POPLA Decisions

wimblebob

PPC: Parking Eye Ltd - EW

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site either without appropriate payment or for longer than permitted. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that payment was made for two hours’ parking. She states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. She states that there was a disabled child in the vehicle who required a reasonable adjustment to the terms to allow time to get into and out of the vehicle. She states that the operator has not adhered to the legal requirements in order to pursue her for the charge as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has provided a photograph of the parking ticket purchased, screenshots of the operator’s website and a copy of her original letter of appeal to the operator.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 17:47 and leaving the site at 19:57. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of two hours and 10 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid payment was made on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle appears on this list against a payment for two hours’ parking, made at 17:52. On entering a site, a user must be allowed a reasonable time to park their vehicle, read and understand the terms of the site and, where relevant, make payment. The evidence shows that on this occasion the appellant made payment five minutes after entering the site, which I am satisfied was not unreasonable. Section 13.4 of the BPA’s Code of Practice requires that an operator must allow a motorist a “reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action” and that the period allowed “should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The evidence shows that on this occasion the appellant left the site five minutes after the end of the paid period, which I am satisfied was not unreasonable and was within the 10-minute minimum required by the BPA. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the appellant breached the terms of the site. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Why are PE ignoring BPA Code of Practice requirements on Grace Periods? They are doing this too often for it to be an 'administrative error'. This should be the subject of a complaint to the BPA and the DVLA. @wimblebob - are you up for pushing this forward?

wimblebob

Absolutely - they are horrible bullies. Up until the final point they were offering a discount, then a pay up and we will go away type letter. Only that I felt so disgusted i kept going. Honestly the time taken to gen up and read around the processes, prepare documents etc was worth much more than the demand, but on principle i am glad i carried it through.

Umkomaas - have you anything which can help speed the complaint up like a pre-written ditty?

Fruitcake

wimblebob wrote: »

Absolutely - they are horrible bullies. Up until the final point they were offering a discount, then a pay up and we will go away type letter. Only that I felt so disgusted i kept going. Honestly the time taken to gen up and read around the processes, prepare documents etc was worth much more than the demand, but on principle i am glad i carried it through.

Umkomaas - have you anything which can help speed the complaint up like a pre-written ditty?

There is a sticky thread about successful complaints, but it might take a lot of trawling to find something similar. I would suggest that since you are astute enough to have won at PoPLA, you would be able to generate a suitable complaint in your own words.

The complaint should go to the BPA, the DVLA, and your MP. Quote the requirements of the BPA CoP, the PoPLA result, and any communication where the scammers were told a disabled passenger was on board.
Include the relevant part of the BPA that states some motorists may need longer than others to show this wasn't just about "fixed" grace periods, but the the CoP actually recognises some people need longer than others.
Add in the EA 2010 pointing out that parking lie are criminally negligent for not applying this once they knew a disabled passenger was present.

Halftimeoranges

Can't link to my thread as a new user but it's just been bumped by me with the decision so perhaps a kind mod could add it into my post.

Thanks for all the help Fruitcake and The Deep, I got notification that my POPLA appeal was successful today.

POPLA assessment and decision

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for: “failure to display a valid permit”.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a document which outlines his grounds for appeal. The grounds are as follows: • Primacy of Contract held by the Keeper - this charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016. • The signs in the car park are not prominent throughout the car park, clearly legible from within all spaces nor adequately lit to be legible at night. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. • This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. To support this appeal, the appellant has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
On this occasion, the driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, I will be assessing keeper’s liability in this case. The terms and conditions of this site state, “PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR; VEHICLES FULLY AND CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT IN FRONT WINDSCREEN AND PARKED FULLY WITHIN CONFINES OF A MARKED BAY AND/OR; PRE – AUTHORISED VEHICLES PARKED FULLY WITHIN THEIR ALLOCATED PARKING SPACE”. Additionally, it states, “£100 parking charge notice”. The operator has issued a PCN to the motorist for: “failure to display a valid permit”. The operator has provided copies of its signage displayed at the site, along with a site map. Further, the operator has provided still camera images taken by the parking attendant who was patrolling the site that day. The images show the appellant parked on site with no permit on display. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have not been met. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal. However, I will be focusing solely on the concerns regarding the signs on site. • The signs in the car park are not prominent throughout the car park, clearly legible from within all spaces nor adequately lit to be legible at night. The appellant has said that the £100 displayed on the sign is minuscule and is not sufficient to bring the charge to the motorist. I must refer to section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which states, “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 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. Having looked at the signs on site, I am not satisfied that the parking charge amount for contravening the terms and conditions at the site is clear. The charge is displayed in a small font, placed on signage that is displayed low on the ground on posts, and is amongst other terms and conditions. This does not appear to stand out and so, I believe the signage has not met section 19.3 of the BPA Code of practice. I will therefore allow this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6031771/popla-appeal-draft-one-parking-solutions-parking-in-a-allocated-residential-space

