POPLA Decisions

MinnieSox9

Hi, this is my second rejection,




Decision


Unsuccessful


Assessor Name


Adele Brophy


Assessor summary of operator case


The operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to unpaid tariff time.


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper Sent by Post Fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the operator has not met the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in allowing a grace period at the beginning and the end of the contract. The appellant has advised that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant has advised that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that the notice does not state the period parked. The appellant has advised that the images contained within the PCN are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that there is no Planning Permission from Cornwall Council for Pole-Mounted Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage.


Assessor supporting rational for decision


After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The operator has provided evidence of the signage displayed on site. The terms and conditions clearly state, “Up to 1 Hour £1.80. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100.00”. The operator has issued a PCN due to unpaid tariff time. The site is managed by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellants vehicle entering the site at 10:10 and exiting at 10:38 totalling a stay of 28 minutes. The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper Sent by Post Fails to meet the requirements of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the PCN in line with Paragraph 9 Section 2 and 5 of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it has complied with the above. Whilst the appellant may believe that the PCN was incorrect because they did not receive the letter until 18 July 2019, the operator has issued the PCN within 14 days from the day after the parking event. The appellant has advised that the notice does not state the period parked. The appellant has advised that the images contained within the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence of the full camera’s images taken on the date of the parking event; I note the appellant has advised that the images on the PCN are cropped there is no requirement for the operator to provide full images on the PCN. While I note the appellant has advised that the PCN does not state the period of time parked, in this instance the breach does not require a period of time parked as the motorist could have gained permission to park at any time, therefore the time the operator could determine there was a breach was on exit of the site. The appellant has advised that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this, the operator has provided a copy of a witness statement, after reviewing the document I am satisfied that this complies with the BPA code of practice guidelines and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on the land. The appellant has advised that there is no Planning Permission from Cornwall Council for Pole-Mounted Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage. The remit of POPLA is to assess if the PCN has been issued correctly or not any complaint the appellant wishes to make regarding planning permission and advertising consent would need to be addressed with the relevant authorities. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the appellant’s vehicle entered the site, and the vehicle left after 28 minutes. Therefore, I am satisfied the motorist would have had sufficient time to review the terms and conditions and has entered into a contract with the operator and was therefore required to comply with the terms and conditions. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining within the site, the motorist accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by not making a payment for the duration of stay, the motorist has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

These are the known recent 2 errors by POPLA (as they can't add up 14 days nor interpret the POFA properly) yes?

Have you had a reply from the Lead Adjudicator or complaints team yet...can they add up to 14 & interpret the POFA properly?

IamWood

Just received my POPLA decision -- Unsuccessful !


Much gutted, what should I do now?



Here is the decision:



Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without the appropriate permit or authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. He states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. He states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds in detail, along with a photograph of the PCN and a copy of the operator’s letter rejecting his original appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant for the charge as the registered keeper in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the operator has adhered to the Act and I will therefore consider the appellant’s liability for the charge as the registered keeper. 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 16:36 and leaving the site at 16:42. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of six minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage clearly states: “Permit Holders & Service Vehicles Only … This area is for the use of service vehicles & permit holders only … Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 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 permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list. The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As detailed above, I am satisfied from the evidence that the operator is entitled to pursue the appellant for payment of the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle in line with relevant legislation. The appellant states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. I accept that on entering a site, a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park. The evidence shows that the driver remained on site for six minutes which, given the clarity of the signage on site and the site’s relatively small size, I am not satisfied was reasonable. The appellant states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. The operator’s evidence includes a statement signed on behalf of the landowner to confirm that the operator is contracted to operate on site. The appellant states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The specific section of the Code to which the appellant refers states that images “must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” Having reviewed the images on the PCN, I am satisfied that they meet these requirements. The appellant states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. As detailed above, I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms sufficiently clear. I am therefore satisfied that a contract was formed between the driver and the operator by way of the signs on site. I am satisfied from the evidence both that the terms of the site were made clear and that the driver breached the terms by parking without a permit or authorisation. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

IamWood wrote: »

Just received my POPLA decision -- Unsuccessful !


