POPLA Decisions

padairg

Winner here. Pretty simple case of a company leased vehicle and ParkingEye not posting me the correct docs under POFA. The assessor made particular reference to my point about a company leased car being on the Olympic Park on a Sunday morning. Many thanks for all your help.

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained in the car park for longer than permitted.

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). He states that the vehicle was parked outside of business hours at a leisure park, and therefore was not being used for business purposes.

From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. Accordingly, the provisions laid out in PoFA 2012 will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) proceeds to state: “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” Upon review of the evidence provided by the operator, it is evident that a notice to keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a notice to hirer. Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the notice to hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it has provided the relevant documents to the hirer. The operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with Section 13 and Section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

ChrisiB

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Safoora Sagheer
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator’s case is that the appellant remained at the car park for longer than permitted.
Assessor summary of your case Assessor supporting rational for decision:

The appellant has raised several grounds raised such as:
• Insufficient grace period.
• No evidence of landowner authority.
• Inadequate signage.

To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the appeal letter.
• 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 00:02 and exited the site at 02:14.
• The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of two hours and 11 minutes.
• In the British Parking Association it states 13.4 “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 driver entered the car park at 14:02 and purchased parking time at 14:06, therefore, the driver overstayed the parking time purchased by seven minutes.

I am satisfied that this is a sufficient grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended. As such, the parking charge notice has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

beamerguy

Good news :T

PE trying to scam you ....... another BPA disaster

BreakableKitten

Nice to see an assessor who actually understands grace periods. Wish I'd had that one!

NiJella

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on the signage.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The appellant has questioned the signage at the site and mentioned the Beavis case. The appellant explains the land is subject to bye-laws and not relevant land as defined within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. The signage at the site states “PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE…PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE MIDNIGHT ON DAY OF PARKING…If you do not obtain a valid permit ……If you breach these terms and conditions you will be charged £100”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the vehicle was at the car park for one hour 19 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on the signage. The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The appellant has questioned the signage at the site and mentioned the Beavis case. The appellant explains the land is subject to bye-laws and not relevant land as defined within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal. As there is a reasonable suspicion that byelaws apply to the land, I would expect the operator to do one of two things, demonstrate the keeper is the driver or demonstrate the land they manage is not subject to byelaws. As the operator has done neither, this appeal is allowed.

:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j (Many lifetime's of thank you's owed to Coupon-mad).

Coupon-mad

As there is a reasonable suspicion that byelaws apply to the land, I would expect the operator to do one of two things, demonstrate the keeper is the driver or demonstrate the land they manage is not subject to byelaws.

As the operator has done neither, this appeal is allowed.

Brilliant, we must use this wording in future. I like to use POPLA's template words in POPLA appeals as it steers them in the right direction.

:T

Spine

Many thanks to all the help from this forum especially to CM!:T


Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6002935/gemini-parking-popla-stage


Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
Stuart Lumsden


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to park within a marked bay.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he was not the driver of the vehicle and the NTK is not compliant with POFA due to the wording used. There is no land owner authority, the entrance signage is inadequately positioned and lit and is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. They state the operator has not shown that the appellant is the driver. They state there is non-compliance with grace period.


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 he was not the driver of the vehicle and the NTK is not compliant with POFA due to the wording used. There is no land owner authority, the entrance signage is inadequately positioned and lit and is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. They state the operator has not shown that the appellant is the driver. They state there is non-compliance with grace period.
I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and will respond accordingly. I note that the appellant states that the signage is inadequately positioned and is not prominent. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signage on site but note that all of these images were taken on 26 April 2019, whereas the breach occurred on 21 March 2019. As there is no evidence that there was adequate signage on site on the day )or before) the breach I can verify the validity of the PCN, 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.

pigeonpants

Received my outcome today v APCOA

APCOA Parking - EW 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.


Thanks to all that made this advice available, almost caved and paid but chuffed I didn’t!

thegentleway

I appealed on the following 5 points:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2. 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
3. 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
4. The wording of the signage forbids parking, as such there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


And got this response:


"Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ##########.

Parking Eye Ltd - EW 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"

That's the 7th 'win' at POPLA - huge thank you to everyone who contributes to the forum!

beamerguy

thegentleway wrote: »

I appealed on the following 5 points:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2. 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
3. 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
4. The wording of the signage forbids parking, as such there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


And got this response:


"Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference ##########.

Parking Eye Ltd - EW 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"

That's the 7th 'win' at POPLA - huge thank you to everyone who contributes to the forum!

Well done :T

The BPA should really get their scam members sorted out