POPLA Decisions

oldskoolforever

Thanks to all who helped with this Britannia case.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failed to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant says Britannia entities are probably not the same and they put Britannia to strict proof that the company on the signs and paperwork is the same one that signed any landowner contract. The appellant says they need to see landowner authority for this Ltd company alone (number 08182990 - from Companies House), and not another firm, like 'Britannia Parking Services Ltd', who are a completely unrelated legal entity, whose company name is not on the signs or Notice to Keeper (NTK) and cannot be taken to be the same and are not legally the same. The appellant says they require the operator to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner as the witness statements are not sound evidence and while they might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, but they suggest it is unlikely to be sufficient. The appellant says the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. They say there was no contract nor agreement on the parking charge at all and it is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. The appellant says they put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how its signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. They say equally, they require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of the sign in isolation/close-up, which will not be sufficient to disprove this. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

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 registered keeper of the vehicle. 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 registered keeper is now liable for the charge. When entering onto a privately managed land 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. Therefore, upon entry to the site, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Camera Controlled Pay On Arrival” and “PAY ON ARRIVAL… Restrictions and charges apply between 09:00 – 18:00 to all vehicles… Up to 1 hour £1.00. Up to 2 hours £1.50… £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Failed to make a valid payment The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 12:57, and exiting at 14:31, totalling a stay of 1 hour 33 minutes. The operator has provided a system generated report to show that the driver purchased a ticket to park for 1 hour at 13:11, which was 14 minutes after they entered the site. As this left an unpaid period of parking of 33 minutes, the PCN has been issued. I will now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal and comments on the operator’s evidence. The appellant states that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant says Britannia entities are probably not the same and they put Britannia to strict proof that the company on the signs and paperwork is the same one that signed any landowner contract. The appellant says they need to see landowner authority for this Ltd company alone (number 08182990 - from Companies House), and not another firm, like 'Britannia Parking Services Ltd', who are a completely unrelated legal entity, whose company name is not on the signs or Notice to Keeper (NTK) and cannot be taken to be the same and are not legally the same. The appellant says they require the operator to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner as the witness statements are not sound evidence and while they might in some cases be accepted by POPLA, but they suggest it is unlikely to be sufficient. In this case one of the appellant’s grounds of appeal is that they request contractual evidence to show that the operator has the right to issue tickets on the site they were parked. I would therefore have expected the operator to rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal and provide a copy of the landowner contract or a witness statement. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 7.1 states, “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. 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.” In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to ensure it provides sufficient evidence to show it has issued the PCN correctly While I acknowledge that the operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement, the appellant has highlighted that the landowner agreement is in the name of one company and the PCN is issued by a company with a different name, as they have different company numbers at Companies House. While I note that the names are similar, I would expect the operator to provide supporting evidence that they are authorised to operate to rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal and provide evidence to support their rebuttal. I do not consider that the operator has adequately done this to my satisfaction. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. While I acknowledge that the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case and additional comments on the operator’s evidence, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

AMM07

POPLA appeal unsuccessful 

My original PCN was issued in a hospital by Car Parking Partnership.

I then went into appeal, but realised many weeks later, Car Parking Partnership though showing to be a member of BPA, it actually is not a member.  

My appeal was submitted to POPLA on 5.3.2020.  POPLA have 28days to make a decision. Today 29.04.2020 after the 28 day cutoff I have received a decision that the appeal was unsuccessful.

What should I do? Just pay up or are there any legal grounds to support the above.....

Umkomaas

You need to give far more information than the snippet above. If you want further advice please open a new thread of your own. 

Fruitcake

AMM07 said:

POPLA appeal unsuccessful 

My original PCN was issued in a hospital by Car Parking Partnership.

I then went into appeal, but realised many weeks later, Car Parking Partnership though showing to be a member of BPA, it actually is not a member.  

My appeal was submitted to POPLA on 5.3.2020.  POPLA have 28days to make a decision. Today 29.04.2020 after the 28 day cutoff I have received a decision that the appeal was unsuccessful.

What should I do? Just pay up or are there any legal grounds to support the above.....

Car Parking Partnership are division of Parking Lie and are definitely BPA members. You couldn't have made a PoPLA appeal if they were not.

Of course you shouldn't pay. The PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist.

As Umkomaas has already said, we don't have enough information or background to know what happened and what your put in your appeals.

When you start your own thread, please tell us what happened when you complained to PALS/The Hospital Trust Manager/CEO.
Please also tell us what your MP said when you complained to them about this unregulated scam. 

mapscratcher

Thanks for the help. Appeal won on basis that ECP didn't provide a fully signed copy of lease agreement. Only part of the lease agreement was submitted. 

