POPLA Decisions

Le_Kirk

They believe that the ANPR system in floored.

Shouldn't that be flawed?

Malefidus

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Shouldn't that be flawed?

Yes and I did double check that I had written 'is flawed'! I'm just happy he's cost them 4 POPLA appeals courtesy of a very simple oversight. Unless Smart Parking knew the original PCN was rubbish and chanced it. Seemed stupid for them to fight this but I guess they make too much money.

trisontana

The PPC has been floored by a knockout blow,

Steve1977

Had a car parking ticket through Elite Management who I have since found out have links to organised crime.

Absolute scam artists who I reckon injected compressed air into the air vent to flip the ticket up. Got no evidence of this but there is no chance the ticket suddenly flipped up and why the car next to me had their ticket find it's way on the floor.

Anyway, that's all conjecture on my part but I submitted an appeal to these robbing !!!!!!!s and won!!!!!

Claim successful and I'm not paying these scumbags anything. eff you! :rotfl:

ActiveSec

I am going to submit a "signage" POPLA appeal however the website only allows 2000 characters. Coupon-Mad's POPLA appeal template is 1610 words so well over 2000 characters.

Anyone else have this problem or am I doing something stupid?

Umkomaas

ActiveSec wrote: »

I am going to submit a "signage" POPLA appeal however the website only allows 2000 characters. Coupon-Mad's POPLA appeal template is 1610 words so well over 2000 characters.

Anyone else have this problem or am I doing something stupid?

No one, once they've read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3.

kryten3000

No thread for this one, but it's Wolverton Health Centre, Milton Keynes and Civil Enforcement.
TL,DR - No landowner authority

09/10/2019

Decision: Successful
Assessor: Michael Pirks

Assessor Summary of Operator Case:

The operator has issued the ParkingCharge Notice (PCN) in accordance with the parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage: Permit Holders Only.

Assessor Summary of Your Case:

The appellant has provided documentation supporting his (sic) appeal and the issues she has raised. She lists the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made when reviewing this information. The appellant states that:
She was a genuine user on the site, as she displayed her valid blue badge and registered her vehicle details at the device provided.

* The permit system installed at the site is deficient, not fit for purpose and does not issue any receipts, so vehicle registrations can be entered mistakenly. The appellant says that the system is not linked to the ANPR camera system.
* There is inadequate signage situated across the site
* Forbidden (sic) signage is situated across the car park.
* The operator does not have landowner authority to issue parking charges on the site.

The appellant has provided photographic evidence showing inadequate signage on the site and has quoted various sections of the BPA code of practice and PoFA 2012 in support of the appeal."

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the landowner agreement as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car parkin in question . It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of their terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. The operator's case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant did not obtain a valid permit to park at the site, whereas the appellant has argued that she did enter her vehicle registration and displayed her valid blue badge. The appellant has also highlighted as part of her appeal that she does not believe the operator has landowner authority to issue parking charges. as the appellant has questioned that the operator has landowner authority, I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on.

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (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.""


The operator has provided with me a Confirmation of Authority document when names the landowner and that the site is designated as a permit only site however, this document does not include signatures by both parties, setting an agreement in place. I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the contract and clear boundaries which have bit been provided. If the operator was to provide with a landowner agreement document which outlines the full terms of the site and was signed by both the operator and landowner, this would help me determine that the operator had full landowner authority to manage the site. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority. I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have bt considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Fruitcake

kryten3000 wrote: »

No thread for this one, but it's Wolverton Health Centre, Milton Keynes and Civil Enforcement.
TL,DR - No landowner authority

09/10/2019

Decision: Successful
Assessor: Michael Pirks

Assessor Summary of Operator Case:

The operator has issued the ParkingCharge Notice (PCN) in accordance with the parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage: Permit Holders Only.

Assessor Summary of Your Case:

The appellant has provided documentation supporting his (sic) appeal and the issues she has raised. She lists the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made when reviewing this information. The appellant states that:
She was a genuine user on the site, as she displayed her valid blue badge and registered her vehicle details at the device provided.

* The permit system installed at the site is deficient, not fit for purpose and does not issue any receipts, so vehicle registrations can be entered mistakenly. The appellant says that the system is not linked to the ANPR camera system.
* There is inadequate signage situated across the site
* Forbidden (sic) signage is situated across the car park.
* The operator does not have landowner authority to issue parking charges on the site.

The appellant has provided photographic evidence showing inadequate signage on the site and has quoted various sections of the BPA code of practice and PoFA 2012 in support of the appeal."

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the landowner agreement as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car parkin in question . It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of their terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. The operator's case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant did not obtain a valid permit to park at the site, whereas the appellant has argued that she did enter her vehicle registration and displayed her valid blue badge. The appellant has also highlighted as part of her appeal that she does not believe the operator has landowner authority to issue parking charges. as the appellant has questioned that the operator has landowner authority, I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on.

