POPLA Decisions

ookle

Thank you to all the lovely people on here and the help.  Its hard work, but worth it. I appealed a case from a few months ago, using the blue template.  Parking Eye refused appeal and asked me to name driver.  I appealed to POPLA citing lack of compliant NTK, appellant not being the individual liable and non-compliant signage.  Parking Eye has decided not to contest appeal. Yay!

bcfccalum

Hi All

I am about to do an appeal to POPLA now, just wondering whether i have grounds to fight or not?..

I was temporarily parked in a loading bay and saw an attendant marking up other cars that were parked there to issue PCNs. I quickly moved my vehicle before being issued a ticket, however, a few weeks later i received a notice in the post stating that i had not paid the issued PCN and that it was beyond the time limit to pay the reduced fee. I looked at the evidence on the website via the link in the letter and the "evidence" showed a PCN issued on a different vehicle. NSGL Parking who initially issued it refused my appeal and i'm just wondering whether its worth going through POPLA? There are pictures of my actual vehicle parked but the only evidence of the issued PCN is a picture on a vehicle that is quite clearly not mine (different style headlights, different colour wingmirrors) thus no evidence that i have ever actually been issued a ticket in the first place?

Is it worth appealing or will they just point to the pictures of my parked vehicle and say tough?.. Obviously if i lose the POPLA appeal i will have to pay £80 not the reduced £40.. 

Thanks

Le_Kirk

You've posted on the POPLA outcomes thread.  You will be better off going to the NEWBIE sticky third post where you will find template appeals.
Use this link to take you there: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350600#Comment_64350600

Fruitcake

bcfccalum said:

Hi All

I am about to do an appeal to POPLA now, just wondering whether i have grounds to fight or not?..

I was temporarily parked in a loading bay and saw an attendant marking up other cars that were parked there to issue PCNs. I quickly moved my vehicle before being issued a ticket, however, a few weeks later i received a notice in the post stating that i had not paid the issued PCN and that it was beyond the time limit to pay the reduced fee. I looked at the evidence on the website via the link in the letter and the "evidence" showed a PCN issued on a different vehicle. NSGL Parking who initially issued it refused my appeal and i'm just wondering whether its worth going through POPLA? There are pictures of my actual vehicle parked but the only evidence of the issued PCN is a picture on a vehicle that is quite clearly not mine (different style headlights, different colour wingmirrors) thus no evidence that i have ever actually been issued a ticket in the first place?

Is it worth appealing or will they just point to the pictures of my parked vehicle and say tough?.. Obviously if i lose the POPLA appeal i will have to pay £80 not the reduced £40.. 

Thanks

Read the NEWBIES as advised. This thread is for PoPLA results, not for asking for advice.
Start your own thread if you need further help.

Complain to the landowner.

Complain to the BPA that a PCN has been issued for the wrong vehicle.

Complain to the DVLA and the DVLA KADOE team that the scammers have accessed your personal data without reason which is both a DPA/GDPR breach as well as a KADOE contract breach.

Complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Cbay27

Finally got my response from popla and it was unsuccessful, so disappointed! But thanks for all the help on here. 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Rebecca Fryer

