POPLA Decisions

RGT88

Brief background. I received a letter from UKPC regarding being parked in a residential permit area without displaying a permit. Reason for this is that I was moving into one of the flats at the time and had the keys less than 24 hours so hadn't had time to apply for one. I appealed initially but was a bit cavalier and hinted that I was the driver. They rejected the appeal so I appealed to POPLA and just received this email:


Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference x

UK Parking Control 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

Fruitcake

RGT88 wrote: »

Brief background. I received a letter from UKPC regarding being parked in a residential permit area without displaying a permit. Reason for this is that I was moving into one of the flats at the time and had the keys less than 24 hours so hadn't had time to apply for one. I appealed initially but was a bit cavalier and hinted that I was the driver. They rejected the appeal so I appealed to POPLA and just received this email:


Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference x

UK Parking Control 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

Well done on your win.

However, if UKPC infest this residential property, you would be wise to move out again as soon as possible to a place that isn't infested by parking scammers.

Check the lease/AST to see what it says about parking and permits, or doesn't mention anything about them. If it's not a requirement of the lease/AST, it begs the question, why would you want/need to display a permit?

You should be trying to get the scammers booted out.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Coupon-mad

Seriously, do not live where a PPC infests.

It is one of the worst blights and causes of distress I can think of in an otherwise happy community, to have an aggressive ex clamper thug firm setting out to sue you all and your visitors.

They are not needed in any residential site and people need to complain more.

Skip_Offwork

Thank you so much to the several people, including the current poster, who have posted information about appealing against being given a ticket for parking in the allocated space for an apartment. I have just helped my nephew make a successful appeal against Comprehensive Management Services using the IAS online appeals system. He had parked in a keyfob controlled car park in the space allocated to his apartment but had not displayed a permit. We used all the bits about clauses in the lease giving a right to park and sent them stuff about the Pace recovery vs Mr N and the Jopson v Home Guard and parking companies not being able to change rights in a lease.
To be truthful I am not sure whether it was this that worked or the fact that either the company or IAS uploaded someone elses data onto our online form so we also challenged them under GDPR. It is possible that it was this that made them back off.

Umkomaas

Skip_Offwork wrote: »

Thank you so much to the several people, including the current poster, who have posted information about appealing against being given a ticket for parking in the allocated space for an apartment. I have just helped my nephew make a successful appeal against Comprehensive Management Services using the IAS online appeals system. He had parked in a keyfob controlled car park in the space allocated to his apartment but had not displayed a permit. We used all the bits about clauses in the lease giving a right to park and sent them stuff about the Pace recovery vs Mr N and the Jopson v Home Guard and parking companies not being able to change rights in a lease.
To be truthful I am not sure whether it was this that worked or the fact that either the company or IAS uploaded someone elses data onto our online form so we also challenged them under GDPR. It is possible that it was this that made them back off.

Nice result, but did the IAS uphold the appeal, or did they 'save the face' of one of their paymasters by getting them to withdraw their claim against you?

I suspect the latter, but please prove me wrong!

Well done on getting a rather nasty monkey off your (nephew's) back.

Consumer_champion

I appealed on the following points:

1. Signage - the entrance sign is not easy to see, read or understand in that the driver is not left with any idea that there is a parking charge payable for use of the car park beyond a 5 mins max stay (or that there is a 5 mins max stay to begin with).
2. Keeper Liability
3. Landowner Authority
4. Grace Periods - duration of the visit in question (which the Operator claims was 16 minutes) is not an unreasonable grace period
5. ANPR - signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used.
6. Parking charge notices - PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle and two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph”.
7. No Planning Permission for ANPR

