POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

R some of these assessors inexperienced?

Yes, but not A B, she's been an Assessor for over a year or two.

Can’t I ask for it to be checked again by a superior??

Yes (you'll know that, from the POPLA website FAQs about 'complaints') but there's no reason that it will change, if the overstay was 22 minutes. This is not just about two minutes.

She's right, IMHO, you needed to pay for up to 4 hours stay.

But you are lucky, it's not a litigious firm, it's ECP!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5943888/euro-car-parks-pcn-help-pls

Ignore them, like everyone else does who loses v ECP at POPLA.

AliceBanned

Successful appeal against Secure a Space - North London Business Park (see my separate thread).


Grounds for appeal: poor signage, no evidence of landowner authority, no proof of contract/out of date page and signature was all they could provide.


If you need me to post more info please let me know.


Thanks for your thorough advice. Was a lot to plough through but I was certain this was unauthorised ticketing. I was nervous as it was at my workplace but then decided to go ahead and appeal.

beamerguy

AliceBanned wrote: »

Successful appeal against Secure a Space - North London Business Park (see my separate thread).


Grounds for appeal: poor signage, no evidence of landowner authority, no proof of contract/out of date page and signature was all they could provide.

Good stuff :T

Just another BPA scammer still on the loose

AliceBanned

Details of my successful appeal against Secure a Space who issued a ticket at North London Business Park:


The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to display a valid permit.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that 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.


She adds that there is no evidence of land owner authority. The appellant states the PCN does not comply with POFA. 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 appellant explains that 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. She adds that there is no evidence of land-owner authority.


The appellant states the PCN does not comply with POFA. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and evidence provided. It is clear why the appellant was issued with a PCN. I have reviewed the evidence pack and the operator has provided land owner authority.


I must point out to the operator however, that the PCN postcode and the land owner authority have two different postcodes. The PCN states N11 1NP and the land owner states N11 1GH. The BPA Code of Practice 7.3 (a) states: The written authorisation must also set out: the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined. As the postcode for the PCN and land are different I find that the operator does not have authorisation to issue PCN’s on this land As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.


Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the Parking Charge Notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

Umkomaas

I find that the operator does not have authorisation to issue PCN’s on this land

That's pretty conclusive, and damning for the PPC.

Please read my post #3468 above and give this shower of shyyte a dose of your own grief to deal with by asking the DVLA to now get involved.

There's also the issue of obtaining your personal data without reasonable cause, and potentially breaching the DPA and GDPR regulations, for which you could sue for up to ~£750.

AliceBanned

Umkomaas wrote: »

That's pretty conclusive, and damning for the PPC.

Please read my post #3468 above and give this shower of shyyte a dose of your own grief to deal with by asking the DVLA to now get involved.

There's also the issue of obtaining your personal data without reasonable cause, and potentially breaching the DPA and GDPR regulations, for which you could sue for up to ~£750.

Oh! Hadn't thought of this. !!





I am finding it hard to gloat because it hasn't sunk in - is this final ie they can't touch me on the parking?! I actually though they were incompetent but not necessarily fraudulent..how can they be a BPA member and be ticketing for land they have no authority for?!!:mad:

AliceBanned

And Trading Standards?

Umkomaas

They can't touch you now.

how can they be a BPA member and be ticketing for land they have no authority for?!!

Precisely, but to put the skids under them, that has to come from someone who has been wrongly and malevolently pursued. Don't forget, they purport to be the 'professionals (ho ho) in all this, yet goes feral if it suits to rinse a motorist.

I wish we could do it, but we do not have the direct locus to do so. But the one thing to know is that anyone prepared to go for their jugular will get expert advice and support from regulars.

If you're up for it, please continue with any proposals on your original thread, and we'll be all over it like a rash.

Dane1980

A disappointing decision on my part as the lighting at the site is poor and evidence provided I believed highlighted this. But hey ho - its only ECP so Im not admitting defeat. Plus in the extremely unlike event that they were to pursue me in court, the lack of advertising consent card is up my sleeve. :beer:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The appellant has provided evidence to support her appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

The terms and conditions of the site state: “Staff parking only. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice: staff members must have registered their full and correct vehicle registration”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked without authorisation. Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 17:36 and exited at 19:45 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and nine minutes.

A screenshot of its registration system has also been provided, showing that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered for a staff permit to park. In response, the appellant states that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked. When parking on private land, 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 and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which advises private parking operators: “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”.

Further, Appendix B 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. 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.” The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site along with a site map showing the distribution of the signs throughout the site.

Upon review of this, it is evident that the site is well lit and many of the signs are located in close proximity to sources of light. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the parking charge to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. 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”.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided me with anything to suggest otherwise.

The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the ANPR cameras. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning or advertising application or lack thereof. Furthermore, I do not consider that this would have affected the motorist’s ability to comply with the site’s terms and conditions.

As the motorist parked without authorisation, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Full thread here:
hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75830268&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=14-May-19

Umkomaas

Bad luck, but as you say, it's only ECP.

Plus in the extremely unlike event that they were to pursue me in court, the lack of advertising consent card is up my sleeve.

Don't hang your coat on that one. County Court Judges routinely refuse to deal with it as it is a criminal issue which only the local authority can prosecute. It is far from a showstopper in the civil court.

If you want to cause ECP some reverse grief, you go for the local authority and try to push them towards a prosecution. Come back you're the first one to persuade any LA to do so.

Otherwise, put it all to bed, and down to experience.