POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Well done, especially as you did this all by yourself, just using the rich resources of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky. Did the BPA respond to your complaint? Same question for Trading Standards and your MP?

Cantpaint

Thanks. BPA response came day before yesterday - investigating complaint. Waiting for Trading Standards and landowner. MP was first response asking for more detail to take up complaint with landowner.

dipesh41

Euro Car Parks - Solihull
Appeal successful!

Thank you so much to everyone that helped.

Dear Dipesh Mistry



Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



An Appeal has been opened with the reference 2413509219.



Euro Car Parks - 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

kbk

Hi Everyone,

Just received a successful appeal decision from Popla! Thank you for all the information and feedback.

Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has uploaded an in-depth word document. I will be summarising these points. The appellant says the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant says the amount demanded is a penalty which contravenes the consume rights act. The appellant says the operator does not have authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on this land. The appellant says signage is unclear and mis-leading. The appellant says no grace period was given.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the registered keeper 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 of signage in the car park that states: “no parking…vehicles are not permitted to park within this area…parking on yellow lines or hatched markings is not permitted…If you park on this land and contravene the indicated parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of £100”. The appellant has stated that signage is unclear and mis-leading. From viewing the evidence, I can see there is no signage where the appellant parked. The signage is on the opposite side to where the appellant parked. Further to this, where the appellant parked has bay markings. The signage also states vehicles cannot park on yellow lines or hatched markings, and I can confirm the appellant has not parked on either. The onus lies on the operator to ensure signage is clear and can be understood, however based on the appellants ground of appeal and the evidence given, I can confirm the signage is not clear. It is not necessary to assess the remaining ground of appeal. Upon consideration of the evidence provided to POPLA, I cannot determine the terms and conditions of the car park were breached. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Ralph-y

well done ......:j
seeing that this was the reason


" I can confirm the signage is not clear."


would you ad this appeal to your thread so that any ob searching will see the result ...


again well done


Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

^^ Gemini Parking ^^

Without knowing who the PPC is, the POPLA assessment has no context.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76511773#Comment_76511773

Paulmonk65

Hi i have just found this site and in need of some help?
I recieved a parking fine from euro car parks in september 2019 regarding a not autorised parking fine. I received the fine for not logging my vehicle into the pubs reception desk, the problem i have is i actualy had a puncture that needed changing and the main road i was on was a very busy road in windsor. At the time it was 7.15 Am and the public house was closed and i had no ware elese to stop and change my front tyre and when i changed it i went on my journey to work.
I have tried to appeal agaist the fine and was rejected on the grounds that i was parked.
I have now recieved a letter from the debt recovery people and not sure what to do now? any help would be gratefully recieved
thanks
Paul

Le_Kirk

You need to read the NEWBIE sticky, it's on the first page of the forum, third thread down just about where you clicked on this thread about POPLA appeals. Read it and, if you still need answers, start your own thread by clicking NEW THREAD button.

jaseBase

POPLA appeal failed.
2015 Supreme Court ruling for Case: Mr Beavis set the precedent
Time to start ignoring some "debt" collection letters ...
(genuine thanks to this this forum and it's contributors for getting me this far)
Parking firm: EURO CAR PARKS
***************

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Stephen Gordon

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the Pay & Display/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. The appellant explains the £70 charge being asked far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £2 for the 3 hours. The appellant states his overstay was 21 minutes.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has 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 driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “THIS CAR PARK IS CONTROLLED, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £70 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE… PURCHASE AND DISAPLAY A VALID TICKET OR PERMIT CLEARLY INSIDE YOUR WINDSCREEN”. The appellant explains that the charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. The appellant explains the £70 charge being asked far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £2 for the 3 hours. The appellant states his overstay was 21 minutes. I acknowledge the comments made by the appellant within his appeal. 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 the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 continues: “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…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 Protection of Freedoms Act (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 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 sum of the parking charge in this instance has equal prominence in comparison to the terms and conditions as well as the tariff charges. 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 £70; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. I note that the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 11:26, and exiting at 14:47, totalling a stay of 3 hours, 21 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s full and correct vehicle details were registered against a payment of £2.00 to park on site for 3 hours, at 11:30 on the day of the event, meaning that the parking contract expired at 14:30. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the pay and display ticket purchased did not cover the date and time of parking, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL) has lost every POPLA appeal since Beavis. A total waste of time now.

Which parking firm? Otherwise the post is totally without context.