POPLA Decisions

ParkingMad

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).

Perhaps they should be renamed "One Sharking Pollution":rotfl:

Coupon-mad

techno79 wrote: »

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.

No probs, soon put right if you do as advised & get a new POPLA code.

This is not the thread to generally discuss a case though.

benbecula

The appellant has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event, as such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. When entering onto a privately managed 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. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “All vehicles MUST enter their vehicle registration number at the pay stations. Residents -please pay for your parking on arrival… Pay stations are located in the main entrance of the Premier Inn… Non- residents – please pay for your parking on departure. First 30 minutes FREE. Up to 2 hours £2.00… Charges apply 24 hours a day. Parking Charge Notices Apply For… Failure to pay the parking charge”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 19:48, and exiting at 21:09, totalling a stay of 1 hour 20 minutes. The operator has provided a system generated report to show there is no payment for the appellant’s full and correct registration number. As the operator was unable to locate a valid payment against the appellant’s vehicle, the PCN has been issued.

The appellant states that the signage was inadequate as it told them they had to pay, but not where to pay. The appellant says they intended to pay and looked for a machine and could not find one, so they asked at reception. The appellant says they told them to pay at the machine but again they could not find one, so they thought it must be at the barrier. The appellant says they drove to the barrier, which went up and as they could find no way to pay they thought maybe they were still within the free period so they contacted them when they got back just in case and to see if they needed to pay but they did not receive a reply until they received the Parking Charge Notice to pay on 7 August. As evidence to support their appeal they have provided a copy of an email to the operator. After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant has commented on the evidence pack to support their original appeal.

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to ensure it provides sufficient evidence to show it has issued the PCN correctly. In this case one of the appellant’s grounds of appeal is that there is inadequate signage and in their comments on the operator’s evidence they have referred to Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) 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”.

While I acknowledge that the operator has provided numerous images of the signage the resolution of the images is poor in relation to the print with the coloured background, so I am unable to read whether the amount of the Parking Charge is specified on the signage. To rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal I would have expected the operator to provide a signage layout plan and clear images of the signage to establish whether it complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Having viewed the images that have been provided I am not satisfied if the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review and comply with the terms and conditions. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. While I acknowledge the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6043199/disputing-evidence-submitted-to-popla-by-lps-ltd

Well done!

wab1750

Thanks to all the useful info shared here and across mse I managed to win my first popla appeal against smartparking. What a great feeling, took quite a bit of time but well worth it.

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

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

Smart 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

*************************************************************************

I went with multiple arguments - shame I don't know why they didn't contest. The outline of the case, was free customer parking at dentist, ANPR in operation - idea was to enter car reg in a console in reception - which was a new system my OH was busy with the 3 kids and didn't enter reg - was not informed to do so by reception. As we were parked only for valid duration of appointment seemed quite unreasonable to get a charge. Appeal to dentist but they were not interested.

Here's what I submitted :

Authority to enforce parking charge notice.
The PCN is ambiguous in what right Smart Parking have on the private land to issues charges, Please can Smart Parking present evidence of such right such as proof of land ownership or an in force verifable authority from the landowner to issue parking charges.

Basis of PCN?
The charge says "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer than permitted, in accordance set out in signage"

There was no wording visible in signs about purchasing parking time or maximum stay so on what grounds are Smart Parking making this charge?
Note full terms and conditions of parking contract were not visible at the site on the day. see below.


Inadequate signage of terms and conditions
As evidenced by attached photos taken on 27 Jul 2019 the contract terms and conditions were only available on a single sign that was obscured by one or more of several large commercial plastic bins. The very poor placement of this sign in relation to the bins meant it was impractical to even know the sign existed on the day. Maybe Smart Parking can produce evidence to the contrary?


Signage clearly states "For Staff & Visitor Parking Only"
The entry sign makes it very prominent the parking if "For Staff & Visitor Parking Only" - the photos show this and show how any other wording is not readable whilst driving through the car park entrance. As we were legitimate customers / visitors of a business at the location then we concluded on that basis we had a right to park for the duration of the appointment. Given the terms and conditions refereed to in the entry sign were not visible in the car park, being placed behind bins, then the fact the sign clearly stated parking for visitors why has the charge been raised?


Inadequate signage of ANPR Operation
According to the BPA code of practise section 21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) section 21.1

"You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for."

