POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Well done, but without adding the name of the PPC to this post, I'm afraid it is somewhat without context, just another POPLA decision won or lost, no one any the wiser.  Please provide the missing detail. 

D_P_Dance

What is this doing on Page 2?

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

What is this doing on Page 2?

...... presumably you mean Page 2 of the forum thread list?  Seems if a comment is made on any sticky, the sticky is duplicated, then slides down the pages as new posts move other threads up the ladder. The original sticky itself still maintains its position near the top of Page 1. 

SirJohnDePebble

Fruitcake said:

SirJohnDePebble said:

fatboy34 said:

Dear all,

thanks for your assistance and happy to report a successful appeal versus Civil Enforcement Limited relating to Port of Wells car park in Norfolk. Below is the response from POPLA - short answer is the appeal was granted on the basis of inadequate signage. Hope this is useful to someone else and thanks again!


As I am unable to determine who the driver of the vehicle was on the date in question, I must ensure Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been complied with. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is used to transfer liability for the Parking Charge Notice from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such, liability for the Parking Charge Notice has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant states that there is inadequate signage, and there is insufficient notice of the parking sum itself. 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 Section 18 of the 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 addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (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. The Act then moved on to define “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 not sufficient to inform motorists of the charge associated with not complying with the terms and conditions of the site. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, based on the evidence of the signage provided to me, I do not consider that this PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal I have not consider them.

I appealed myself on the same grounds of signage at Port of Wells (plus some other things) and it was unsuccessful.  It seems the concept of precedent doesn't apply at POPLA and it's a bit of a lottery. Is it worth posting up the text of the decision on here for info?

Yes please. Hopefully people will be able to play spot the difference and avoid an unsuccessful result. However, PoPLA assessors and their trainers/senior assessors are poorly trained as we have seen recently on here. 
Hopefully you realise there is no requirement to pay just because a PoPLA appeal doesn't go in your favour.

Having been a bit busy with other things and waiting for the inevitable threats of legal action to arrive, I forgot to reply to the (much appreciated) reply.  Apologies.  I have attached a pdf of the decision as it goes on a bit. 
CEL seem to have passed it on to ZZPS Ltd, whoever they are, and they've sent me a letter which I think is the LBA saying I have 7 days from date of their letter to pay else it goes to the solicitors.  It arrived 2nd April, dated 27th March, so cutting it fine if I did want to give them £170!  Anyway, is this the point where if I want to ask for help with a defence I should create a thread?  Thanks all. 

Umkomaas

Yes, new thread please. Please attach in it the POPLA decision for reference. 

gert123

I did search for this before posting, but apologies if it has already been covered somewhere - I honestly couldn't find it.
Popla Appeal against Premier Park PCN
"Appeal withdrawn by operator"
Withdrawal reasons:
Covid-19

Does this mean they've dropped it and we've won?

Fruitcake

gert123 said:

I did search for this before posting, but apologies if it has already been covered somewhere - I honestly couldn't find it.
Popla Appeal against Premier Park PCN
"Appeal withdrawn by operator"
Withdrawal reasons:
Covid-19

Does this mean they've dropped it and we've won?

It would appear so, as long as the information was supplied to you in writing by PoPLA or shown on the PoPLA website. I can only assume the scammer's employees have been furloughed and they are unable to operate from home. I can't think how else Covid 19 can possibly have affected a PoPLA decision. Boo-hoo.

gert123

Fruitcake said:

gert123 said:

I did search for this before posting, but apologies if it has already been covered somewhere - I honestly couldn't find it.
Popla Appeal against Premier Park PCN
"Appeal withdrawn by operator"
Withdrawal reasons:
Covid-19

Does this mean they've dropped it and we've won?

It would appear so, as long as the information was supplied to you in writing by PoPLA or shown on the PoPLA website. I can only assume the scammers have been furloughed and they are unable to operate from home. I can't think how else Covid 19 can possibly have affected a PoPLA decision. Boo-hoo.

I checked on the Popla appeal tracking site and that's the status along with "You don't need to do anything" - I've taken a few screenshots of the page.

Fruitcake

gert123 said:

Fruitcake said:

gert123 said:

I did search for this before posting, but apologies if it has already been covered somewhere - I honestly couldn't find it.
Popla Appeal against Premier Park PCN
"Appeal withdrawn by operator"
Withdrawal reasons:
Covid-19

Does this mean they've dropped it and we've won?

It would appear so, as long as the information was supplied to you in writing by PoPLA or shown on the PoPLA website. I can only assume the scammers have been furloughed and they are unable to operate from home. I can't think how else Covid 19 can possibly have affected a PoPLA decision. Boo-hoo.

I checked on the Popla appeal tracking site and that's the status along with "You don't need to do anything" - I've taken a few screenshots of the page.

That's it then, save for complaining to the landowner and your MP about this unregulated scam if you haven't already done so.

gert123

gert123 said:

Fruitcake said:

gert123 said:

I did search for this before posting, but apologies if it has already been covered somewhere - I honestly couldn't find it.
Popla Appeal against Premier Park PCN
"Appeal withdrawn by operator"
Withdrawal reasons:
Covid-19

Does this mean they've dropped it and we've won?

It would appear so, as long as the information was supplied to you in writing by PoPLA or shown on the PoPLA website. I can only assume the scammers have been furloughed and they are unable to operate from home. I can't think how else Covid 19 can possibly have affected a PoPLA decision. Boo-hoo.

I checked on the Popla appeal tracking site and that's the status along with "You don't need to do anything" - I've taken a few screenshots of the page.