POPLA Decisions

GAJPER

Hi All,
I did try to upload this as an attachment but couldn't find a way to do so. If I have placed this post in the wrong area my apologies, but I wanted to share my appeal information with others in the hope that it may help in the future.

I pursued a POPLA appeal on behalf of my wife and the text of my appeal, sorry no photographs, is as follows:

[/CENTER]PARKING NOTICE APPEAL

Registered Keeper:
PCN: 7XXXXXX
POPLA Appeal Number: 6XXXXXXXXX

My husband and I parked our vehicle SXX XXX in the Kings Head Public House Car Park, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1NW, at approx. 12:15 on Tuesday, 13th February, 2019..

The above referenced PCN was issued to me on 20th February, 2019 purporting to advise me that we had parked between 12:18 and 15:46 and that the unpaid duration of our parking was 3h:27m.

Immediately on receipt I went to the Premier Park Ltd website and completed their online Appeals process in which I explained the circumstances of why we exceeded our parking time and attached copies of parking tickets showing that we had paid for a total of 3 hours parking.

The PCN and the relevant timed car parking tickets are inserted below.

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a copy of the text I entered into the Premier Park Ltd website, as their online appeals process does not allow a copy of the text entered to be retained by the originator!

In summary, the situation that occurred was that, on arrival at the car park my husband went in search of the payment machine and, on discovering its location, in an area of the car park surrounded by commercial waste bins, he realised he did not have sufficient change to pay for our expected parking duration.

As neither of us is familiar with Melton Mowbray, we had gone on a day trip from our home some 30 miles away, my husband tried to obtain change from the public house, which was closed at the time we were visiting, so he went to obtain change from a shop.

On his return at 12:31 he immediately paid for 2 hours parking but, as I explained in my online appeal, the Premier Park Ltd payment system does not give any opportunity to pay for any elapsed car parking time so we could not pay for the approx. 15 minutes we had already parked for, despite our best intentions to try and do so.

Furthermore, and whilst we were out in the town, we mislaid our car keys and, rather than risk getting a parking ticket, my husband returned to the car park and paid for a further 1 hour of parking at 14:36, which was 5 minutes after the previous ticket had expired.

Having finally found our keys we returned to the car park, knowing that we were overtime and left the car park at 15:46, some 10 minutes after our extended car parking had expired.

Having explained all of this to Premier Park Ltd and asking that they would accept this explanation in mitigation and, having demonstrated that we had actually only over-stayed by a total of 27 minutes and not the 3h:27m they claimed, we had hoped that they may have been more understanding.

As were going on holiday during the duration of the appeals process, I had also explained to Premier Park Ltd that it would be prudent for them to contact us by email rather than post, as we were going to be away from home for nearly 2 months and would be unable to respond to them if they wrote to our home address during this period.

My appeal was logged online at 23:23 on Sunday, 24th February, 2019, and I received an emailed acknowledgement from Premier Park Ltd to advise me that they would carefully consider my appeal and would respond to me within 35 days regarding the outcome.

Furthermore, their acknowledgement advised me that I could pay or view the photographic evidence by visiting? There was no link or website identified to visit!

On Tuesday, 26th February, 2019, (just less than 2 days) I received an email which advised me that ‘we have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason: Your vehicle overstayed your paid parking period by 27 minutes. Please be advised that as the vehicle remained on site in excess of the paid parking period then further payment was required to authorise the additional time spent on site. Extra time could have been purchased at the machine before leaving site or via the pay by phone service RingGo. The signage on site states that parking charges apply at all times.’

In their reply Premier Park Ltd clearly state that extra time could have been purchased at the machine. However, there is no facility and no instruction in their signage to enable extra ‘elapsed’ time to be purchased.

This therefore makes a mockery of their appeals process as it states that we can do something which is patently not possible.

I do not believe that Premier Park Ltd even considered my appeal properly, they simply looked for a way to impose a £100.00 penalty which is entirely disproportionate to the overstay.

All they have realised is that, in their original PCN they inferred that we had parked for 3h:27m and this they have corrected in the text of their reply to 27 minutes.

Further, my husband is particularly incensed at the issuance of this Parking Charge Notice as he believes that Premier Park signage at the car park is deliberately designed to cause maximum delay to anyone unfamiliar with its layout before they realise that they run the risk of receiving a Parking Charge Notice and a £100.00 penalty within 5 minutes of entering the car park.

On our return from a short break last week, we returned to Melton Mowbray to revisit the Kings Head Car Park, and photograph the site to support my husband’s view.

Please refer to the photographs and text which follow:

1) Approach to car park.

The signs merely indicate the presence of the car park, there is no indication that ANPR cameras are in operation or what the charges are.

