POPLA Decisions

AMM07

Thank you I have today written to PALS, the hospital trust management/CEO and will tomorrow write to my MP and Prime Minister.

AMM07

Thanking you 🙏 greatly ‘Fruitcake’ your suggestion & I having followed it through, has worked in our favour as follows: 

Thank you for your email addressed to PALS regarding the above, this has been passed to me for response.

 

On December 2nd 2019 the Princess Alexandra Hospital Trust went live with a new car parking management system based on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR). When this system was brought in the trust made several changes regarding parking on site.  Amongst these changes was to include all those who hold a disabled parking badge (Blue badge) pay for their parking, in line with many other hospital trusts.  Blue badge holders are now required to contribute towards parking on site, which the PAH Trust has now implemented and all parking tariffs apply.  This is based on “fair not free” parking. The benefits of disabled parking bays are ease of access, which are wider than the average bay and nearer the main entrance to the hospital. Blue badges still need to be displayed when using a disabled parking bay, as the security team patrol the car park and anyone found using a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge is liable to a parking ticket from them.  

It is felt that there was adequate advance notice regarding the implementation of the new parking system (ANPR), with signs at all entrances to the site advising of the forthcoming changes in situ from the beginning of November.  Once the new changes came in to operation on 2nd December new parking tariff/charge signs were installed at the entrances to all visitor car parks advising of the new parking tariff/charges for all service users, including blue badge holders. There are signs at all entrances to the hospital advising service users that ANPR is in operation and  that the time of arrival at the hospital should be noted (not the time a parking space is found), as this is when your parking tariff starts from.  ANPR cameras are unable to detect whether the vehicle has a blue badge and it was hoped that when service users entered site and saw the signs advising of ANPR that they would look at the new parking charge signs in the car parks.

Due to the Covid-19 situation parking at PAH is currently free.

In response to your comment regarding the length of response to your appeal.  CPP along with many other companies have been running a skeleton staff due to the COVID-19 situation and there has been a back log of responses being sent out, I can only apologise on their behalf.

If you could provide me with your car registration no. I will look into to getting the PCN cancelled.

Kind regards

 

Teresa Charles

On behalf of

Sheila Connolly

Strategic Head of Property Services & Facilities 1st Floor Drammen House The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust Hamstel Road Harlow Essex

CM20 1QX

 

Umkomaas

CPP along with many other companies have been running a skeleton staff due to the COVID-19 situation and there has been a back log of responses being sent out, I can only apologise on their behalf.

I bet they have enough staff issue their full quota of PCNs. 

Coupon-mad

AMM07 you need to start your own thread because, having gone through POPLA instead of complaining first (as per the clear advice in the NEWBIES Thread, complaining MUST be done first) it is quite likely CPP will refuse the NHS Trust's request to cancel this charge now.  

No paying it!! Please don't reply here.

THIS THREAD IS FOR REPORTING POPLA DECISIONS ONLY

SirJohnDePebble

SirJohnDePebble said:

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. 

I'm not sure where to post this, so apologies if this is the wrong place.
After re-reading the ZZPS letter it was clear it was the same threats in different clothing, so I decided not to start my own thread unless things got genuinely 'legal'.  I did however reply to them (I know some knowledgeable posters think this is a waste of time) to say I would be contesting it all the way.  It made me feel a bit better and less helpless even though it may have been a waste of a stamp.  I had also already been in touch with my local MP who said they were on board with Greg Knight's parking code of practice bill to regulate these scammers (my words, not theirs).  I asked my MP if they would write to CEL asking them to desist.  They did so.
Next came a letter from QDR Solicitors.  This worried me initially but on re-reading it was yet another letter giving me one more chance to pay the 'outstanding balance' now running at £182 or they might advise their client ZZPS to pursue litigation, so I decided to ignore it.

Today I received a Confirmation of Cancellation letter from CEL stating the Notice has been cancelled.
Whether this is down to the pandemic and furloughed staff, me arguing the toss, or my MP writing to them (probably, I guess) or a combination of all the above and more I don't know, since they have provided no explanation.