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking longer than the maximum period permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not offered a grace period. She states there is no evidence the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the land. The appellant states there is poor signage on site. The appellant explains the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. She states the Notice to Keeper is not complaint with Protection of Freedoms Act(PoFA) 2012, as it does not evidence the period parked. The appellant states the operator has no planning permission from the council to install signage or cameras on site. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA.) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. 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: “TOWNSEND SHOPPING PARK 3 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY…Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 12:06, and exiting at 15:18, totalling a stay of 3 hours and 12 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that there are several signs located upon entry and throughout the car park. It is clear from the signage that the site operates a 3 hour maximum stay. The operator has provided evidence to show the vehicle was on site in excess of the maximum stay. The appellant explains that the operator has not offered a grace period. Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice states, “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes”. Section 13.2 states, “The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place”. As the appellant decided to remain parked, the consideration period at the start is not applicable. Section 13.3 states, “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. Section 13.6 states, “Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period”. The driver exceeded the 3 hour maximum stay by 12 minutes and the appellant has failed to provide any explanation why. As such, there is no reason to consider why the grace period should be extended further than the minimum of 10 minutes. The appellant states there is no evidence the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the land. She says they are in breach of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a witness statement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. The appellant states there is poor signage on site. The operator has provided several images of the signage located throughout the car park. I have reviewed the signs and these clearly state the site operates a 3 hour maximum stay. This appears in large bold writing on every main sign. The BPA Code of Practice section 19.3 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”. The appellant has also provided images of the signage and whilst I admit the signage cannot be read in the first image, this is because it has been taken arround 4 parking spaces away. A motorist is not expected to read the signage whilst stood at a distance however, as the images the appellant has provided show, the signage can be read when you move towards it. It is clear there is signage on site therefore, if the driver had any difficulty reading this, they should not have remained parked on site. Having reviewed the photographs of the signage, I am satisfied the signs are complaint with BPA Code of practice section 19.3. As per the BPA code of practice appendix B, there is no requirement for an entrance sign to display the amount of the PCN. As such, I am satisfied the entrance signs are compliant with the relevant BPA codes of practice. The appellant explains the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN and this clearly states “if after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after this parking charge is given, the amount requested in this parking charge has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver’s name and current address), you as the registered keeper, be liable to pay the unpaid parking charge”. The registered keeper failed to provide the drivers details therefore, the liability remains with the registered keeper. She states the Notice to Keeper is not complaint with Protection of Freedoms Act(PoFA) 2012, as it does not evidence the period parked. PoFA section 9.2.a states the notice to keeper must, ““specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. I have reviewed the notice to keeper and I can see the address of the car park is included. The notice also confirms the date and entrance and exit times of the relevant parking period. As such, I am satisfied the Notice to Keeper is complaint with PoFA. The appellant states the operator has no planning permission from the council to install signage or cameras on site. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator 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 relevant planning authority 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 driver exceeded the maximum stay period, 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

Is this related to the UKPC parking charge?  If so, what do you now intend to do?

Cbay27

yes it is umkomaas, I’m not sure, I’m already facing court from bw legal from another parking ticket from premier park, don’t wanna pay £100 but also don’t wanna face court possibly twice  

Umkomaas

Cbay27 said:

yes it is umkomaas, I’m not sure, I’m already facing court from bw legal from another parking ticket from premier park, don’t wanna pay £100 but also don’t wanna face court possibly twice  

Nothing can be guaranteed, but UKPC usually only issue court proceedings for multiple tickets, from around £600+. 

Wait to see what their next move(s) might be. No need to be panicked into doing anything precipitous. 

Cbay27

Umkomaas said:

Cbay27 said:

yes it is umkomaas, I’m not sure, I’m already facing court from bw legal from another parking ticket from premier park, don’t wanna pay £100 but also don’t wanna face court possibly twice  

Nothing can be guaranteed, but UKPC usually only issue court proceedings for multiple tickets, from around £600+. 

Wait to see what their next move(s) might be. No need to be panicked into doing anything precipitous. 

Interesting, thanks, I guess I will await the next letter 

Coupon-mad

The driver exceeded the 3 hour maximum stay by 12 minutes and the appellant has failed to provide any explanation why. As such, there is no reason to consider why the grace period should be extended further than the minimum of 10 minutes

That was your error if you didn't add anything specific like how big or busy the car park was? 

You'd have possibly won at POPLA had you explained the say, six minutes to arrive & the six minutes to leave (as covered on loads of threads about POPLA grace periods wording where we advice people to go into detail to win on that point).  

If this one went to a small claim you would almost certainly win, just as you'll almost certainly win your PP one!

By the way, with two ANPR camera PCNS, you REALLY need to start using something to cover your rear numberplate when you leave retail parks, hospitals, cinemas (after lockdown) and such places, you know.   Expect to go past a private scam firm ANPR camera and drive armed with some duct tape or a stretchy black sock, or a small piece of material, etc.  

Put that in your glovebox this week, and use it every time you leave any shopping retail park, whether you think you overstayed or not.  Do it until it becomes second nature and tell all your friends & relatives - and please, no listening to some old rubbish that it's illegal. 

It is not.   It is OK and it is a good way to fight this pariah.

This is private land and you DO NOT have to hand over your data (numberplate) on a plate every time you shop!

You will NEVER get a ANPR PCN ever again if they cannot get ther exit photo.  Perfectly legal, as long as you whip the obstruction off by pulling over at the kerb on the first road (safely and not on a red route) as soon as you get round the corner/on street from the exit. 

And of course no using material that will dangle by the car wheels but that's common sense; just tuck the material around the numberplate firmly each time like you are tucking it into bed(!) and remember to remove it.

If everyone did this than ANPR parking firms would fold within six months.

Now, back on topic to POPLA DECISIONS!