POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Bestie2020 said:

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 

LOL, Eastgate Wharf Lewes by any chance?!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6136572/one-parking-solution-warned-by-a-judge-that-they-may-face-an-application-for-a-civil-restraint-order/p1

Bestie2020
Start your OWN new thread, you won't be paying OPS.  If it's in Sussex, I am local.
Please read the sticky thread mentioned in my signature below, first!

Kezzersp1

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Xxxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that due to a machine fault he could not pay by card. He states he entered his vehicle registration (VRM) but the payment machine did not recognise this. He states this is a fault with the machine and as such it charged him the wrong amount. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. 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: “See main tariff board by payment machine for details. Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff. £100 parking charge notice may be issued to all vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 11:03, and exiting at 13:49, totalling a stay of 2 hours 46 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. The appellant explains that due to a machine fault he could not pay by card. He states he entered his vehicle registration (VRM) but the payment machine did not recognise this. He states this is a fault with the machine and as such it charged him the wrong amount. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and evidence provided. I do appreciate the appellant paid for parking but did not pay enough. As the appellant was on site for almost 3 hours he should have paid £3.50. I understand that there may have been issues with the payment machine, but the appellant should have spoken with the operator before leaving the site. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which is clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. I do understand that the appellant was having issues with payment, but the tariff board clearly sets out the correct tariff for the length of time on site, if the appellant was still having issues he should have contacted the operator as the No is listed on the signage. I find it reasonable the appellant was afforded every opportunity to comply with the terms of parking on the day of the breach. 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. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to make a valid payment. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Scrapit

Kezzersp1 said:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Xxxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that due to a machine fault he could not pay by card. He states he entered his vehicle registration (VRM) but the payment machine did not recognise this. He states this is a fault with the machine and as such it charged him the wrong amount. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. 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: “See main tariff board by payment machine for details. Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff. £100 parking charge notice may be issued to all vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 11:03, and exiting at 13:49, totalling a stay of 2 hours 46 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. The appellant explains that due to a machine fault he could not pay by card. He states he entered his vehicle registration (VRM) but the payment machine did not recognise this. He states this is a fault with the machine and as such it charged him the wrong amount. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and evidence provided. I do appreciate the appellant paid for parking but did not pay enough. As the appellant was on site for almost 3 hours he should have paid £3.50. I understand that there may have been issues with the payment machine, but the appellant should have spoken with the operator before leaving the site. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which is clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. I do understand that the appellant was having issues with payment, but the tariff board clearly sets out the correct tariff for the length of time on site, if the appellant was still having issues he should have contacted the operator as the No is listed on the signage. I find it reasonable the appellant was afforded every opportunity to comply with the terms of parking on the day of the breach. 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. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to make a valid payment. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

When was this decision?

qudutiyds

Decision: allowed (operator didn't contest)
Date: August 2020
PPC: P4Parking Ltd
Forum thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77506575#Comment_77506575
Appeal letter available in thread
Circumstances:
visitor parking on residential site; delayed return to car meant permit had expired
Grounds for appeal: 

1)      No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

2)      No Advertising Consent for signage from Greenwich Borough Council

3)      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

4)      The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

Barbara44

Thank you for all your help - appeal won. Clearly Britannia write standard letters for all appeals and await payment or decision by POPLA. 

SilverTeddy11

Unsuccessful at POPLA stage, what now?  

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: XXXXX XXXXXXX

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 parking.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

 • They state that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association Section (BPA) Code of Practice 17.4A. regarding minor keying errors. • They say that the information on the signs in this car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is no clear indication of the sum of the charge itself • They state that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and there is no information about Subject Access Request rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate which is a serious BPA Code of Practice breach. • They state that the operator has not allowed any Grace Period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association ( BPA) Code of Practice . • They state that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. • They say that the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. • They advise that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition data will be used for. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant has raised the following points: They state that the operator has not challenged their point regarding minor keying errors and the evidence of the signage shows that the signage is not compliant. They say that the text is very small and this increases the chances of motorists entering the wrong location code. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore assess the appellant’s liability as the keeper . 

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “Parking Tariffs Apply”,”paybyphone”,”Location: XXXXXX”,”Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:02 and exiting the site at 16:16 on the day in question. The operator has provided evidence which shows that no payment was made for the vehicle in the day in question. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. 
I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. 

The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association Section (BPA) Code of Practice 17.4A. regarding minor keying errors. I note the appellant’s comments and I have reviewed Section 17 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “17 Keying Errors 17.1 Technology is being used more and more by parking providers as an aid to car park management. Irrespective of whether a parking facility is off-street or on-street, the increased use of technology will often require a motorist to correctly enter their vehicle registration at a pay and display machine, parking kiosk or at a validation terminal inside the location in instances where parking is offered at a reduced rate or free of charge. 17.2 There is also an increase in the use of mobile phone apps to pay for parking. Just as in the case of fixed or stationary parking payment terminals, mobile phone parking apps also require a motorist to correctly enter their car registration number. 17.3 No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges. 17.4 The Code recognises that keying errors can be grouped into 2 main areas; A) Minor Keying Errors Examples of a minor keying error could include: 0 instead of o. I instead of L. 1 instead of I Up to one letter wrong, removed, or swapped Up to one number wrong, removed, or swapped Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)”. Although I can appreciate that the appellant feels their reasons for appealing the charge are in due to a minor keying error, they had paid a completely different site by entering the wrong location code. No payment at all would have been recorded on the system for the site they had parked on because the payment went to Fountain Street, Bank Parking. Due to this I am satisfied that the operator is not obliged to offer a goodwill gesture of £20. 