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They say that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. • They state that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself • They state that the photographic evidence provided by the operator does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • They say that the signs on the site fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras. They state that there is no keeper liability. The appellant has provided a letter detailing their appeal. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant state that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm landowner authority. They say that the operator has provided an appendix of the contract. They say that although the operator has indicated that there is a plan there is no plan attached and it is impossible to confirm the extent of the car park. They say that the contract does not establish whether ECP Holdings is the landowner and merely refers to it as the client but there is no evidence that it is the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “ Welcome to West Dyke Road “,”Charges apply at all times”,” Up to 1 hours £0.60”,”Up to 2 hours £1.30”,”Up to 3 hours £2.30”,”Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice”,” Display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen or have a valid pay by phone session”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:39 and exiting at 14:14 on the day of the incident. The operator has provided evidence which shows that the appellant had made a payment of £1.50 at 11:47 on the day in question. The appellant states that there is no keeper liability. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), it states that liability for unpaid parking charges can be transferred from the registered keeper to the registered hirer if “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper”. The BPA Code of Practice Section 21.17 States:” Following the issue of a Notice to Keeper, you may find that the vehicle was hired at the time of the parking contravention for which you are seeking a parking charge. Instead of recovering payment from the keeper, you will need to try to recover it from the hirer, by issuing a Notice to Hirer. 21.18 Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14, of POFA 2012 sets out the strict terms under which the hirer may become liable instead of the keeper. These include that: • you are given a signed statement from the vehicle-hire firm within 28 days of the Notice to Keeper, along with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer, and • these statements contain the details set out in paragraph 13 of Schedule 4. 21.19 Your Notice to Hirer must satisfy the detailed requirements of paragraph 14, including: • the contents you need to include in the Notice to Hirer – paragraph 14(5) • the documents you must send with it – paragraphs 13(2) and 14(2) • the methods of serving the Notice to Hirer – paragraph 14(6) • the deadlines by which the Notice to Hirer must be served – paragraphs 14(2) and 14(3) The operator has failed to provide a copy of the documents signed by the hirer in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I cannot confirm that PoFA 2012 has been complied with. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Fruitcake

No, you won because a savvy assessor (and there aren't many of those to the kilo) spotted that this was a hire vehicle and the scammers didn't provide the necessary docs to compy with paras 13 and 14 of the PoFA 2012. 
Your win was nothing to do with landowner authority, but a win is a win, so well done anyway.

Savvy assessor or not, I am of the opinion that PoPLA assessors go out of their way to avoid finding on landowner authority since this could lead to their members being banned by the DVLA for operation where they do not have a contract to scam. Other opinions are available.

Umkomaas

Seems quite odd that nowhere in the OP's thread, nor in the Assessor's summary of the OP's submission, is hirer mentioned. Seems quite out of character for POPLA to be pulling decisions out of thin air? 

@mapscratcher, was the vehicle on a hire contract?  Did you appeal on the basis of you being the vehicle's hirer?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6112615/popla-operator-evidence-comments#latest

bhx_2

It would be interesting to know who the assessor was.

AMM07

My original PCN was issued at The Princess Harlow Hospital in Essex hosp by Car Parking Partnership (CPP) 
I challenged it with CPP; informing them I had entered the Hosp with my son who has additional needs and was distraught at having to attend this appointment. There were no parking spaces, my husband remained in the vehicle, until such a time, when he was able to park, display my son’s blue badge & join us for the appointment. After the Hosp my son needed to get away swiftly, so we left.  A neighbouring Hosp, which we are more familiar with, in the same Hosp trust, does not charge for parking. On this day we were at a Hosp we only attend once a year. We had not realised that since approx Dec 2019, blue badge holders were also being asked to pay for parking.  Here is the response from CPP:
Reference: Parking Charge - 004483/740819 POPLA Ref: 6060620169

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 03 February 2020 at 13:08, at The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow 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. This is because parking tariffs apply at this car park. 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. The POPLA appeals form and contact information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk.

 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.

Payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 900 7777, by visiting www.carparkingpartnership.co.uk/payments or by posting a cheque or postal order to Car Parking Partnership, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ

Yours faithfully,

Car Parking Partnership Team

02 March 2020

  Car Parking Partnership, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ

 You have received a parking charge notice, the Operator did not accept your representations and you now want to appeal.

How to make an appeal

If you want to appeal, you must do so within 28 days of the date of the Operator's notice of rejection.

The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal to POPLA is online at www.popla.co.uk.

Benefits to submitting your appeal online:

 Takes 15 minutes

 Process will begin immediately

 Manage your appeal online

 Track the status of your appeal

 Upload your evidence instantly

 View all documents online including Operator evidence

 Get a decision quicker

Alternatively, you may submit your appeal to POPLA by post. If you would like to send your appeal via post, please write to ParkingEye directly who will provide you with the relevant details and POPLA form to complete.

Grounds for appeal

The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are shown below.

1. My vehicle was stolen

2. I was not improperly parked

3. The amount requested on the parking charge is not correct

4. I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking

5. Extreme circumstance prevented me from parking correctly

6. Other

 POPLA administered by The Ombudsman Service Limited

Registered Office: POPLA, PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL. Registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4351294 VAT registration number: 798 3441 79

Further Information

    About us

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was passed by Parliament in order to return to the British public, ‘freedoms’ they feel other legislation has eroded or removed over time.