Much gutted, what should I do now?



Here is the decision:



Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without the appropriate permit or authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. He states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. He states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds in detail, along with a photograph of the PCN and a copy of the operator’s letter rejecting his original appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant for the charge as the registered keeper in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the operator has adhered to the Act and I will therefore consider the appellant’s liability for the charge as the registered keeper. 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 16:36 and leaving the site at 16:42. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of six minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage clearly states: “Permit Holders & Service Vehicles Only … This area is for the use of service vehicles & permit holders only … Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 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 permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list. The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As detailed above, I am satisfied from the evidence that the operator is entitled to pursue the appellant for payment of the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle in line with relevant legislation. The appellant states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. I accept that on entering a site, a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park. The evidence shows that the driver remained on site for six minutes which, given the clarity of the signage on site and the site’s relatively small size, I am not satisfied was reasonable. The appellant states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. The operator’s evidence includes a statement signed on behalf of the landowner to confirm that the operator is contracted to operate on site. The appellant states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The specific section of the Code to which the appellant refers states that images “must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” Having reviewed the images on the PCN, I am satisfied that they meet these requirements. The appellant states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. As detailed above, I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms sufficiently clear. I am therefore satisfied that a contract was formed between the driver and the operator by way of the signs on site. I am satisfied from the evidence both that the terms of the site were made clear and that the driver breached the terms by parking without a permit or authorisation. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

Complain to the lead adjudicator that this part of the BPA CoP has not been adhered to.

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes


This is in addition to allowing time to read signs etcetera. No PCN should have been given until at least 10 minutes had elapsed.

In addition, there are two grace periods. One for a driver to get out and read the signs (para 13.1) and one to get back in the car and drive out again (para 13.4).

The assessor has only referred to the first grace period in the CoP by saying "a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park"
They have omitted any mention of the second grace period allowed by the CoP.

The assessor says the scammers have provided "a statement signed on behalf of the landowner" but there is nothing from the landowner themselves. The Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and witness from each party for a contract to be valid.

A mere statement from an alleged agent of the landowner fails to meet these requirements. Consequently the scammers have failed to show they have a valid contract with the landowner to operate.

Have a look at post 3660 of this thread to see where a different assessor threw out an appeal because there was only one name on the alleged authorisation.

"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."

On top of all this, the signs are forbidding and therefore a contract cannot be formed with a motorist who does not have a permit.

beamerguy

I agree with Fruitcake.

POPLA can be a waste of time because some of their assessors are as useless as a dead cat.
Judges more often than not will rule against a POPLA decision which by the way, you are not bound by.

So yes complain as Fruitcake says

Fruitcake

MinnieSox9, as per C-m's post, did you complain to the PoPLA lead adjudicator that the assessors in both your cases can't add up and/or have misinterpreted the requirements of the PoFA 2012.

These are serious failings. A less clued up motorist might pay the PCN unnecessarily because of the assessors' ineptitude.

From memory, didn't you go to the trouble of spelling out and counting the dates on your appeals, and they still got them wrong?

Please provide us with the name of the first assessor as well. He/she needs to be named and shamed.

Don't forget to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam. One complaint for each PCN/PoPLA failure.

IamWood

The assessor is Paul E Walker.

Thanks to all.

sillyhilly

A very poorly worded assessment, but I'll take it:

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Mark Yates

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked in a pick up and drop off area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is the operator does not have the landowners authority to issue Parking Charge Notice’s, the operator has not shown the individual is liable for the Parking Charge Notice, the signage on site is inadequate, the signage is a breach of section 21.1 and 21.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, the amount of the charge is disproportionate and commercially unjustifiable, the operator did not review the appeal fairly of reasonably, the reason for the delay was due to a the appellants medical condition, which took the driver over the 10 minute threshold,

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant’s case is the operator does not have the landowners authority to issue Parking Charge Notice’s, the operator has not shown the individual is liable for the Parking Charge Notice, the signage on site is inadequate, the signage is a breach of section 21.1 and 21.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, the amount of the charge is disproportionate and commercially unjustifiable, the operator did not review the appeal fairly of reasonably, the reason for the delay was due to a the appellants medical condition, which took the driver over the 10 minute threshold,

IamWood

Please anyone proofread my complain letter to the chief assessor?

Dear John Gallagher

In relation to the POPLA appeal of Verification Code: 6062479522, I received notification that this appeal has been rejected by case worker Paul E Walker.

On looking at the detail of the rejection letter, however, it is clear that the crucial points made in my rebuttal have not been considered nor addressed. For example:

1) ParkingEye failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 13.

Mr Walker has only referred to the first grace period in the CoP by saying "a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park". However Mr Walker omitted any mention of the second grace period allowed by the CoP, which is of a minimum of 10 minutes.

2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority

Mr Walker says ParkingEye have provided "a statement signed on behalf of the landowner" but there is nothing from the landowner themselves. The Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and witness from each party for a contract to be valid. A mere statement from an alleged agent of the landowner fails to meet these requirements. Consequently ParkingEye have failed to show they have a valid contract with the landowner to operate.

These rebuttal points are critical to the case. Please can I ask that you have the appeal reassessed due to the obvious failure made by Mr Walker?

Many thanks

Fruitcake

IamWood wrote: »

Please anyone proofread my complain letter to the chief assessor?

Dear John Gallagher

In relation to the POPLA appeal of Verification Code: 6062479522, I received notification that this appeal has been rejected by case worker Paul E Walker.

On looking at the detail of the rejection letter, however, it is clear that the crucial points made in my rebuttal have not been considered nor addressed. For example:

1) ParkingEye failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 13.

Mr Walker has only referred to the first grace period in the CoP by saying "a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park". However Mr Walker omitted any mention of the second grace period allowed by the CoP, which is of a minimum of 10 minutes.

2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority

Mr Walker says ParkingEye have provided "a statement signed on behalf of the landowner" but there is nothing from the landowner themselves. The Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and witness from each party for a contract to be valid. A mere statement from an alleged agent of the landowner fails to meet these requirements. Consequently ParkingEye have failed to show they have a valid contract with the landowner to operate.

These rebuttal points are critical to the case. Please can I ask that you have the appeal reassessed due to the obvious failure made by Mr Walker?

Many thanks

Quote the actual CoP paragraphs 13.1 and 13.4 where relevant. Split that up into 2 timings plus the actual time the vehicle was stopped. So, 2-3 mins to enter, drive around and find a space, stop, get out, put on a coat, lock up, locate and walk to the nearest sign and read it, decide not to park. Then 2-3 minutes to get back to the car, unlock, take off coat, get in ensuring the driver didn't strike the car next to it with their door, put on seatbelt, start the car, make sure it was safe to manoeuvre, drive out, pausing at the exit to check the public road was clear, wait for any traffic, then leave the car park.
Ask Mr G how long he would take to do all this, especially how long it would take him to read all of the wording on the signs including the small print.

You haven't mentioned the requirements of para 13.2 at all where a PCN should not be issued at all until after ten minutes.

You haven't mentioned the decision in post 3660 where there was only one signature on the alleged landowner authority so the assessor, Michael Pirks, allowed the appeal. Mr Walker's decision shows a lack of consistency and poor training, something that has become more prevalent in the last few months as can be seen by the recent decisions by Stuart Lumsden and Adele Brophy who do not appear to be able to count to 14, or understand the requirements of the PoFA 2012 with regard to difference between days and working days.

I'll leave you to decide whether to include the comments in blue.

I'm told Mr G is a reasonable man and he reads this forum, so my comments won't be a surprise to him anyway.