POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

sillyhilly wrote: »

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,

But the ‘supporting rational (sic)’ is exactly the same, word for word, as the summary of the appellant’s case. There’s no reason shown why the appeal was successful. Is that how it came to you?

Still, good result. Well done.

Which parking firm please?

sillyhilly

The firm was our old favourite... Parking Eye Ltd T/A Car Parking Partnership.

Yeah, that's what I thought too... Although I can only assume it's because PE gave a half-arsed response to the appeal which didn't deal with any of the points what-so-ever, so the Assessor though he'd do exactly the same!

The typo is on the POPLA site too (I hadn't noticed that - good spot!).

Here's the image:

https://imgur.com/xl8n1qG

IamWood

Thanks a lot @fruitcake.

What about?

Dear John Gallagher

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

However, the rejection letter does not address the crucial points made in my rebuttal. For example:

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

BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) states that: “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, terms and conditions. No PCN should be given until at least 10 minutes has elapsed.

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

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 to mention the second grace period allowed by the CoP, which is a minimum of 10 minutes.

I would like to point out that the duration of visit in question (only 6 minutes 21 seconds from 08/08/2019 16:36:21 to 08/08/2019 16:42:42) is well under the recommended grace period. Just to:

1) Enter the car park, drive around and find a space to stop
2) Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
3) Read the sign and the full terms and conditions
4) Decide not to park
4) Get back to the car, make sure it was safe to manoeuvre and drive out to exit
5) Check if the public road was clear, wait for any traffic, then leave the car park safely


2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority

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.""


Here I list a judgement given by your colleague Michael Pirks (adopted from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com) for a similar case:

---
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.
---

Mr Walker says ParkingEye has provided "a statement signed on behalf of the landowner" but there is nothing from the landowner themselves. The Company 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 has failed to show they have a valid contract with the landowner to operate.

Mr Walker's decision shows a lack of consistency.


These points about are critical to my case. Please, could you assess my appeal?

Many thanks

Fruitcake

IamWood wrote: »

Thanks a lot @fruitcake.

Add that the assessor said you appealed using the words "grace periods", plural, but then only commented on a single grace period and therefore didn't address all of your appeal points.

Otherwise that looks OK to me. Other opinions are available.

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

krmach

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I reckon a template point on signage could look like this (as usual, deliberately long, to make plenty of PPCs throw in the towel):

...As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

The Ebay link seems to be broken, can this be updated or perhaps removed from the template? Many thanks, I'm in the process of writing my appeal to POPLA and this is incredibly helpful.

By the way, has anyone encountered a case which won where the period 'parked' was more than the minimum 11 minutes stipulated by BPA? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Thanks very much; yes it is on my list to edit but couldn't find a decent replacement.

Umkomaas

By the way, has anyone encountered a case which won where the period 'parked' was more than the minimum 11 minutes stipulated by BPA? Thanks!

There have been plenty, but, conversely there have been failures - where fewer minutes than the minimum grace period allows have been lost.

Don’t forget that there are two separate grace periods, one to enter the car park, find a space, read the signs, decide if you accept the T&Cs, and buy a ticket (if P&D) - a ‘reasonable amount’ of time (unspecified in the Code of Practice, but you could probably argue 7-9 minutes). The second is the mandatory ‘minimum 10 minutes’ from the CoP.

The key to ‘grace periods’ for a POPLA appeal is to itemise what each period has been used for. The sum of the periods should be equal to, or greater than, any alleged overstay. But note that the aggregate amount is not a gratis overstay allowance, it must be accounted for. That is the only way you are likely to see POPLA to overturn on his basis. But there is plenty of evidence to show that some assessors do not understand grace periods, and some who simply cannot add up.

usernamenotfound

Another win! Absolutely chuffed
Britannia Parking Group - 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

Fluff15

Hi all - my friend's appeal is unsuccessful, see below. I think it's a bad assessment, especially given the part about being sent in the relevant period - the final NtK was dated 04/07/19, even when PE were given hirers information on 24/05/19. From the appeal we sent to POPLA:

Under these regulations, Parking Eye were required to send this information to me (as Registered Keeper) within 21 days after receiving my details from the lease/hire company (xxxxx).
These details were provided on the 24/05/2019 (see image one below “proof of posting”) It was clear they received the previous correspondence as evidenced by their letter dated 04/06/2019 (images two a and b below), which details how Parking Eye are not liable for any invoice submitted by xxx as they had not entered into a contract with xxxxx.
Therefore I should have received the notice to keeper (NTK) no later than 17/06/2019. As this has not happened, Parking Eye cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability. There is more than one driver of the vehicle which they placed a PCN on.

Assessor summary:

The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.
If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful and the operator should cancel the parking charge.
When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.
POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator.

The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused 

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:
 The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:
 The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are.
They state that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.
They explain that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver., They explain that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. They say that the signs are not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces.
They state that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal. 

Assessor summary of reasons:
 When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have reviewed the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “Permit holders only…Visitors of Buckinghamshire College Group, Aylesbury Campus, Aylesbury College Day Nursery and University of Bedfordshire must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception to be entitled to free parking…Failure to comply with the terms & 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 13:08, and exiting at 14:59, totalling a stay of one hour and 50 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate a search on its online systems using the appellant’s vehicle registration, confirming that
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal.

I have addressed these as follows:
They state that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with POFA.
They explain that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver.
As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, I must ensure that the operator has complied with the strict requirements of the POFA.
POFA is used to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I must consider if the notice meets the requirements of POFA (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper that was sent meets the requirements and was sent within the “relevant period”, as outlined within the act. As such, liability for the PCN is with the registered keeper of the vehicle, which in this case is the appellant.

They explain that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. They say that the signs are not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces.
The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code Of Practice states in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
The operator has provided several images of the car park signs and I consider these signs are “conspicuous” and are “easy to see, read and understand”.
There is no requirement in the Code of Practice that the signs are visible from all parking spaces.

They state that there is no evidence of landowner authority.
Section 7.1 of the 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”.
In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a witness statement, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.

I note that the appellant has provided images of the signage and correspondence with the operator. After reviewing these, I do not consider these to have any impact on the validity of the PCN.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver failed to register the vehicle for parking, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.
Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. 
Kind regards

POPLA Team

Fruitcake

This is confusing because you mention hirer, then registered keeper. The X's are also confusing because I can't work out to whom or what they refer.

The Hire Co is probably the registered keeper, and the hirer should have received a NTH not a NTK.
Was the appeal done as hirer/lessees appeal or as a keeper appeal?

If the appeal was anything like your post above then the assessor would have been just as confused as I am.

Please explain more clearly what happened so we might be able to suggest a course of action.

If a hirer appeal was made then the assessor has referred to the wrong part of the PoFA so a procedural error would have occurred, but we can't comment until you clarify what actually happened.