POPLA Decisions

BreakableKitten

A disappointing decision.

Original thread: forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6000282#1

From what I've read, ECP never try to claim in court, is that right? Should I just ignore any letters until they eventually stop?

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as it has failed to allow two grace periods. The appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. He states that the operator has not shown that it is pursuing the driver. The appellant’s case is that the signs in the car park are prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority and has put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided links to various websites and a copy of the appeal rejection to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking in a private car park, 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. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Maximum stay 90 minutes. Monday to Sunday 05:00 hours to 20:15 hours. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the above will result in the issue of an £85 Parking Charge Notice”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist parked longer than the maximum period allowed. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 13:12 and exited at 15:00 on the day in question, staying for a total of 108 minutes. In response, the appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. He states that the operator has not shown that it is pursuing the driver. 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 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 appellant states that the signs in the car park are prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. 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.” I note that the appellant has stated that this case is different, however the precedent set by the Supreme Court applies to all car parks. 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 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 2012 (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. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park.

Overall, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority and has put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 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 any evidence to suggest otherwise.

The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice as it has failed to allow two grace periods. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out the requirement for operators to provide a grace period, in which it will not issue a PCN for a breach of any terms of parking which, by their nature, require a grace period in order to be complied with. There is no requirement that the operator give a general grace period in which any breach of the terms of parking is overlooked simply because it does not occur for very long. In this case, the appellant has not provided me with any evidence or explanation as to why the motorist required a 19-minute grace period. As such, I am unable to consider this.

Furthermore, I note that the appellant has made reference to administrative errors within the operator’s case file, however this does not affect the validity of the PCN and will have no nearing on my decision. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist exceeded the maximum parking time permitted, he has failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

beamerguy

POPLA has a very limited number of experienced assessors, 2 or 3 at most, the rest could be classed as canteen staff

I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location.
Does not Alexandra Roby know ???

Overall, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

But yours is nothing like the Beavis case or what the Supreme Court said ........ This is cloud dreaming rubbish

I would complain to POPLA and ask for a REAL assessor to look at this carefully.

Just because POPLA made such a rubbish decision, does not mean a judge will agree them, far from it

A new government appeals service will soon be available which will dump POPLA in the long grass and this assessor can go back to the canteen and make lovely cups of tea

Coupon-mad

BreakableKitten wrote: »

From what I've read, ECP never try to claim in court, is that right? Should I just ignore any letters until they eventually stop?

Decision: Unsuccessful

Yep - you can ignore ECP.

This is how (perhaps) it could have been won:

In this case, the appellant has not provided me with any evidence or explanation as to why the motorist required a 19-minute grace period. As such, I am unable to consider this.

You needed to split the 18/19 mins and explain in detail why it took 8 minutes to drive in and find a space, park, then read the signs, then why it took 10 mins to leave after the allowed parking time expired.

Never talk about two grace periods adding up to 20 minutes because that's not true. Separate them and POPLA will sometimes agree.

And not sure if you did, but a retailer complaint is always a better bet than POPLA.

Umkomaas

however the precedent set by the Supreme Court applies to all car parks.

Really?

Parking charge “neither extravagant nor unconscionable… taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices”

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

More retraining required!

BreakableKitten

I would complain to POPLA and ask for a REAL assessor to look at this carefully.

Does that ever happen? I can't find anything about it on here.

BreakableKitten

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep - you can ignore ECP.

One thing I haven't found much detail on, which might be useful to add to the Newbie post, is how long can you expect to receive debt collector letters for? 6 months? 6 years? I guess it varies.


Also more info for newbies about court costs would be useful. Being taken to court sounds very expensive. What costs are involved if you lose (or if you win)? There's also the significant cost of your time, which in many cases will exceed the £150 - £200, but I suppose at that point it's more about the principle of it.

This is how (perhaps) it could have been won:
You needed to split the 18/19 mins and explain in detail why it took 8 minutes to drive in and find a space, park, then read the signs, then why it took 10 mins to leave after the allowed parking time expired.

Never talk about two grace periods adding up to 20 minutes because that's not true. Separate them and POPLA will sometimes agree.

This was my original case about grace periods:

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the start of the parking event and one at the end, each of a minimum of 10 minutes.

The BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states:

If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states:

You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The signage at the car park in question states a maximum stay of 90 minutes.

Since Euro Car Parks’ ANPR photographs show the duration of the visit to be 108 minutes and 22 seconds, which does not exceed the maximum stay plus a reasonable grace period before and after the parking event (90 + 10 + 10 = 110), I therefore contend that Euro Car Parks have not complied with the BPA Code of Practice, by failing to allow a reasonable grace period.