The Act deals with a wide range of issues and one of those is the ban on immobilising (‘clamping’) or removing (‘towing-away’), without lawful authority, vehicles that are parked private land.

The Act also introduced the concept of 'keeper liability' for vehicles parked on private land. However, for this, there had to be an independent appeals service, provided by funding from the parking industry.

That independent service is known as Parking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA.

How the appeal process works

Receive your verification number

The Operator should have sent you a 10 digit verification code with their rejection notice. You will need this before you can submit an appeal to POPLA. You should contact the Operator if you have not received this.

Collect your evidence

You should be prepared to enclose any evidence that you believe supports your case. This might include a crime reference number (if the vehicle was stolen), photographs (if you think the signage was inadequate), your pay and display voucher (if you say it was displayed and had not expired) or any witness statements if applicable.

Submit your appeal

Once you have collected all of your evidence you can submit your appeal to POPLA by post/online. We must receive this within the 28 day period from when the Operator issued its notice of rejection. You are also advised to obtain a certificate of posting at the time you send it (if applicable).

Our decision

The Assessor will examine all of the evidence presented by you and the Operator before issuing their decision. The Assessor will consider the BPA Code of Practice to the degree where it is pertinent to the facts and applies any relevant law.

If the Assessor determines that you are liable for the parking charge, he or she must refuse the appeal. If however, the Assessor determines that you are not liable for the parking charge, he or she must allow the appeal.

POPLA administered by The Ombudsman Service Limited

Registered Office: Wilderspool Park, Greenalls Avenue, Warrington, WA4 6HL. Registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4351294 VAT registration number: 798 3441 79

        

POPLA administered by The Ombudsman Service Limited

Registered Office: Wilderspool Park, Greenalls Avenue, Warrington, WA4 6HL. Registered in England and Wal

I then went onto appeal, but realised many weeks later, Car Parking Partnership though showing to be a member of BPA, it actually is not a member.  This information was given by the ’Martin Lewis’ and he has advised peopl therefore to ignore such parking notices as the use of the BPA Mark is a misuse & misleading, on the part of BPA. However, I have been informed this is not the case now, as per a reply on this forum to my original post. 

My appeal was submitted to POPLA on 5.3.2020.  POPLA have 28days to make a decision. Today 29.04.2020 after the 28 day cutoff I have received a decision that the appeal was unsuccessful as follows: 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to make a tariff payment or obtain a permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they have to take their son to hospital once per year because he has a disability. They explain that they usually attend a different hospital. They advise that both hospitals are under the same trust. They explain that at the other hospital those with a blue badge do not need to pay. They advise that they dropped their son and wife off and then had to wait for a bay to become available. They explain that as soon as the appointment was over, they left as soon as was possible. They advise that the blue badge was displayed. They explain that they have contacted the hospital and it has confirmed that they were required to pay for their parking. The appellant has provided a copy of the blue badge to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions: “Up to 4 hours £2.90… Please make note of your arrival time and visit any payment machines on site before exiting the car park and select the correct tariff – your full, correct vehicle registration will be required… Blue Badge Holders – all terms & conditions apply… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to make a tariff payment or obtain a permit. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle entered the car park on 3 February 2020 at 11:54 and left at 13:08. A total stay of one hour and 13 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of a system printout, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park on the day in question, along with any payments made. The printout shows that the vehicle was not registered with a payment. The appellant advises that they have to take their son to hospital once per year because he has a disability. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. They explain that they usually attend a different hospital. They advise that both hospitals are under the same trust. They explain that at the other hospital those with a blue badge do not need to pay. When parking on a managed car park the driver is responsible for reading and complying with the terms and conditions. This is even more important if the driver has not used the site before. The operator has provided examples of the signage so I am satisfied that it is clear, and the driver should have checked them. They advise that they dropped their son and wife off and then had to wait for a bay to become available. They explain that as soon as the appointment was over, they left as soon as was possible. This PCN does not relate to the amount of time the driver was on site, but that they failed to pay for their parking. They advise that the blue badge was displayed. While I acknowledge this comment as a blue badge holder they were still required to pay for their parking. They explain that they have contacted the hospital and it has confirmed that they were required to pay for their parking. This matches the information provided on the signage. The appellant has provided a copy of the blue badge to support the appeal. While I acknowledge that the driver was a blue badge holder, by failing to pay for their parking, the driver has breached the terms and conditions. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

I did not write to the Hosp PALS or other and may now do this, as guided by a previous reply on this forum in relation to my original post. 

What should I do? Just pay up or are there any legal grounds to support the above.....

Thank you 

Fruitcake

Of course you shouldn't pay a scammer. The PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist so there is no obligation to do anything else other than make the complaints to PALS, the hospital Trust management/CEO, your MP, and the Prime Minister who said months ago that he was going to stop this sort of thing which you should have done first anyway.

CPP were at the time and still are BPA members.