POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

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.

Was it a POFA one then?

Gemini NTKs are often not, in which case, complain to POPLA.

If it was, then ignore Gemini, clearly no-one pays these daft PCNs unless a Judge says so (rarely happens).

Despite popular misconception, there is zero CCJ or huge costs risk involved if defending a case in the end (as long as you don't move house and not tell them your new address) and Gemini are not very litigious and need to just get lost.

EDIT :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6056700/gemini-hospital-parking-at-popla-appeal-stage

I see this was without any doubt, a NON POFA NTK and that Assessor needs re-training.
I think he has done this before - jeez that is shocking to say he's checked it when he HAS NOT.

Fruitcake

I agree with C-m about Mjolnir7's PoPLA decision. From their thread it is obvious that the NTK is non-PoFA compliant, and the appellant explained how it was non-PoFA compliant.

How many more of these dreadful results are we going to see by improperly trained PoPLA assessors?

Definitely complain to PoPLA.

fuming1

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameMark Tress
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice due to the appellant not paying for the time that they were parked at the site on 13 August 2019.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the Parking Charge Notice to Keeper was not issued within the required timescale. They say that the operator has not demonstrated who was driving the vehicle. The appellant says that the operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the relevant contracts in place to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices. They state that 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.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not confirmed that they were the driver of the vehicle, so I will consider their liability as the registered keeper. In order to transfer liability of the Parking Charge Notice from the driver, the operator has to follow the process set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has provided copies of the Parking Charge Notice that it issued on 7 September 2019. The operator has stated that the Parking Charge Notices were not sent in line with PoFA. However, it has not identified the driver of the vehicle. The notices do not contain the information required by PoFA and were not sent within the required 15-day timescale. Therefore, I do not consider that the operator has transferred liability of the Parking Charge Notice to the appellant as keeper of the vehicle. I consider the Parking Charge Notice to be incorrect, so must allow this appeal. There have been further grounds for appeal raised, but I will not consider these as I have allowed the appeal for another reason.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6053395/how-important-is-the-use-of-i-in-golden-ticket-pcns&highlight=golden+ticket#topofpage

beamerguy

Good news.

ParkingEye are just another of the BPA scammers

The BPA just want their membership fee as apposed to how their scammers operate

OldCodger.

POPLA have confirmed my appeal was successful and has been withdrawn by the operator.

Withdrawal reasons: good will.

Lobsterfish

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAdele Ditchfield
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 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 says the operator has not allowed a grace period. They state there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states the signage is hidden so a contract cannot be formed.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. The operator has provided photographic evidence from Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras that show the vehicle entering the site at 14:22 and exiting at 15:33, a total duration of 1 hour 11 minutes. The appellant made a payment 3 minutes after entering the site. I am satisfied this is a reasonable period of time to park and purchase a ticket. This means there is an overstay of 8 minutes at the end of the parking period. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in section 13.4: You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. The appellant has explained that it took 8 minutes to leave the bay and queue to exit the car park. I am satisfied that this comes within the time allowed to leave the car park. It is not necessary to assess the remaining ground of appeal. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6052251/holy-trinity-church-newquay-pcn&page=2#topofpage

Coupon-mad

Parking Eye from Holy Trinity Church in Newquay.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6052251/holy-trinity-church-newquay-pcn&page=2#topofpage

Nice result against the biggest parking monster firm, who do this far too often and 'scam' (direct quote word from Hansard - P/Eye were named and shamed in Parliament this year after all) loads of people out of money who HAVE NOT overstayed at all. :T

Bradders

Another win here against PE at Holy Trinity Church, Newquay. Thank you so much to all who post on here and help newbies like me fight these greedy scammers. I don't have an original thread to link to, I just searched the forum for advice. Hopefully the following will help somebody in a similar situation argue their point...


Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
-


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to comply with the terms and conditions at the site.



Assessor summary of your case
Within their appeal the appellant has highlighted that the parking operator has failed to meet the minimum standards set out within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in regard to a grace period offered at the site, the signage in respect of the contract offered. Further, they have stated that the operator does not have the authority to issue charges at the site and no contract is in place with the landowner and no planning permission has been granted to erect signage. Further, the appellant says the parking operator has failed to provide evidence that they have complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. I can see that the appellant has expanded upon their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack. In support of their appeal the appellant has supplied evidence to POPLA of the ticket purchased from the date of the event. The ticket shows a payment of £2.60 against vehicle registration XXXX XXX. There is additional evidence of the entrance to the site along with signage in place.



Assessor supporting rational for decision
I must rely upon the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 to identify the driver. In looking at the Notice to Keeper issued against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 I am satisfied that it is compliant and, that the Registered Keeper is liable for the charge as due to the fact that liability has been successfully transferred. The assessor’s remit is to consider whether a PCN has been issued correctly by taking into considering the information and evidence presented by both parties. The relationship between the driver and the parking operator is contractual and is offered in the signage at the site which is accepted when a driver parks their vehicle at the site. Therefore, each driver has an obligation to check for signage before parking and leave if they are not able to comply with the contract offered. To determine the validity of the PCN issued I will review the operator’s evidence. The parking operator has implied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions offered at the car park; the PCN was issued for failing to comply with the terms and conditions at the site. There is photographic evidence from the parking operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system to show that the vehicle entered the car park at 17:40 and subsequently left at 19:51. In total the vehicle remained on site for two hours and 10 minutes. Within its submission the parking operator has supplied photographic evidence of the signage at the car park. The signage states, “Up to 2 hours £2.60” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. In addition to the general terms I can see that there is a contact number for motorists to use if assistance is required. It is evident from the evidence presented within this appeal that the appellant entered the car park remaining for a period of time which implied their acceptance of the contract offered. Within their appeal the appellant states that the parking operator has not observed grace periods as outlined within the BPA Code of Practice. Upon review of the signage supplied by the parking operator for this particular car park I can see that the terms and conditions do not explicitly state that a parking session begins at the point of entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period from arrival at the site. Therefore, I will consider if the motorist was given sufficient time to enter the site, review the terms and conditions and determine if a reasonable period was given under contact law. The appellant purchased a parking session three minutes after arrival which is reasonable. Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. In order for a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and not take any other action, whilst at the car park. At the end of the parking session the appellant left the site eight minutes after their ticket expired with is reasonable given that a period of 10 minutes is permitted. On this occasion I am not satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly given the information and evidence supplied. I note that the appellant has other grounds within their appeal, I do not feel that the additional grounds require any further consideration based on the assessment made. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. In order for a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and not take any other action, whilst at the car park. At the end of the parking session the appellant left the site eight minutes after their ticket expired with is reasonable given that a period of 10 minutes is permitted. On this occasion I am not satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly given the information and evidence supplied.

The bit in bold is utter b0ll0cks fed to POPLA by their 'Sector Expert' no doubt, but hey, they got the decision right!

Well done on doing this without a thread needed, too. Well worth the work you put in.

Bradders

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The bit in bold is utter b0ll0cks fed to POPLA by their 'Sector Expert' no doubt, but hey, they got the decision right!

Well done on doing this without a thread needed, too. Well worth the work you put in.

I've read that bit in bold several times and still have no idea what 'other action' I could have taken in the car park during the grace period! You and the other regular posters on this forum are an absolute star, thanks again.:beer: