POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

'Dear POPLA, I decided to do some shopping before buying my PDT machine ticket' would be the wrong answer for POPLA!

Fruitcake

fuming1 wrote: »

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

A correct decision but still the assessors do not understand the PoFA.

Received by day 15, not sent, or better yet, received by day 14 beginning with the day after that of the alleged event.

mezzyd

A successful result at POPLA where a colleague requested cancellation of a parking charge issued in a permit holders’ car park at their place of employment. Spring Parking mistakenly issued a POPLA code on the strength of one email to the colleague, who was neither the driver nor the keeper. Adele Brophy was the assessor & this is her decision:

The appellant has appealed the PCN and has advised they are neither the Driver nor the registered keeper. I note that the operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using PoFA 2012, and so in its mind, the operator holds the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver of the vehicle is, based on the evidence that I have received. After considering the evidence and comments provided by both the appellant and the operator, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle or that the driver has been identified. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal; however, I have not considered these as I have allowed the appeal.

Umkomaas

Adele Brophy was the assessor & this is her decision:

You're lucky she wasn't required to count any PoFA days!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76546770#Comment_76546770

Well done, nice win. Thanks for feedback - it's what helps to keep us motivated and giving up our time.

Dianna67

I'm just about to submit my own appeal to POPLA re a similar PCN.


Can't anything permanent be done about it though? I'm hopeful to have my own appeal upheld, but I feel that there is a bigger injustice here!


Can't we force them to amend their method of operation? Like submitting an FOI asking for the numbers of people who have been charged for an overstay of 20 minutes or less (10 mins either side of the ticket times) and whom have subsequently paid the PCN? Then use this information to build a case against them, involving the relevant authorities and force them to right this wrong vis a vie all those people who have been wrongly "Scammed"?


Idealistic, I know, but surely they cannot keep breaking their own code of practice and wrongly charging people!

Hill_Hill_Hill

I’m in the middle of a defence for a very similar situation, can’t wait to win it and add another scalp to your trophy cabinet.

‘’DEBT + DAMAGES CLAIMED THE SUM OF 170.00 VIOLATION DATE: XX/01/2018 TIME IN: 17:22 TIME OUT: 18:37 PCN REF: REFXXXXXX CAR REGISTRATION NO.: XXXXXX CAR PARK:- XXXX ROAD TOTAL DUE- 170.00 (REF:[CEL-website] ‘’

KeithP

Hill_Hill_Hill wrote: »

I’m in the middle of a defence for a very similar situation...

You might well be, Hill_Hill_Hill, but this thread is about PoPLA appeals.

Hill_Hill_Hill

Apologies!

Appealant123

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Natalie Hill

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
In summary of the appellant’s appeal he states that there is no evidence that the operator has Landowner authority. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant has included additional information with the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having examined the operator’s evidence and the appellant’s appeal statement to POPLA, I am not satisfied that they have been identified as the driver. I must consider the appellant’s liability as keeper of the vehicle. The only way that the keeper can assume liability is through the operator issuing the PCN using the provisions of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012, in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper (the appellant). As the notice has been issued directly to the keeper, I have considering paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. Having reviewed the PCN I can see that the parking event took place on 11 July 2019. The PCN was not issued until 14 August 2019 which outside the 14-day time frame. As such I am not satisfied that it complies with the above requirements. For the above reasons, I therefore cannot consider the PCN to have been issued correctly. Accordingly, I allow this appeal. As I have allowed this appeal, I will not need to consider any other points raised by the appellant.

charby

Huge thank you to the forum members that give up their time to help others on here and also the advice they supply. The NEWBIES thread is awesome.
Not quite the reply I was expecting from POPLA but delighted with the decision. I had appealled more on the grounds of signage being sparse and mostly hidden by trees but UKPC'S own photo of their signage on site was that blurry it was unreadable. The assessor states ' I consider them to be the driver', strange as the driver was never identified at any stage.

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameEileen Ioannou
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to comply with the signage at the site.

Assessor summary of your case
Within their appeal the appellant explains that they do not feel that the operator has the required authority from the landowner to issue enforcement at the site in question. Further, they state that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible and the sum of the parking charge is not sufficiently placed to draw attention to the driver. In addition, the appellant has stated that the parking operator has failed to comply with data protection in respect of Automatic Number Plate Recognition and the justification for using it at the site or that it is in force.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having reviewed the appellant’s case, I consider them to be the driver; therefore, I will be considering their liability in this review. I will consider the information and evidence presented by both parties to reach an outcome. I will review the parking operator’s evidence pack to determine the validity of the PCN issued. Within their appeal the appellant stated that the charge amount is not sufficiently clear on the signage and does not comply with the terms set out within the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. 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 considering the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this car park is enough. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the car park, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the 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. POFA 2012 defines “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 car park 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 car park is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. In this particular case the evidence supplied by the parking operator of the signage around the site is not sufficiently clear to identify that the charge amount is clear. Therefore, as outlined within PoFA 2012 I do not consider that the charge amount has sufficient clarity to specify the sum for unauthorised parking and it does not sufficiently bring the charge notice to the attention of the driver who is parking on relevant line. Whilst I acknowledge that the operator has supplied evidence of A4 copies of the signage this is not clear to read on the signage supplied in the evidence. 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.