I consider Smart Parking have not met these conditions as
- there is only a very small video camera icon and extremely small wording indicating a ANPR camera is in operation. See attached photo.
- The wording on the sign simply says "The car park is monitored by systems". The wording does not state what the associated ANPR camera and captured data will be used for, this is a requirement of the BPA code of practice.
- can Smart Parking produce evidence to the following in relation to BPA Code of practice section 21.4
--are registered with Information Commissioner
--what process they follow to comply with GDPR in relation to data collected from the ANPR camera
--follow DVLA requirements concerning data collected

provide evidence linking the ANPR equipment that took photos of my vehicle to the physical location of XXXX on the date and time of the alleged offence.

Under the ICO code of practice "A data protection code of
practice for surveillance cameras and personal information"
ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
which the BPA code of practice references (maybe also quote 9.7.1 of BPA Operator handbook 2012)

section 9. Responsibilities, 9.1 Letting people know.

"The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs
at the entrance to the surveillance system’s zone and reinforcing this with
further signs inside the area. This message can also be backed up with an
audio announcement, where public announcements are already used,
such as on a train.
Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the
surveillance systems are very discreet, or in locations where people might
not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be
more prominent and frequent in areas where people are less likely to
expect that they will be monitored by a surveillance system. This is
particularly important when an ANPR system is being used that covers a
large area."

"be an appropriate size depending on context. For example, whether they
are viewed by pedestrians or car drivers."

"Guiding Principle 3 of the POFA code promotes transparency and regular
engagement with those that are likely to be monitored. This is a vital part
of assessing whether any surveillance is justified and that its purpose is
understood. It is also recommended in most FOIA publication scheme definition documents that the location of CCTV systems should be published."

-the signs fall way short of the above ICO conditions to use ANPR equipment, in terms of prominence and transparency. At XXXXX the single ANPR camera is discreetly installed on a building and very hard to see, indeed it's above and behind the driver as they enter the car park. The use of ANPR cameras should be clear and prominent, clearly it is not.

Mobile A-Frame Sign
On the day we inspected the car park in question there was an A-Frame sign with some further details. We have no memory of seeing this sign on the day of the alleged offence. Maybe being a mobile sign and given the current building work ongoing in the car park the sign was elsewhere, not on display, or had been knocked over. I would have assumed a sign containing important (portant even!) terms and conditions should be fixed to a stationary structure. Can Smart Parking provide evidence this sign was on display on day of the alleged offence and in a prominent position?

Sign Obscured by Tree
Another sign attached to fencing is clearly obscured by an overhanging tree. See attached photo.

Excessive Charge - ParkingEye vs Beavis
The case of ParkingEye vs Beavis suggests £85 does not constitute a penalty but a legitimate charge that's appropriate for the interest of the landowner in
the efficient management of customer parking. Given the vehicle was parked in relation to a visit to one of the businesses
at XXXXX, myDentist (a dental practice) and only for the duration of that dental visit then there was no overstay
or denial of parking to other legitimate customers. So the efficient management of the parking was not impacted.
I also would raise the fact the there is ample parking at the site and nearby around the site with legitimate on street parking as evidenced by this
independent parking survey plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01060287.pdf carried out in relation to a planning application at XXXXX. Given there is evidenced ample parking for the businesses atXXXXXX and the vehicle was only parked here for a pre-arranged visit for a dental appointment I put it that ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply as there was no impact of the legitimate interest of the landowner in the efficient management of customer parking and no trespass or overstay offence committed. So on that basis I consider £100 charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore of the form of a penalty and excessive and not payable.

beamerguy

Well done, SMART did not contest because they knew they were scamming you ?

Just another day in the office of a BPA scammer

casidien

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameJamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant 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 states they used the car park with authorisation of the station manager to undertake a structural survey of the station. The appellant says their vehicle details were entered into the system in the booking office which should have meant they were exempt from the PCN. The appellant says they were at the site during unsociable hours. The appellant says they can provide more evidence regarding their reason for using the site. The appellant says there was no intention to form a contract with the operator which is a deterrent not applicable in this situation. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of their work ID badge. .

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and as such, will be considering their liability for the PCN. The signage at the site states: “…Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day Monday – Sunday… Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details when using the payment machine… Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100.00…”. 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 appellant was at the car park for two hours 30 minutes. Having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions offered with a helpline number to use if a motorist needs assistance. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. The appellant states they used the car park with authorisation of the station manager to undertake a structural survey of the station. The appellant says their vehicle details were entered into the system in the booking office which should have meant they were exempt from the PCN. The appellant says they were at the site during unsociable hours. The appellant says they can provide more evidence regarding their reason for using the site. I acknowledge the reason why the appellant parked at the site, however, the terms and conditions apply to all motorists that wish to use the site, which apply 24/7. The operator has provided evidence a system generated print out that shows a search for the appellant’s vehicle registration on the date of the contravention. The search shows the appellant’s vehicle registration does not appeal within their systems. They have also provided a list of vehicles that are allowed to be on the site because they have made a payment, the appellant’s vehicle registration is not on the list. The appellant says there was no intention to form a contract with the operator which is a deterrent not applicable in this situation. As mention above terms and conditions apply to all vehicles which park at the site 24/7. By the appellant parking at the site they entered into a contract with the operator and became subject to the terms and conditions. It is the duty of the appellant to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they did not authorise their vehicle to park at the site, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

wab1750 wrote: »

Thanks to all the useful info shared here and across mse I managed to win my first popla appeal against smartparking. What a great feeling, took quite a bit of time but well worth it.

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

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

Smart 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

*************************************************************************

I went with multiple arguments - shame I don't know why they didn't contest. The outline of the case, was free customer parking at dentist, ANPR in operation - idea was to enter car reg in a console in reception - which was a new system my OH was busy with the 3 kids and didn't enter reg - was not informed to do so by reception. As we were parked only for valid duration of appointment seemed quite unreasonable to get a charge. Appeal to dentist but they were not interested.

Here's what I submitted :

Authority to enforce parking charge notice.
The PCN is ambiguous in what right Smart Parking have on the private land to issues charges, Please can Smart Parking present evidence of such right such as proof of land ownership or an in force verifable authority from the landowner to issue parking charges.

Basis of PCN?
The charge says "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer than permitted, in accordance set out in signage"

There was no wording visible in signs about purchasing parking time or maximum stay so on what grounds are Smart Parking making this charge?
Note full terms and conditions of parking contract were not visible at the site on the day. see below.


Inadequate signage of terms and conditions
As evidenced by attached photos taken on 27 Jul 2019 the contract terms and conditions were only available on a single sign that was obscured by one or more of several large commercial plastic bins. The very poor placement of this sign in relation to the bins meant it was impractical to even know the sign existed on the day. Maybe Smart Parking can produce evidence to the contrary?


Signage clearly states "For Staff & Visitor Parking Only"
The entry sign makes it very prominent the parking if "For Staff & Visitor Parking Only" - the photos show this and show how any other wording is not readable whilst driving through the car park entrance. As we were legitimate customers / visitors of a business at the location then we concluded on that basis we had a right to park for the duration of the appointment. Given the terms and conditions refereed to in the entry sign were not visible in the car park, being placed behind bins, then the fact the sign clearly stated parking for visitors why has the charge been raised?


Inadequate signage of ANPR Operation
According to the BPA code of practise section 21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) section 21.1

"You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for."

I consider Smart Parking have not met these conditions as
- there is only a very small video camera icon and extremely small wording indicating a ANPR camera is in operation. See attached photo.
- The wording on the sign simply says "The car park is monitored by systems". The wording does not state what the associated ANPR camera and captured data will be used for, this is a requirement of the BPA code of practice.
- can Smart Parking produce evidence to the following in relation to BPA Code of practice section 21.4
--are registered with Information Commissioner
--what process they follow to comply with GDPR in relation to data collected from the ANPR camera
--follow DVLA requirements concerning data collected

provide evidence linking the ANPR equipment that took photos of my vehicle to the physical location of XXXX on the date and time of the alleged offence.

Under the ICO code of practice "A data protection code of
practice for surveillance cameras and personal information"
ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
which the BPA code of practice references (maybe also quote 9.7.1 of BPA Operator handbook 2012)

section 9. Responsibilities, 9.1 Letting people know.

"The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs
at the entrance to the surveillance system’s zone and reinforcing this with
further signs inside the area. This message can also be backed up with an
audio announcement, where public announcements are already used,
such as on a train.
Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the
surveillance systems are very discreet, or in locations where people might
not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be
more prominent and frequent in areas where people are less likely to
expect that they will be monitored by a surveillance system. This is
particularly important when an ANPR system is being used that covers a
large area."

"be an appropriate size depending on context. For example, whether they
are viewed by pedestrians or car drivers."

"Guiding Principle 3 of the POFA code promotes transparency and regular
engagement with those that are likely to be monitored. This is a vital part
of assessing whether any surveillance is justified and that its purpose is
understood. It is also recommended in most FOIA publication scheme definition documents that the location of CCTV systems should be published."

-the signs fall way short of the above ICO conditions to use ANPR equipment, in terms of prominence and transparency. At XXXXX the single ANPR camera is discreetly installed on a building and very hard to see, indeed it's above and behind the driver as they enter the car park. The use of ANPR cameras should be clear and prominent, clearly it is not.