2) Entry into the car park

If you are entering the car park you are concentrating on making the left turn into the car park off a main thoroughfare and manoeuvring into the entrance way. You could not simply stop, read and assimilate the contents of the sign until after you have parked so, there is no way that prior to entering the car park, you know that your vehicle is being photographed by ANPR cameras or, what the terms and conditions are for parking.

Furthermore, do Premier Park Ltd actually expect motorists to stop on double yellow lines at the entrance to the car park to read the notices before entering?

3) What do the signs actually say
2 photographs uploaded.

These are close-up photographs of the signs at the entrance to the car park. The first is taken from approx. 4 feet away, the second about 1 foot away. Do Premier Park Ltd really believe that these signs adequately inform a motorist of the contract they are entering into as they drive into the car park?

Photographs later in the sequence will show exactly what the smaller sign actually reads.

4) Views around the Car Park
15 photographs showing location of signage and how it is blocked by parked vehicles.

Please note that there are only 4 signs I was able to photograph within the main car park.

All of these signs are posted at a height of approx. 8 feet from the ground and none of them, with the exception with those attached to the side of the public house (which I have not photographed) are at normal eye level.

Also, with the exception of the signs near to the entrance of the site and one on the side of the public house building, there are no other GDPR signs displayed apart from the one adjacent to the yellow clothing receptacle.

5) Signs nearest to our parking position

Photo 1 - Approx. 20 feet away
Photo 2 - Approx. 4 feet away

6) What the signs actually say.

GDPR sign
This sign is the directly in line of sight and naturally you are drawn to read this first.
This takes approx. 2 minutes to read.

Car Parking Charges
This notice is approx. 8 feet up the pole. Whilst the parking charges are clearly displayed the ‘small print’ is almost impossible to read.

We could not use the ‘RingGo’ parking service as we could not read on the sign how much the call charges were for connecting to the telephone service.

Further, the signs state how to pay but, don’t indicate where the payment machine is located.

7) Where to pay

On the day that the alleged parking contravention took place the car park was quite busy as it was Market Day in Melton Mowbray so it was not immediately clear where the payment machines were.

In the 2nd photograph in the views around the car park the above sign is visible. (Please Pay Here)

It is actually the pay point for a municipal car park which backs onto the Kings Head Car Park so time was wasted looking in the car park for payment machines.

It was not easily apparent where the Kings Head payment machines are as they are not identified but, they are actually located adjacent to the entrance of the car park by the refuse containers for the public house as the following photographs shows.
2 photographs uploaded.

Our Appeal

The BPA Guidelines - January, 2018.

We assert that, if Premier Park Ltd are acting within the spirit of the guidelines, then their signage should be greatly improved to comply with those guidelines, so that motorists can make an informed judgement on whether or not they wish to park in the Kings Head Car Park.

The guidelines actually recommend a minimum 10 minutes grace period for any motorist to reasonably ascertain if they wish to park in a private car park.

Premier Park Ltd clearly state that they only apply 5 minutes as indicated in the photographs provided.

The fact that, by the time we were parked, had read the parking and GDPR notices displayed at the site, found the payment machines and made payment, we were already at about 13 minutes since arrival and therefore we were, effectively already in penalty.

It was only on reading the signage adjacent to the payment machines, which is set at eye level, that I was able to ascertain the following:

• There are no instructions on how to pay retrospectively for any time already elapsed.

In their response to our appeal, Premier Park Ltd state we can make a retrospective payment but again, we ask how?

• The RingGo service, which we chose not to use as we did not know how much it would cost.

The signage states “Each transaction is subject to a minimum convenience fee of 30p”.

Therefore, what is the maximum fee payable?

This is completely open-ended as Premier Park Ltd can effectively charge whatever they feel like for the convenience charge.

What is the per minute charge for this service as it is not stated anywhere?

Given that we were most likely going to attract a £100.00 penalty why did we bother being honest brokers and pay £3.00 for our parking, knowing that we could not pay for the expired time retrospectively and that there are no instructions on the Premier Park Ltd signage to indicate how you do make such a payment.

We could have made the decision not to worry about paying for our parking at all or stayed much longer, if we knew there was a £100.00 penalty coming anyway.

With regards the other 14 minutes, we accept that the second ticket for a further hour was applied 5 minutes after the expiry of the previous ticket but, the BPA’s guidelines also recommend a minimum of 10 minutes grace at the end of the parking period to allow motorists to depart.

At the end of the day we are asking Premier Park Ltd to justify why they are charging a £100.00 penalty for effectively a 3-minute over-stay which has been more than mitigated for.

We would ask that you give this appeal your favourable consideration and that it will be waived for the grounds described above.

The appeal was submitted on 26th March, 2019 and on 12th April, 2019, POPLA advised us that Premier Park Ltd did not wish to pursue the matter and our appeal was upheld.

I would strongly recommend anyone who receives a PCN which they want to appeal to go through the MSE advice as it was really helpful and was instrumental in us winning our appeal.

Best regards,

GAJPER.

Umkomaas

The appeal was submitted on 26th March, 2019 and on 12th April, 2019, POPLA advised us that Premier Park Ltd did not wish to pursue the matter and our appeal was upheld.

All the way through your post, in the back of my mind was 'this is going to lose' as much was based on mitigation - not something that POPLA will consider - and PP seem to have a better than average success rate at POPLA. So I was delighted to read your penultimate paragraph. Well done.

beamerguy

GAJPER wrote: »

The appeal was submitted on 26th March, 2019 and on 12th April, 2019, POPLA advised us that Premier Park Ltd did not wish to pursue the matter and our appeal was upheld.

I would strongly recommend anyone who receives a PCN which they want to appeal to go through the MSE advice as it was really helpful and was instrumental in us winning our appeal.

Best regards,

GAJPER.

Good news :T

Premier Park Ltd were scamming you in the first place.

They are after all a BPA scammer ..... ????

Mr_Mash

Dear X



Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxx



One Parking Solution Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.



Yours sincerely



POPLA Team

beamerguy

Mr_Mash wrote: »

Dear X



Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxx



One Parking Solution Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.



Yours sincerely



POPLA Team

Good news for you :beer:

Just another day in the office for a BPA scammer

GAJPER

Just a couple of other things that have come to mind in light of the successful appeal.

1) Am I within my rights to ask Premier Park to delete all my or my wife's personal information?
2) How do I ascertain the circumstances under which DVLA released details of my wife to Premier Park? and
3) Should I complain to DVLA about them releasing this information?

I would appreciate an opinion on this.

Many thanks

GAJPER.

Dane1980

I have been fighting two PCNs one received by myself and one for my mum. Both PCNs received in identical situations (date/time/location) but with different outcomes..... Mine wasn't successful but hers was. Note: I used the same appeal points, images and rebuttals.

Her POPLA decision is below. Mine can be viewed in link or at top of page

hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75830268&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_me dium=Email&utm_term=14-May-19

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that no contract was formed with the driver by way of the signage on site as it is not lit at night. She states that signage on site generally is insufficient or inadequate. She states that there is no evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. She states that the operator does not have relevant planning permission for either the signs or cameras on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. All of the photographs were taken during daylight hours. Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the 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 in 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”.

The appellant has provided photographs of signs on site taken at night and it is clear that the signs are neither directly or indirectly lit, made of retro-reflective material or in any way clearly visible at night. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage on site meets the requirements set out by the BPA.

I am not satisfied from the evidence that the signs on site are sufficiently visible during the hours of darkness and it is clear that it was dark when the vehicle was parked. I am not satisfied therefore that the driver can be considered to have breached the terms of the site detailed on the signs, nor am I satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

I note that the appellant raised additional grounds of appeal, most of which were without merit, however on the basis that her appeal has been allowed, I will not consider each of the grounds raised.

Coupon-mad

So Paul E Walker gets it right, yet your Assessor says no. What a lack of consistency! Lucky this is only Euro Car Parks, time wasters to be ignored.



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75829443#post75829443

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
A R

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(sic) 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.

Ralph-y

it would help the cause .... I hope.... by passing on your experiences to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP asking them as to how any appeal companies/bodies/ADR ..... systems will be implicated under the new review should be set up



Ralph:cool:

SaXoN_UK1

Success !

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Michael Pirks
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle exceeded the one-hour maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle and he is appealing as the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) regarding keeper liability. The appellant says that there is no evidence to support that the driver exceeded the maximum stay time. The appellant explains that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver, who may have been potentially liable for the charge The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority, allowing the operator to issue parking charges. The appellant has provided evidence of the Notice to Keeper and a detailed document about the appeal, in support of the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the landowner agreement as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant exceeded the maximum stay time of one-hour. The appellant has highlighted as part of his appeal that he does not believe the operator has landowner authority to issue parking charges. As the appellant has questioned that the operator has landowner authority, I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. 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”. The operator has failed to provide me with a copy of the landowner agreement. I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the contract and clear boundaries, which have not been provided. As such, I cannot determine if this meets the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice, and if the appellant was parked on the operator’s land. As I cannot establish that the operator has sufficient authority, I cannot confirm 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.

Thanks for all the help on this forum.