I've tried to avoid asking questions on these boards even though there is a lot to trawl through and get your head around - and frankly that added to the stress -  but the advice to everyone from the experts here to not pay and carry on fighting were invaluable when I was panicking and contemplating paying up just to make it all stop.  We all have many more serious things to be worried about and spend time on at the moment.  I urge everyone who has unjustly been given one of these PCNs to keep plugging away.  Contact your MP and tell them what these companies are subjecting you to.

I know people will take advice from here then vanish so I just want to say thank you to those expert posters for all that you do.  Thanks guys, you've been a great help and it is much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Today I received a Confirmation of Cancellation letter from CEL stating the Notice has been cancelled.

Brilliant as an update, to show that cases CAN be cancelled after losing at POPLA.

Next time, use the POFA and no keeper liability.

Or cover up your numberplate when leaving past exit ANPR cameras, every time.

alemap7

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Matthew Woodhouse

Assessor summary of operator case: Euro Car Parks issued the parking charge notice for: “Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum time allowed”. They have provided an evidence pack to support their claim.

Assessor summary of your case:
Ms xxx appeal is: - Misleading unclear signage, that cannot be read by the driver without stopping, does not comply with BPA Code of Practice - Operator has not demonstrated they have landowner authority to manage the site - Operator’s failure to comply with section 22.8 of BPA Code of Practice as they did not reply to her appeal in time. In her comments, she advised the landowner authority document is a document between Savills and Euro Car Parks, but that according to the website of the Peel Centre (the site in question) the owner of the site is Landsec. She states Landsec is not mentioned in the document, and the document does not confirm whether Savills is an agent for Landsec, therefore the document does not show that Euro Car Parks has the landowner’s authority to manage the site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. In this instance, the appellant has challenged the authority of the operator to manage, and issue parking charges for, this site. The operator has provided a document that shows an agreement between themselves and Savills, for the operator to manage the site. However, Savills is listed as the client, not the landowner, nor the agent of the landowner, and as the appellant advises The Peel Centre itself says its landowner is called Landsec. As the document does not mention who the landowner is, nor does it state that Savills are acting on behalf of the landowner, I cannot consider that it shows that the operator has the landowner’s authority to manage the site. Therefore, I must conclude that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly, and I allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however, as I am allowing this appeal I do not need to consider those further grounds.

Umkomaas

I'd write to POPLA (cc to the DVLA) and ask are they referring this clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice to the BPA for sanction consideration. It just shouldn't be left on the basis you've dodged the bullet. There is clear evidence of non-compliance with the CoP. How many others have paid ECP when they had no authority to make any claim on them. Serious stuff - give them some of the same crap they gave you to deal with. 

Bestie2020

Hi All, 
My apologies if this has already been covered but I couldn't find anything specifically about getting a ticket from a camera when in my car stopped rather than parking.  

I received a notice from 'One Parking Solution'.  I pulled up outside a shop where my partner went to grab a few things. I waited outside, turned around and then left (around 10 minutes) before driving off.  There was a sign which I didn't notice saying no parking and hence the ticket. I responded saying I didn't park as never left the vehicle and didn't see the signage.  Rejected appeal based on the signage being there. 

Question is whether it's worth appealing and saying I didn't actually park or is that just semantics in this instance? A more useful sign would have been no stopping at which point it would make more sense.  I didn't consider myself as parking but not sure where the law stands. I can appeal through POPLA but didn't want to waste time if my reason isn't really valid. I was thinking of taking some pictures of signs which when drove past recently are small but they are there. 

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you and apologies again if I'm covering old ground. 

Jonny 

Le_Kirk

1.  Yes it has already been covered - in depth
2.  You've posted in the POPLA outcomes thread, rather than the main forum
3.  Read the NEWBIE sticky
4.  Search the forum with OPS as your search term