Yay, well done!

You beat the notoriously litigious but often unsuccessful - in my neck of the woods - One Parking Solutions, so unlike sap victims who actually pay this bunch, you won't be contributing to the mortgage for their aptly named 'Shark' helicopter:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05992210/charges/mZne3FEDgdOakbS0QHWc42MdUQs

(NB: this is all in the Public domain and posted for MSE reader information).

Halftimeoranges

Interesting, a shark helicopter sounds like something 10 year old me dreamed of owning so I can't hold it against them too much. Have seen you mention Sussex a few times around the place so I believe it's the same neck of the woods, give or take.

Fully intend to follow up the appeal with a letter of complaint to my MP too.

techno79

I'm really confused about the POPLA appeal stage. I've been following the thread (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou) on the steps to deal with a private parking ticket from ParkingEye (via ANPR camera). I have read the entire thread but there's a lot of information and it isn't that easy to follow what the steps are.

I got as far as the second post and submitted a SAR request. I got a SAR reply back after about a month. Recently (about a month after the SAR reply) I get a letter saying that my ParkingEye appeal was rejected and because I had not appealed to POPLA, they are now demanding to pay. The letter is a "Letter before county court claim".

I can't see anywhere in the thread where and when I should have appealed to POPLA. From what I understand, the POPLA appeal should be a very long document to help get the ticket dismissed. However, I'm not clear at what point a new thread with my case should be opened, is it at the time of creating a POPLA appeal or when I'm actually summoned to court?

In summary, my questions are:
1. Have I missed the window to appeal to POPLA? (ParkingEye say I have as it's been more than 30 days)
2. Can I still appeal to POPLA?
3. When should I have appealed to POPLA and where is this mentioned in the thread?
4. When should I be creating a new thread to cover my details?

While the thread has a lot of information, it is very confusing as some sections are conditional and the flow seems to jump around a bit. I think a great process flow infographic of the process would make things extremely easier to follow with links to the relevant parts of the thread. More than happy to help out with this if needed.

TIA

Coupon-mad

1. Have I missed the window to appeal to POPLA? (ParkingEye say I have as it's been more than 30 days)

Yes, and if you got a rejection of the first appeal (email or letter) that will have made the deadline clear.

2. Can I still appeal to POPLA?

No - unless P/Eye give you a new POPLA code - and surprisingly, sometimes they WILL at LBC stage f you ask!

3. When should I have appealed to POPLA and where is this mentioned in the thread?

When your first appeal was rejected, that letter had a POPLA code on it and told you that you had 28 days to use it. If you got that rejection letter the clock was ticking.

4. When should I be creating a new thread to cover my details?

Now if you wish, but maybe try emailing P/Eye first and asking for a new POPLA code as their rejection letter wasn't received:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

techno79

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, and if you got a rejection of the first appeal (email or letter) that will have made the deadline clear.

No - unless P/Eye give you a new POPLA code - and surprisingly, sometimes they WILL at LBC stage f you ask!

When your first appeal was rejected, that letter had a POPLA code on it and told you that you had 28 days to use it. If you got that rejection letter the clock was ticking.

Now if you wish, but maybe try emailing P/Eye first and asking for a new POPLA code as their rejection letter wasn't received:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

I think the issue is that I genuinely didn't receive a rejection letter or email. I wasn't aware how long the appeal was going to take so this LBC letter is the first indication that it was rejected.