Mobile A-Frame Sign
On the day we inspected the car park in question there was an A-Frame sign with some further details. We have no memory of seeing this sign on the day of the alleged offence. Maybe being a mobile sign and given the current building work ongoing in the car park the sign was elsewhere, not on display, or had been knocked over. I would have assumed a sign containing important (portant even!) terms and conditions should be fixed to a stationary structure. Can Smart Parking provide evidence this sign was on display on day of the alleged offence and in a prominent position?

Sign Obscured by Tree
Another sign attached to fencing is clearly obscured by an overhanging tree. See attached photo.

Excessive Charge - ParkingEye vs Beavis
The case of ParkingEye vs Beavis suggests £85 does not constitute a penalty but a legitimate charge that's appropriate for the interest of the landowner in
the efficient management of customer parking. Given the vehicle was parked in relation to a visit to one of the businesses
at XXXXX, myDentist (a dental practice) and only for the duration of that dental visit then there was no overstay
or denial of parking to other legitimate customers. So the efficient management of the parking was not impacted.
I also would raise the fact the there is ample parking at the site and nearby around the site with legitimate on street parking as evidenced by this
independent parking survey plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01060287.pdf carried out in relation to a planning application at XXXXX. Given there is evidenced ample parking for the businesses atXXXXXX and the vehicle was only parked here for a pre-arranged visit for a dental appointment I put it that ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply as there was no impact of the legitimate interest of the landowner in the efficient management of customer parking and no trespass or overstay offence committed. So on that basis I consider £100 charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore of the form of a penalty and excessive and not payable.

Well done, nice win! I assume you had already admitted to driving, hence having to omit the usual 100% slam dunk 'POFA/no keeper liability' point.

Shows it can be done even when the driver has been named.

Just a note for newbies - any Smart Parking POPLA appeal should also include 'no keeper liability' and never name the driver, because Smart cannot hold a 'keeper' liable.

Fruitcake

casidien wrote: »

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameJamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant 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 states they used the car park with authorisation of the station manager to undertake a structural survey of the station. The appellant says their vehicle details were entered into the system in the booking office which should have meant they were exempt from the PCN. The appellant says they were at the site during unsociable hours. The appellant says they can provide more evidence regarding their reason for using the site. The appellant says there was no intention to form a contract with the operator which is a deterrent not applicable in this situation. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of their work ID badge. .

Assessor supporting rational for decision.

I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and as such, will be considering their liability for the PCN.
The signage at the site states: “…Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day Monday – Sunday… Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details when using the payment machine… Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100.00…”.

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 appellant was at the car park for two hours 30 minutes. Having reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied there are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions offered with a helpline number to use if a motorist needs assistance.

The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.
The appellant states they used the car park with authorisation of the station manager to undertake a structural survey of the station. The appellant says their vehicle details were entered into the system in the booking office which should have meant they were exempt from the PCN. The appellant says they were at the site during unsociable hours. The appellant says they can provide more evidence regarding their reason for using the site.
I acknowledge the reason why the appellant parked at the site, however, the terms and conditions apply to all motorists that wish to use the site, which apply 24/7. The operator has provided evidence a system generated print out that shows a search for the appellant’s vehicle registration on the date of the contravention. The search shows the appellant’s vehicle registration does not appeal within their systems.
They have also provided a list of vehicles that are allowed to be on the site because they have made a payment, the appellant’s vehicle registration is not on the list. The appellant says there was no intention to form a contract with the operator which is a deterrent not applicable in this situation. As mention above terms and conditions apply to all vehicles which park at the site 24/7.
By the appellant parking at the site they entered into a contract with the operator and became subject to the terms and conditions. It is the duty of the appellant to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. As they did not authorise their vehicle to park at the site, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

What is the name of the PPC please?

What happened when you complained to the station manager?

I note that the operator has not provided a list of vehicles permitted to be on site without payment, and the assessor has not mentioned this.
In one sentence the assessor mentions the operator has provided evidence of a system generated output containing VRNs, but in another says the operator provided a list of payment VRNs. This implies the list of non-payment VRNs was not provided, just that a search of such a list was carried out. Why wouldn't such a list be provided to the assessor unless the scammers had something to hide.

Please do complain to your MP about this unregulated scam, and warn all your colleagues and employer about his location which you should ask to have removed from everyone's future work schedule.

The_Deep

I very much doubt that a judge would agree with this decision.