So I did split it into two, but didn't explain why the grace periods were required. As far as I can see, the code of practice doesn't depend on any specific circumstances.

And not sure if you did, but a retailer complaint is always a better bet than POPLA.

I did, to no avail. The manager of M&S said they have no relationship with the car park operator.

Fruitcake

BreakableKitten wrote: »

One thing I haven't found much detail on, which might be useful to add to the Newbie post, is how long can you expect to receive debt collector letters for? 6 months? 6 years? I guess it varies.

As long as a piece of string.

Keep them for six years (five in Scotland) then bin them.

kanerussell

Can this be argued?


Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking Charge Notice are as follows:
Parking Charge Notice Number: 88881952950 Date of Issue: 04/05/2019
Vehicle Registration Mark: ***** Time of Issue: 13:05:22
Car Park: The Place Retail Park - Milton Keynes
Breach of Terms and Conditions:
Your vehicle was parked longer than the
maximum period allowed
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for
the following reasons:
 The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – cameras capture
an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay.
 Parking at the above site is limited to 120 minutes.
 On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure
that your vehicle has been correctly parked.
 Your vehicle was parked longer than 120 minutes, therefore the notice was issued correctly
and remains payable.
 Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days
beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right
subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much
of that amount which remains unpaid.
 We note that in your letter you state that the parking charge notice (PCN) is not enforceable
as you have currently not entered into a ‘contract’ with Euro Car Parks. I would respectfully
remind that contract law applies in this instance.
 The car park is private property and signage on entrance and within the private car park
clearly set out the rules and regulations of the car park and tariffs (if applicable). By entering
the car park, parking and leaving the vehicle the driver has accepted the ‘contract’ and
therefore if the driver fail to comply with the terms and conditions a parking charge notice will
be correctly issued.
Please make payment of £100.00 by visiting our website at use the
automated telephone service 0203 553 4559. Alternatively make your cheque payable to Euro Car
Parks Limited (to include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks
Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.
This amount is now due and the charge will be held for 14 days to allo

Coupon-mad

This is a thread for posting POPLA Decisions only.

You will not get answers here, so please EDIT and DELETE the above.

You simply need to read the NEWBIES thread about how to appeal and what to do first, which is ALWAYS to complain to the retailer Store manager on site, who can cancel these for customers.

No reply here, this is ONLY for POPLA Decisions.

Please hit edit and delete the above post, then I will delete this reply.

Fruitcake

kanerussell wrote: »

Can this be argued?


Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking Charge Notice are as follows:
Parking Charge Notice Number: NNNNNNNNNNNN Date of Issue: 04/05/2019
Vehicle Registration Mark: ***** Time of Issue: 13:05:22
Car Park: The Place Retail Park - Milton Keynes
Breach of Terms and Conditions:
Your vehicle was parked longer than the
maximum period allowed
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for
the following reasons:
 The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – cameras capture
an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay.
 Parking at the above site is limited to 120 minutes.
 On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure
that your vehicle has been correctly parked.
 Your vehicle was parked longer than 120 minutes, therefore the notice was issued correctly
and remains payable.
 Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days
beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right
subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much
of that amount which remains unpaid.
 We note that in your letter you state that the parking charge notice (PCN) is not enforceable
as you have currently not entered into a ‘contract’ with Euro Car Parks. I would respectfully
remind that contract law applies in this instance.
 The car park is private property and signage on entrance and within the private car park
clearly set out the rules and regulations of the car park and tariffs (if applicable). By entering
the car park, parking and leaving the vehicle the driver has accepted the ‘contract’ and
therefore if the driver fail to comply with the terms and conditions a parking charge notice will
be correctly issued.
Please make payment of £100.00 by visiting our website at use the
automated telephone service 0203 553 4559. Alternatively make your cheque payable to Euro Car
Parks Limited (to include a £2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks
Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.
This amount is now due and the charge will be held for 14 days to allo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This is a thread for posting POPLA Decisions only.

You will not get answers here, so please EDIT and DELETE the above.

You simply need to read the NEWBIES thread about how to appeal and what to do first, which is ALWAYS to complain to the retailer Store manager on site, who can cancel these for customers.

No reply here, this is ONLY for POPLA Decisions.

Please hit edit and delete the above post, then I will delete this reply.

… and don't post personal or sensitive information such as the PCN number or real names! Someone could do a lot of damage with malice aforethought using that.