes. Accordingly to relevant contract law, motorists should be given an opportunity to consider the terms and conditions of the site before entering into a contract. A reasonable time period for this would be no more than about 10 minutes. The driver entered the car park at 10:20 and purchased parking time after eight minutes, which is a reasonable grace period to enter the car park and purchase parking time. Therefore, the appellant exceeded the parking time purchased by two minutes. As such, two minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended. The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I would not need to consider other grounds raised, as I have allowed this appeal.

Mirrorcarp

Portswood Centre, southampton

Brittania Parking

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Grahame Hill

Assessor summary of operator case.

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for being parked longer than the maximum time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they do not believe the operator has a valid contract with the landowner and have no legal right to issue parking charge notices. At the time of parking the car park was dark and poorly lit, and the signs are not clear or legible.
They are not identifying as the driver but the keeper. They have provided other grounds of appeal under separate cover The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has not identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of keeper liability. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on the site The appellant states that at the time of parking the car park was dark and poorly lit, and the signage is not clear or legible.

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.
Also, it is the operator’s responsibility to provide evidence to POPLA, which rebut the appellant’s claims. I would expect the operator to provide POPLA with photographic evidence to show that motorists are able to clearly see the signage on the site in the dark. Appendix B, Contrast and illumination in the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “Signs 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”.

After reviewing the evidence provided, I note the nightime photographs were taken after the parking event and therefore cannot be considered. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the operator has demonstrated that the signage would be clearly illuminated, and visible in the hours of darkness. As such, I confirm the PCN was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on this basis and there is no need to address any other issues raised by the appellant.

😊😊😊😊

beamerguy

Good news :beer:

Britannia = BPA scammer

At least you will not get the idiotic DRP and that Mickey mouse legal on your back