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (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.""


The operator has provided with me a Confirmation of Authority document when names the landowner and that the site is designated as a permit only site however, this document does not include signatures by both parties, setting an agreement in place. I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the contract and clear boundaries which have bit been provided. If the operator was to provide with a landowner agreement document which outlines the full terms of the site and was signed by both the operator and landowner, this would help me determine that the operator had full landowner authority to manage the site. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority. I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

A complaint should now be made to the DVLA that the keeper's data was unlawfully accessed, and requesting that this scammer's access to personal data is suspended for this site until they can provide a valid contract with the landowner.

WestSussex

Decision Successful against One Parking Solution - South Coast Road Retail, Peacehaven

Thanks so much for all the useful advice found on this forum. Without all the help and previous examples of appeals, I would've ended up paying this 'fine'.

Assessor Name: Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to Failure to Park Within a Marked Bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a 14 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion.

The appellant states that: • Grace Period: British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice - non-compliance. • No contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice Section 22. • No evidence of period parked – Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements. • The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)/Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) system is neither reliable nor accurate. • 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. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. PoFA 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge.

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: “PRIVATE LAND – TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY… PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR – In the unallocated bays: South Coast Road Retail customers parked fully within the confines of a marked bay for up to a maximum stay of up to 2 hours, with no return to site within 2 hours of departure between 0500-2300 – In the disabled bays: South Coast Road Retails customers displaying a valid disabled badge in the front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked disabled bay…. This car park is for the sole use of South Coast Road Retail customers, whilst actively using the onsite facilities in accordance with the above terms… BY PARKING OR REMAINING ON THIS SITE OTHER THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE TERMS YOU THE DRIVER ARE AGREEING TO THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTUAL TERMS. You agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the sum of £100.00”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, observed parked at the site on 23 July 2019 from 13:44 to 13:47. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN that was issued at 13:44 for the contravention: I will now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal and comments on the operator’s evidence.

The appellant says there is non- compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to the grace period. The appellant says no contract was entered into by the driver. They say the driver must be allowed a grace period in which to locate the signs, read the terms, and decide if one agrees to park. The appellant says the signage shows that the text was too small to be clearly legible, making it impossible to agree to the contract terms without exiting the vehicle first. They say the signs failed to immediately warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach and there is no evidence the signs are BPA approved.

The appellant says the CCTV images show that the vehicle was stationary for just 3 minutes (13:44:39 - 13:47:46), a reasonable grace period to exit the vehicle, locate the signs, read the contract and decide if one agrees to the terms or not. 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.

The appellant says the driver was entitled to a grace period and they consider the 3 minute period was a reasonable period to exit the vehicle, locate the signs, read the contract and decide whether to agree to the terms or not. The operator rebuts this and says they have provided photographs, which show that the driver and passenger left the vehicle parked on site and made use of the facilities to visit Costa. The operator says as the driver left the vehicle parked on site, the grace period does not apply.

I have viewed the evidence put forward by the operator, which spans a period of 3 minutes, however, while I acknowledge that the driver is photographed heading in the direction of Costa, I have not been presented with any images demonstrating that the driver or passenger entered Costa. I also note that the operator has installed signage at the entrance to Costa and therefore the driver could have exited their vehicle to read the signage, as this was in the location they were heading. I am therefore not satisfied that the photographs provided sufficiently demonstrate that the driver gained utility from the site. I therefore consider it important to determine whether the motorist has entered into a parking contract. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice the driver must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a parking contract. If having had the 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 the parking contract.

The BPA Code of Practice does not define a reasonable period at the start of a contract. This is because the reasonable period might depend on the circumstances of the car park, or the circumstances of the motorist. In this case the parking event was for 3 minutes and the appellant has explained that the driver had to exit their vehicle to read the signage and I note that the driver is photographed in the location of the signage. I consider 3 minutes in the circumstances outlined by the appellant is not an unreasonable timeframe.

Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that the motorist gained any utility from the site. I therefore consider that the motorist left the car park within a reasonable period and as such are not bound by the parking contract. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. While I acknowledge that the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case and additional comments on the operator’s evidence, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

Umkomaas

Decision Successful against One Parking Solution - South Coast Road Retail, Peacehaven

Thanks so much for all the useful advice found on this forum. Without all the help and previous examples of appeals, I would've ended up paying this 'fine'.

Well done @WestSussex, an excellent example of how to use the forum's rich resources to plot a way through to success without a single post (before this one) to ask for any help - in sharp contrast to those running into 200+ posts and still floundering in quagmire.

@WestSussex - is the Costa Coffee shop not part of South Coast Road Retail?