Response:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

First 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

pbb76

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Paul Garrity

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’s case is that when arriving in the car park, it was very busy due to heavy rainfall. They say that they had to wait for parking space which took longer than five minutes. They advise that after parking, they had to get their five year old daughter from the car seat and in her coat before escorting her safely form one side of the site to the payment area to read the terms and conditions. They explain that they returned to their vehicle and paid the tariff which they have a receipt for at 14:10. They state that when returning to the car park, it is a long walk up hill and their daughter was tired and walking slowly. They say that they carried her some of the way as they were conscious of returning to their vehicle in a timely manner but it was not possible to carry her all the way. They explain that they feel they returned in sufficient time and after getting their daughter back into the vehicle, they left the site four minutes past the required departure time at 17:10. They state that they believe the British Parking Association 9BPA) Code of Practice allows for short grace periods at the beginning and end of parking. They explain that the tried their best to adhere to the terms of parking.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “…Tariffs…Up to 24 hours £10.00 Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100…”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 13:54, and exiting at 17:14, totalling a stay of three hours and 19 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate a search on its online systems using the appellant’s vehicle registration, confirming that the appellant paid for three hours parking time at 14:10, 16 minutes after entering the car park. Th appellant has stated that the BPA Coe of Practice provides a grace period at the beginning and end of the parking session. In relation to grace periods, Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that: “If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract”. The BPA Code of Practice does not define a reasonable period for these circumstances. This is because the reasonable period might depend on the circumstances of the car park, or the circumstances of the motorist. The appellant has confirmed that their time in the car park was spent preparing to leave their vehicle parked and reading the terms and conditions before accepting the terms of parking. Upon consideration of the circumstances outlined by the appellant, I am satisfied that 12 minutes spent in the leaving the car park should fall within a reasonable period. The purpose of a grace period is to allow motorists to leave the car park if they do not agree to the terms and conditions. In this instance, I am satisfied that the appellant, after reviewing the terms and accepting them, paid the parking tariff in a reasonable period. 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.


Thank you for all the help on here

beamerguy

Well done pbb76 :beer:

Just proves that Parking Eye were trying to scam you.

Another BPA joker bites the dust

Umkomaas

If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you.

The assessor is quoting from the incorrect part of the BPA Code of Practice - this was not a car park where the driver was parking without permission nor where parking was not allowed.

Sometimes POPLA incompetence works in the motorist's favour!

Oli2019

Decision
Successful


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant did not purchase a parking
ticket.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they are a member of a gym that had an agreement in place with GS car park for gym users to park for free from 17:00 onwards on Monday to Friday. The appellant states that they left the gym within the appropriate times and therefore considers the PCN unjustified. The appellant advises that a number of other gym members have experienced similar issues and believes that GS car park is making a deliberate attempt to profiteer from gym users. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided an email from the gym manager confirming that they entered the gym at 17:10 and left at 18:12 on the date of the parking incident. The appellant has also provided a screenshot of the gym website to confirm the parking agreement at GS car park.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “GS Car Park, Mansfield Street, Leicestershire, Leicester, LE1 3TD...We will have two tablets inside The Gym where you need to input your car registration every visit...Free parking between 17:00-07:00...Please note failure to display a valid ticket and input your car registration every visit may result in a Parking Charge Notice". The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant did not purchase a parking ticket. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle DL65AJX entering the car park at 17:01 and exiting at 18:18, totalling a stay of one hour and 17 minutes on site. The appellant’s case is that they are a member of a gym that had an agreement in place with GS car park for gym users to park for free from 17:00 onwards on Monday to Friday. The appellant states that they left the gym within the appropriate times and therefore considers the PCN unjustified. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The signage confirms that the appellant is entitled to free parking during the times in which they were on site as a gym customer. The operator has confirmed within its response to POPLA that it located the appellant's vehicle registration on its systems to validate their free parking. However, the operator advised that the appellant did not register their vehicle within 10 minutes of arrival as required. I note that the signage that outlines the instructions for free gym parking does not instruct motorists of the requirement to register their vehicle within 10 minutes of arrival. Additional signage outlines that motorists have a 10 minute period to purchase a parking ticket. However, this is not relevant to the appellant as they were benefitting from free parking. In any case, the operator has not provided evidence from its systems to confirm what time the appellant validated their parking and have therefore failed to prove that they registered their vehicle after 10 minutes of arriving on site. The appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, I do not consider it necessary to consider these, as I have already allowed the appeal on the above basis. Accordingly, I do not conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and will allow the appeal.