POPLA Decisions

rmorgan89

Thanks for all the help. My appeal against Corporate Services Parking Management in Hereford was successful. 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

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.

Coupon-mad

gt1990 said:

I need help and advice as I am clueless to where to go now...

I provided my booking confirmation as the hotel suggested I do I even provided a Time stamped picture taken from my phone showing me entering my registration into the system

They refused their argument is that it's not in their system

 @gt1990

Wow.   You won't be paying this. 

You need to email a complaint to John Gallagher, that you showed TIME STAMPED EVIDENCE from your phone that you did enter your VRN, and POPLA is meant to be an evidence-based service and the Assessor failed to consider that evidence.  What more is a consumer meant to do than film themselves putting in their VRN?!  

You need to start you own new discussion thread please (not on this thread).

critical_badger

Hi all,
Details of successful appeal against parking charge at Hartlepool Marina. Hope the verbiage helps someone else.

Alleged infraction was failure to pay for evening parking. Operator is Northwest Parking Management. Charge issued via notice-to-keeper; no notice-to-driver. I genuinely was not there so cannot report on the signage although second-hand reports suggest poor at night. All the same after a quick swing past here decided on using harbour byelaws. Byelaws were also the basis of a previous successful appeal regarding short stop in bus lane at Luton Airport (APCOA).

Appeal to operator via their appeal email was terse - seems this route never successful anyway...

Thank you for your letter of xx/01/2020. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Liability in this case cannot be transferred from the driver of the car to the keeper of the car. As your letter states, you do not know the driver of the car and so I expect this parking charge notice to be cancelled immediately.

I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter.

This of course rejected and the following sent to POPLA as part of their appeal (as attachment). Northwest Parking Management did not contest so appeal successful. Seems I can't post links here (stuff inside <<...>> below) so you'll have to Google them yourself or look on PDPorts web-site. Thanks all!

I am appealing against the above mentioned parking charge on the basis that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking charge and that liability cannot be transferred to me.

I WAS NOT THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking charge. There was no notice-to-driver placed on the vehicle. The only communications received was the notice-to-keeper ‘inviting’ me, the keeper, to pay or reveal the name of the driver. There was not and there will not be an admission as to the driver and no assumptions can be drawn. Photographic evidence from ANPR systems showed the vehicle but images were not clear enough to show the driver. If the parking charge company has clearer photos then I will be happy to present images of me in order to corroborate but for now you have my assertion that I was more than 200 miles away at the time of the alleged event.

LIABILITY CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ME

The parking charge company omits to mention the protection of freedoms act (PoFA) 2012 in any of their communications but as they continue to pursue me, the keeper, in this regard then I am left to presume that they are using this act to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. The location of the alleged parking charge is Hartlepool Marina, a site covered by The Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws 1977 & 1985 (the byelaws). The current operator of the port holds a copy of the byelaws on this page <<PDPorts link>>. A specific link is here: <<bylelaws>>. The plans attached to the end of the byelaws show that the Hartlepool Marina development and thus the site of the car park in which the alleged parking charge took place sits within the boundary to which the byelaws apply. The bylaws cover vehicular activity within the boundary. There is no evidence that the byelaws nor the boundary have changed since the 1985 revision mentioned above and there is no evidence they have been repealed. In any case the onus is on the private parking company or the landowner to show that the byelaws no longer apply. As a result of this the location is not “relevant land” as defined by schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 and only the driver is liable. The charge is not applicable.

Kuly

Thanks for all your assistance folks, popla appeal succesful:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

 An Appeal has been opened with the reference nnnnnnnnn.

 APCOA Parking - 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.

  

Umkomaas

APCOA Parking - have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal.

They almost never do.  Nevertheless well done in not succumbing to their demands and getting the APCOA monkey off your back. 👌

KobeAlt

Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6093067/cup-enforcement-popla-appeal/p1

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natalie Hill

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a permit only parking area without clearly displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

In summary of the appellant’s case he argues that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked. The appellant says that the Notice to keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements. The appellant argues that there are no entrance signs for the regular entry. He states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He says that there is sufficient notice of the terms and conditions or warning of the ANPR or what the data is being used for. The appellant states that the signage is of a forbidding nature. The appellant says there is no marked parking bay or boundary at the venue. The appellant advises that the operator has not considered any grace period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a more details summary with the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has been identified as the registered keeper, as such I will be considering his liability for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage, which states: “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING- TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES.” And: “THIS SIGN COVERS A MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF SPACES OR AREA, UNAUTHORISED, INCORRECT PARKED VEHICLES PARKED IN THE WRONG BAYS OR IN RESTRICTED AREA, ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES OR BLOCKING OR PARKED ON ACCESS WILL RECEIVE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…£100.” The operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle parked on the car park. The images time stamped at 13:41 on 19 December 2019. show the vehicle did not have a permit on display in the windscreen or on the dash. The appellant argues that there are no entrance signs for the regular entry. He states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He says that there is sufficient notice of the terms and conditions or warning of the ANPR or what the data is being used for. When considering signage whether signage is sufficient at a site, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In this case, I have examined images the signage displayed at the location and at the time of the parking contravention and I am not satisfied that they were easy to see, read or understand. I can see from the images provided that one of the signs was folded over and the other sign was partially obscured. I must also note the operator has highlighted that there are no entrance notices on this site. As I cannot see any further evidence of signage in the area where the appellant parked or that there was other sufficient signage in view nearby, I am satisfied the driver would not have been able to establish the terms and requirements needed to park. As such I therefore cannot consider whether the driver had entered into a parking contract or failed to comply with the terms and conditions. For this reason, I cannot consider the PCN to have been issued correctly. I must therefore allow this appeal. As I have allowed this appeal, I will not need to consider the other points made by the appellant.

Umkomaas

Well done. Good win. 

Signage, landowner authority and PoFA deficiencies are always good appeal points at POPLA, and, with well-presented evidence, win more often than not. Motorists only need to 'win' on just one of those points to get the ticket cancelled. 

TwoSheds30619

Dear <name>

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference <nnnnnnnnnn>. 

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

TwoSheds30619 said:

Dear <name>

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference <nnnnnnnnnn>. 

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

Well done, yet another APCOA withdrawal when they obviously knew they had no prospect. Chancers just hoping those unfamiliar with the process put in weak, mitigating POPLA appeals, then I bet they don't withdraw so smartly!

jkaur122

Reference:
Parking Charge Notice - xxxxxx/xxxxxx
POPLA Ref: xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on xx December 2019 at xx:xx, at Hotel  car park.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question.

Please be advised:

 There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk

 As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount. If you have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.

 By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

xx February 2020

  ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ

A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.

Yours faithfully, ParkingEye Team

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

James Keeling

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “Either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.”

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant had provided a lengthy document which outlines their grounds of appeal. However, my assessment will focus solely on their contention that the site was too dark for the motorist to read the signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge. The operator has provided images which show the signs with the terms and conditions. These images are all taken in full daylight. However, the operator has not provided any images of the signs at night. As such, I am unable to assess whether these signs would have been visible to the appellant. Whilst it is true that the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the driving contract to accept it, there is a requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. If the driver cannot see the signage because of light levels within the car park, they cannot be expected to know that there are terms and conditions to read. As I cannot assess whether the lighting was sufficient for the appellant to know that the signage was there, I cannot conclude whether the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.