POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Very good by that Assessor. I think it is pot luck at the moment with POPLA.

kndusr19

Successful POPLA Appeal against Premier Park PCN:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76667820&posted=1#post76667820

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXX.

Premier Park - 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.

Canvasdesign

Won a case against Smart Parking operating out of Manchester Airport Pub (The Airport)


Basically I went there in August, did not know it was Pay and Display at the Pub. Came out of pub and went home. 4 weeks later got a PCN.


Appealed and nothing. Then went to POPLA with a 14 page document of all the evidence. Smart Parking came back with tampered images that had 20:03 on the date stamp at night in December proving that the signage was well lit but the skies were completely blue on the photos. Skies are black in December.


Smart Parking also got the times I entered as AM and they were actually PM. THere were lots of flaws in the evidence the operator supplied.


So glad I didnt hand over the £100 and decided to appeal.


Thanks to this group

Ralph-y

well done .....


have you posted anything re the ' tampered imaged' ?


If not I am sure people would like to see them ...


if so please start a new thread ...





NEWBIES - HOW TO UPLOAD LINKS TO PHOTOS/SCANS TO MSE

To upload a photo/scan link, you first need to host it on a free photo hosting site (like Dropbox, Imurg or Tinypic), copy the URL, paste it here, but change the http to hxxp and we'll do the conversion. Newbies can't directly upload links to photos/scans until they've a few posts under their belt.

Ralph:cool:

user_1940

CUP Enforcement.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6066842/upside-down-fluttered-ticket-in-private-car-park

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.

Umkomaas

^^
CUP Enforcement.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6066842/upside-down-fluttered-ticket-in-private-car-park

Without the PPC name (and thread link), POPLA Decisions are without much context and of limited value.

charby

This was 1 of 2 appeals submitted to POPLA for the same carpark, same day/time, for 2 family vehicles. Both appeals word for word the same as was the photo evidence. The first appeal succesful, post 3732 on this thread, assessor stating ' 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. '

Assessor for this appeal, '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” and I am satisfied that the signs meet the requirements of the Code of Practice.'
No mention of the photos supplied by us in the appeal clearly showing the signage now hidden behind foliage/trees almost completely obscurring them, but Paul Garrity deems them 'easy to see.'

Operator UKPC

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Paul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle was parked in an area designated for registered users only.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: They state that there is no evidence of land-owner authority. They explain that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. They advise that the operator has failed to comply with the Data Protection Information Commissioners (ICO)Code of Practice regarding the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has stated in its evidence pack that the appellant has admitted to being the driver. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in their appeal. However, they are the registered keeper. I will there-fore be considering their responsibility as keeper of the vehicle.

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, “…No unauthorised parking terms of parking apply at all times…Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 parking charge…being issued to the driver…Registered users only. Please register your vehicle at the payment desks inside the Superbowl…”.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 14:41, and exiting at 16:34, totalling a stay of one hour and 52 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate a search on its online systems using the appellant’s vehicle registration, confirming that the appellants vehicle was not on the exemption list.

In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability.

I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed these as follows: They state that there is no evidence of land-owner 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”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.

They explain that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 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” and I am satisfied that the signs meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. They advise that the operator has failed to comply with the Data Protection Information ICO Code of Practice regarding the ANPR cameras. POPLA’s role is to consider whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the ICO directly. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed obtain the authorisation to park, 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.

Coupon-mad

You will have to defend it in court and win then! At least you have the winning POPLA appeal to show what POPLA should have concluded, and any good Judge will likely agree with you, if your photos show signs covered by foliage.

Complain to POPLA about the Assessor failing to consider your evidence showing the signs covered in foliage because if he had looked at that evidence he would have come to the same conclusion as the other Assessor in your relative's identical case (in all respects, word for word and photos) POPLA number xxxxxxxxxx where the Assessor DID look at the appellant's dated photos.

ShowmetheSavings

This is the thread were i discussed the case and received advice:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6075972/pcn-after-14-days-but-mistakingly-disclosed-driver

Many thanks to all for their help and big shout out to Coupon Mad whose 'template' example used as the basis of our appeal. I owe you all a drink.

this is the reply we received. They don't say the reason why though which might have been helpful for any future appeals:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
An Appeal has been opened with the reference abddefg.
NCP - 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

ET6116/001

Cantpaint

Big thank you to Coupon-mad and others who set up the Newbies sticky thread!
Background: nighttime, torrential rain, broken ticket machine - received postal charge notice.
Complained immediately with photo of broken machine and screen message, received standard rejection. Then discovered Newbies thread!!
Started POPLA process, ignoring broken machine, but including everything else in standard template (approx 4-5 pages A4).
Amazed a couple of days later to receive letter from Debt Recovery Plus when Initial hadn’t even uploaded their evidence! Used that as part of complaints to Initial, the Landowner, BPA, Trading Standards and my MP.
Couple of days later Initial uploaded their evidence. A mix of computer generated signs and plans, a few photos mostly of a different area of the park all in full sunshine and copies of their letters - including one that stated there were 5 pay machines although their computer plans stated 6. I had genuine trouble fitting my very specific criticisms in 2000 characters.
Two days later I received a message from the assessor saying that Initial had decided they did not wish to contest the appeal.
Job done - thank you all!