POPLA Decisions

Fruitcake

You don't appear to have a thread about this subject, which is where you should be posting this, not here on the PoPLA decisions thread.
You need to rebut each and every point they raise, and tell the assessor if they haven't rebutted any of your appeal points then this means they must accept them.

fatboy34

Dear all,

thanks for your assistance and happy to report a successful appeal versus Civil Enforcement Limited relating to Port of Wells car park in Norfolk. Below is the response from POPLA - short answer is the appeal was granted on the basis of inadequate signage. Hope this is useful to someone else and thanks again!


As I am unable to determine who the driver of the vehicle was on the date in question, I must ensure Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been complied with. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is used to transfer liability for the Parking Charge Notice from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such, liability for the Parking Charge Notice has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant states that there is inadequate signage, and there is insufficient notice of the parking sum itself. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.”

As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site.

In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 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. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location.

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to inform motorists of the charge associated with not complying with the terms and conditions of the site. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, based on the evidence of the signage provided to me, I do not consider that this PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal I have not consider them.

beamerguy

Good news

CEL Another BPA scammer.

Did the BPA miss out checking for compliance of the sign relating to POFA2012 ????

Of course not, they just let their scammers do what they want

The_Deep

I thought that this car park was covered by bye-laws.

fustybuckets123

(No related thread)

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: <REDACTED>
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for, “your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed”.

Assessor summary of your case
The has provided a document which outlines his grounds for appeal. The grounds are as follows: • Inadequate and obscured signage at the car park entrance. • Inadequate signage throughout the car park. • The vehicle images on the PCN are non compliant with the British Parking Association code of practice. • The ANPR system employed is neither reliable nor accurate. • Signage fails to warn drivers how the captured ANPR data will be used. • Breach of the BPA code of practice and the information commissioner’s office code of practice for ANPR surveillance cameras. • No evidence of landowner authority To support this appeal the appellant has provided evidence of signs on site and with images of the car park itself.

[...]

Having looked at the site map provided by the operator, I can see that this car park is of a large size. There is a sign on the driver’s side when entering the site which advises that this is private land where terms apply and that the site is monitored by ANPR cameras. I appreciate that this may not be clear to see or read when entering the car park, however, there are numerous other signs displayed within the car park itself which are very clear to see. I consider the signs to have met the BPA code of Practice.

My main issue was with signage, and I provided images of those at the site and entrance, but they seem to have been ignored, as you can see.

Ah well, there it is. Can't believe it took three months to come up with this assessment! I guess I wait for the letters now… :-(

Coupon-mad

Haha, it's only Euro Car Parks and even if a case is lost at POPLA, now ignore them (unless they eventually start trying court claims = defendable of course).

No risk of a CCJ as long as you don't move house and not tell them your address, so make sure you contact them if so. Otherwise, ignore the debt chasers!

IamWood

To follow the complain to the POPLA chief assessor regarding post #3688. POPLA simply ignored my arguments and rejected my appeal -- Utterly gutted.

Here is the reply:

---

Your complaint about POPLA



Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.



I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Parking Eye.





POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service and we do not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence and documents from either party in support of their submission and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both parties at the time of the appeal. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed.



You have advised that the decision issued to you on 29 October 2019 does not address the crucial points of your rebuttal.



You have reiterated your original grounds of appeal. For clarity, I have addressed each point as follows.



Regarding grace periods.



While section 13 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice stipulates that a minimum grace period should be allowed, the grace period is only applicable in car parks are required. In this car park, the entrance signs states that the site is for permit holders and service vehicles only, as such, a grace period is not applicable in this instance. You would have been aware that you did not have a permit on entering the site and I am satisfied that the assessor is correct in determining that the six minutes that you were on the site was not a reasonable period.



You have advised that there is no evidence of landowner authority and have provided a quote from another POPLA decision.



POPLA deals with appeals on a case by case basis and as such, any external factors such as other similar parking contraventions or appeals have no impact on our decision making.



I have reviewed the assessor’s comments relating to this ground of appeal and also the document provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the assessor has correctly stated that the operator has the relevant authority to issue PCN’s on this site.



You advise that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator.



The assessor has advised that the signage on the site makes the terms and conditions of the car park clear which, after reviewing the images of the signs provided, I agree with. By choosing to remain on the site, you have accepted the terms and conditions of this contract and by remaining on site for six minutes without a permit, the terms and conditions were breached.



After reviewing the assessor’s decision, I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.



As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).



In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.



Yours sincerely

Paul Garrity

POPLA Complaints Team

Coupon-mad

For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice

I don't think they should be saying 'legal advice' from the CAB!

Anyway 6 minutes in and out having read the signs & realised you couldn't comply, is certainly defendable in court. The interpretation of 'grace periods' changes like the wind!

mowcius

Many thanks to all who post regularly on here to help, despite the final reason for the successful appeal, your advice helped tremendously.

For anyone who happens to be searching the web for this specific company/location in the future (as I did, just in case I could copy-paste a response) it was Parking Control Solutions, and the location was Gelderd Close in Leeds. It's a private road, next to Greggs, so I imagine they get dozens of people a week stopping there.

I submitted my appeal primarily on the basis of the lack of an offer (signs say no parking or stopping at any time) but as I genuinely didn't notice the signs (as they're cable tied to temporary fencing and don't look anything like official signage for the road) I also did a bit on signage and grace periods too.

In the end though, it was their lack of response that led to the successful appeal:

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Adele Ditchfield

Assessor summary of operator case
In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case
I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

Mjolnir7

Gemini Parking


Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Grahame Hill

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for no ticket.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that 1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due the wording used. 2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge 3. 3.The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself 4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 5. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of keeper liability. When entering onto a private land managed car park where terms and conditions apply, motorists form a parking contract with the operator by deciding to park on the land. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of the contract. In this case, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: ‘all vehicles must display a valid ticket’ and that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £60.’ The operator has also provided images of the vehicle, parked in situ with a PCN affixed The appellant has raised a number of grounds that I will address separately or grouped together as appropriate


1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due the wording used.



2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice We accept witness statements from operators to confirm they have landowner authority to operate at a site, and we do this because it is only a small part of confirming on the balance of probabilities that they have landowner authority. The fact that they have signs, camera, personnel, etc, at the site also supports that proof. In this case, the operator has supplied a copy of the landowner agreement. As such, I am satisfied they are authorised to issue charges on this site.


5. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance The BPA Code of Practice sets out the requirement for operators to provide a grace period, in which it will not issue a PCN for a breach of any terms of parking which, by their nature, require a grace period in order to be complied with. For instance, any term that a ticket must be purchased must imply a grace period in order for the motorist to obtain the ticket; or a reasonable time in which to leave the car park. There is no requirement that the operator give a general grace period in which any breach of the terms of parking is overlooked simply because it does not occur for very long. As the appellant has not supplied evidence of the vehicle being elsewhere on the day or when the driver arrived or left the car park, I am unable to determine the entry or leaving time and therefore cannot determine a grace period.


3.The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. 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. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.



The PCN was issued for having no ticket. The appellant has not provided proof of a ticket. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant failed to display a ticket, 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.