POPLA Decisions

jdq2rp

For Umkomaas:

Paul E Walker.

Hope that helps.

Umkomaas

jdq2rp wrote: »

For Umkomaas:

Paul E Walker.

Hope that helps.

....... and for MinnieSox9 and Brucella.

Thank you.

I'll flag the posts on their threads.

Coupon-mad

However, Paul E Walker got it wrong by one day...! Even when they are almost right they are still wrong at POPLA, and none of them seem able to add up right now.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

However, Paul E Walker got it wrong by one day...! Even when they are almost right they are still wrong at POPLA, and none of them seem able to add up right now.

Actually, going back over the dates:

Day 1 = Sunday 12/5
Day 14 = Saturday 25/5

Two working days after day 14

Sunday 26/5 (not a working day)
Monday 27/5 (Bank Holiday)
Tuesday 28/5 (working day 1),
Wednesday 29/5 (working day 2) - the date NtK is deemed 'given'.

By my reckoning, he's actually 3 days out, but counting aside, he seems to understand that it's not about 'sending' the NtK, but when it is 'given'. A couple of steps ahead of some of his colleagues.

Coupon-mad

Yes you are right, the Saturday is day 14 when the possible 'keeper liability' period for service ends, not the day Paul whatsisname says. They are clueless.

leroybasslines

Using information from these forums (I can't post the link to the specific MSE forum, but google 'ParkingEye Abersoch Golf Club' and you'll find it easily enough), I successfully appealed against PCN issued by ParkingEye on the grounds that the signage at the golf club is deliberately hard to see; to get permission to erect signage, ParkingEye had to make it blend in with the foliage of the area. As I was parking in the evening and didn't see the signs, POPLA supported my appeal. Thank you to everyone with the community spirit to post details and advice to help stop us all getting fleeced by these guys - I hope this info will help someone else caught out like I was. Merry Christmas!

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: XXXXXXX
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 the vehicle was parked in the evening when there were low light conditions. The appellant argues that the signage is designed to blend in with the foliage surrounding the car park, therefore making it difficult to see at night. The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the standard signage requirements set out by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has included evidence with the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having examined the evidence I am not satisfied that the driver has been clearly identified. I must therefore 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 considered Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 when reviewing the notice. In this instance, I am satisfied that the notice complies with above requirements and that liability has correctly been transferred to the appellant. As such I will be considering his liability as the keeper of the vehicle for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic images of the signage which states: “This is a Paid Parking Area…Up to 1 hour £1.00.” The signage also states: “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” And: “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering the car park at 21:12, and exiting 21:38, totalling a stay of 26 minutes. The operator has provided transactions data which shows that no payment was received for the vehicle and the parking time. In this appeal, the appellant has advised that the vehicle was parked in the evening when there were low light conditions. He argues that the signage is designed to blend in with the foliage surrounding the car park, therefore making it difficult to see at night. The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the standard signage requirements set out by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show it had issued the PCN correctly. In this case, I can see that the operator has provided images of the signage taken at night and in the day. However, having looked at the one image of the signage at night it has been taken as it would be seen up close. I can see no evidence of the signage as it seen at night by the motorist upon entering the car park nor can I see any evidence of any lighting on the car park. I have examined the photographs provided by the appellant of the signage as they are seen in the day and I am satisfied that it is the same car park. I can also see from the images that the signs even in daylight are difficult to see due to their colour and where they have been placed. I can also see no evidence of the entrance signs the operator has shown in its photographs dating back to 2014. Based on these factors, I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has provided sufficient evidence that there is adequate signage on site and that the signage fulfils the requirements set out in section 18.3 or those set out in the section under Contrast and illumination located in Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice. For this reason, I am unable to determine if the motorist would have known there was parking restrictions in place at the time of parking. As such for the reasons noted above, I cannot consider the PCN to have been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must therefore allow this appeal. As I have allowed this appeal I will not need to consider any other points raised by the appellant.

Umkomaas

Another 1-post, successful DIYer. Well done on using the rich resource of information (available to everyone) on the forum and using it to your advantage - in sharp contrast to many threads currently bogging the forum down with question after question after question, going nowhere fast.

A shining example, and you've got one nasty monkey off your back before Christmas. Great result.

sharhar

Successful POPLA Appeal against APCOA Railway parking ticket

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6077482/apcoa-station-parking-ticket-popla-appeal



Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxx.

APCOA Parking - 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

Umkomaas

APCOA never seem to contest any POPLA appeal, yet put motorists through the mill to construct an appeal, but with no intention of responding to it. Scandalous.

krmach

Successful appeal against ECP

After submitting my appeal to POPLA on 30 October and POPLA asking me to comment on the response submitted by Euro Car Parks (Nov 4), I have finally received a decision from POPLA on 10 December.

It was certainly an early Christmas present as my appeal was successful. I'm sharing an excerpt of the decision below but for those who don't have time to read the lengthy post, the assessor focused on the Grace Period issue I have raised and agreed with me that the length of time spent in the parking lot -- around 13 mins -- is not unreasonable.

----Decision

---

"The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal however my assessment will focus on the ground where the appellant states, the appellant has advised the operator has not complied to the Grace Period stipulated in the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice.

The appellant has advised that as stated earlier whilst section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice does not apply in this case as a contract was never entered in to, it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

The appellant further advises if the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate and read terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park. The appellant advised it is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question which the operator claims to be 13 minutes 2 seconds is not an unreasonable grace period. The British Parking Association (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 requires a ticket to be purchased or vehicle details registering must imply a grace period in order for the motorist to comply. 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 instance the appellant has advised that it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate and read terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park. After considering all the evidence and comments provided by both the operator and appellant, I consider 13 minutes to be a reasonable grace period for a motorist to enter the site and leave once the decided they did not agree to the terms and conditions.

As such, I cannot confirm that the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice have been met and as a result, I cannot confirm the PCN has been issued correctly on this occasion."