POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Well done SaXoN-UK1, a monkey off your back! :T

In view of this quite clear statement from POPLA, why not give the PPC a dose of their own medicine by making life uncomfortable for them?

Write to the DVLA and complain that POPLA has grave doubts that the PPC has authority to operate at this site. Ask that the DVLA investigates and reports back to you. In particular they should calculate how many charges have been issued, and should there be no valid landowner authority, the PPC should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid. Email in the first instance:

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

If you get a fob off from that approach, follow it up with a full blown Freedom of Information request. It will be more difficult for them to hide under FOI.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Starwalker

Decision Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
In this case the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100 for either not purchasing the appropriate parking period or remaining for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
I acknowledge that the appellant has submitted several grounds of appeal, however due to the information contained in the operators case file I do not need to review this information in order to complete my assessment.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly. To do so we consider the benefit and utility gained from the use of the site and whether the motorist entered into a contract with the operator. The operator must show what terms and conditions applied to the parking period and how the motorist was made aware of the terms. Once this has been established it passes to the appellant to show any circumstance or inaccuracy which would prove the charge was issued incorrectly. In this case the operator has issued a PCN of £100 for either not purchasing the appropriate parking period or remaining for longer than permitted. The appellant states they were not the driver of the vehicle, as such the operator must have complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 in order to transfer liability of the charge from the driver to the appellant. The PCN was issued on the thirteenth day following the day the contravention occurred, due to a weekend was then presumed to be given on the sixteenth day following the day on which the contravention occurred. As such, the PCN has not been issued correctly in compliance with POFA 2012. For this reason I allow the appeal, with no need to review any other information or evidence provided.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5967668/parking-charge-notice-fine-bought-but-wrong-vrm

Coupon-mad

The PCN was issued on the thirteenth day following the day the contravention occurred, due to a weekend was then presumed to be given on the sixteenth day following the day on which the contravention occurred.

POPLA starring in a ''Wow - this Assessor can add up and understand keeper liability!'' shocker!

ilbrec

Put together an extensive appeal using the info in the newbies thread for an incident involving the Mrs car at Lincoln staion. Smart parking ran away and didn't offer any evidence to POPLA

Artegal

Great news, thank you for sharing your success.

Starwalker

Coupon-mad wrote: »

POPLA starring in a ''Wow - this Assessor can add up and understand keeper liability!'' shocker!

Ha ha lol!

Thanks again Coupon, and others - a donation to Cancer research done as promised.

LaserMan

Dear ***********
Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your appeal.
We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the Parking Charge Notice number; ************ 
The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.
If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful and the operator should cancel the parking charge.
When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.
POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator.
The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused 
The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:
Assessor summary of operator's case:
 The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for either not purchasing a pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted or by not entering your registration details via the terminal. 
Assessor summary of appellant's case:
 The appellant’s case is that there is a lack of signage that clearly states that the car park belongs to the Prince Rupert Hotel and that only guests using that particular hotel are eligible for free parking if the driver enters the vehicle details at the Prince Rupert Hotel reception.
The appellant entered their details into the log of the adjoining hotel ‘The Lion’. They state that the signage is inadequate to differentiate the two car parks. They only became aware of the issue when they returned to ‘The Lion’ to question them after the PCN was issued.
The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal. 
Assessor summary of reasons:
 The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability.
The operator has provided a site map photographic evidence of the signage on the site, which states: ‘hotel guest must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception’ and ‘Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100’
The operator has also provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at14:08, and exiting at, 15:43: totalling a stay of 1 hours 34 minutes
The operator has provided a printout showing that the motorist’s vehicle registration number does not appear in their systems on the date of the event.
When parking on a private land car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the car park 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.
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 parked but did not keep to the parking conditions.
The appellant states that this car park is virtually adjacent to the Lion Hotel; and whilst this may be the case, I will consider only this car park in this assessment.
The appellant states that the signage is inadequate to differentiate the two car parks. Section 18. 2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice states:
Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.
From the supplied operator evidence, I can see there is the required entry signage at the entrance and that it is adjacent to a sign stating Prince Rupert Hotel PRIVATE CAR PARK.
I note the appellant’s photographic evidence of the same spot but as it is not date stamped, I cannot consider it. - I was informed by Hotel staff that the entrance sign was removed about a year ago by Parking Eye "to encourage more public use" :mad:
It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity.
I am mindful that this car park may adjoin another car park belonging to a different hotel, but the evidence supplied for this is not conclusive. Regardless, as this is a single entry/exit car park, a motorist would have to leave this car park and walk past the entrance signs; No - there is a pedestrian exit at the other end of the car park to then walk to any adjoining car park and thence into any adjoining hotel. Consequently, I would have expected the appellant to have confirmed with the hotel that they were parked in the correct car park. There is no evidence that the appellant did this until after the PCN was issued.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant failed to register their vehicle to stay in this car park, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.
As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.
Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. 
Kind regards
Grahame Hill
POPLA Team

mjm87

Another success, thanks for your help everyone!

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Sophie Taylor

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has provided a 16-page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • There is no identification of land being under the management of ParkingEye, there is no distinction of it being separate to an adjacent car park. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • There is no evidence of authority from the landowner. • The operator does not have planning permission for its signs or ANPR cameras. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply. • The operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the site in question. The operator has provided a document of its agreement to manage the car park. Reviewing this, I can see the tariffs stated are different to the tariffs on the signage. As such, I am not satisfied this is sufficient to show the up to date authority to manage the land in question. While it is possible there may have been amendments to the agreement, I cannot make this assumption. The operator has not provided any explanation as to why the tariffs differ on the agreement to on the signage. As such, I cannot be satisfied this evidence is sufficient to give them authority to impose the terms stated on the signs. As such, I must conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Artegal

Yay! Brilliant news, well done. Your 16 page document was effort well spent.

Coupon-mad

LaserMan wrote: »

The appellant states that the signage is inadequate to differentiate the two car parks. Section 18. 2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice states:
Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.
From the supplied operator evidence, I can see there is the required entry signage at the entrance and that it is adjacent to a sign stating Prince Rupert Hotel PRIVATE CAR PARK.
I note the appellant’s photographic evidence of the same spot but as it is not date stamped, I cannot consider it. - I was informed by Hotel staff that the entrance sign was removed about a year ago by Parking Eye "to encourage more public use" :mad:

So ParkingEye used old photos in their evidence, and either negligently or deliberately misled POPLA about the entrance signs?

Well worth defending this on at your local court then. No risk.