The appellant says that the information on the signs in this car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is no clear indication of the sum of the charge itself. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Sections 19.1 to 19.5 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states:” A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. 19.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance • when the car park is very small • at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations • at parking areas where general parking is not permitted 19.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.19.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations. See paragraphs 2(2), 2(3) and 12 of the Schedule. 19.5 The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information. Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” 

The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and there is no information about Subject Access Request rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate which is a serious BPA Code of Practice breach. 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. 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 operator or the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) directly. 

The appellant says that the operator has not allowed any Grace Period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I acknowledge the appellant’s comment and I refer to Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice which is entitled Consideration and Grace Periods. It states” 13.1 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. 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. 13.3 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. 13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc. 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 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”. As the appellant has not provided any further explanation as to why they feel they were not allowed a consideration period or a grace period I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the BPA Code of Practice. 

The appellant states that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice 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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” Further to this, section 7.3 states, “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.” The operator has provided a singes witness statement and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. 

They say that the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. The operator has provided evidence of the system record of registered vehicles. This record shows the images captured by the ANPR cameras of vehicles entering and exiting the car park, and provides a time and date for this, to calculate the total stay a vehicle may remain in the car park. The operator has provided evidence of a search made for the appellant’s vehicle, using the appellant’s registration. This confirms that only two entries have been recorded for the vehicle, once entering, and once exiting and no payments were located. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, POPLA will on occasion, receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, POPLA must consider if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence or explanation as to why they feel the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. 

The appellant advises that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition data will be used for. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states “By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems”. 

Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Fruitcake

Issthu said:

Unsuccessful at POPLA stage, what now?  

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: XXXXX XXXXXXX

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 parking.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

 • They state that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association Section (BPA) Code of Practice 17.4A. regarding minor keying errors. • They say that the information on the signs in this car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is no clear indication of the sum of the charge itself • They state that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and there is no information about Subject Access Request rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate which is a serious BPA Code of Practice breach. • They state that the operator has not allowed any Grace Period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association ( BPA) Code of Practice . • They state that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. • They say that the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. • They advise that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition data will be used for. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant has raised the following points: They state that the operator has not challenged their point regarding minor keying errors and the evidence of the signage shows that the signage is not compliant. They say that the text is very small and this increases the chances of motorists entering the wrong location code. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore assess the appellant’s liability as the keeper . 

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “Parking Tariffs Apply”,”paybyphone”,”Location: XXXXXX”,”Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:02 and exiting the site at 16:16 on the day in question. The operator has provided evidence which shows that no payment was made for the vehicle in the day in question. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. 
I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. 

The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association Section (BPA) Code of Practice 17.4A. regarding minor keying errors. I note the appellant’s comments and I have reviewed Section 17 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “17 Keying Errors 17.1 Technology is being used more and more by parking providers as an aid to car park management. Irrespective of whether a parking facility is off-street or on-street, the increased use of technology will often require a motorist to correctly enter their vehicle registration at a pay and display machine, parking kiosk or at a validation terminal inside the location in instances where parking is offered at a reduced rate or free of charge. 17.2 There is also an increase in the use of mobile phone apps to pay for parking. Just as in the case of fixed or stationary parking payment terminals, mobile phone parking apps also require a motorist to correctly enter their car registration number. 17.3 No one wants to receive a parking charge for making a mistake when entering their vehicle registration number into a Pay and Display machine or parking validation terminal, when they have paid for the parking event. Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges. 17.4 The Code recognises that keying errors can be grouped into 2 main areas; A) Minor Keying Errors Examples of a minor keying error could include: 0 instead of o. I instead of L. 1 instead of I Up to one letter wrong, removed, or swapped Up to one number wrong, removed, or swapped Numbers and/or letters in the wrong order (but where the correct registration is still recognisable)”. Although I can appreciate that the appellant feels their reasons for appealing the charge are in due to a minor keying error, they had paid a completely different site by entering the wrong location code. No payment at all would have been recorded on the system for the site they had parked on because the payment went to Fountain Street, Bank Parking. Due to this I am satisfied that the operator is not obliged to offer a goodwill gesture of £20. 

The appellant says that the information on the signs in this car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is no clear indication of the sum of the charge itself. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Sections 19.1 to 19.5 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states:” A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. 19.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance • when the car park is very small • at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations • at parking areas where general parking is not permitted 19.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.19.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations. See paragraphs 2(2), 2(3) and 12 of the Schedule. 19.5 The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information. Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” 

The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and there is no information about Subject Access Request rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate which is a serious BPA Code of Practice breach. 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. 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 operator or the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) directly. 

The appellant says that the operator has not allowed any Grace Period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. I acknowledge the appellant’s comment and I refer to Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice which is entitled Consideration and Grace Periods. It states” 13.1 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. 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. 13.3 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. 13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc. 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 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”. As the appellant has not provided any further explanation as to why they feel they were not allowed a consideration period or a grace period I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the BPA Code of Practice. 

The appellant states that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice 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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” Further to this, section 7.3 states, “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.” The operator has provided a singes witness statement and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. 

They say that the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. The operator has provided evidence of the system record of registered vehicles. This record shows the images captured by the ANPR cameras of vehicles entering and exiting the car park, and provides a time and date for this, to calculate the total stay a vehicle may remain in the car park. The operator has provided evidence of a search made for the appellant’s vehicle, using the appellant’s registration. This confirms that only two entries have been recorded for the vehicle, once entering, and once exiting and no payments were located. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, POPLA will on occasion, receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, POPLA must consider if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence or explanation as to why they feel the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. 

The appellant advises that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition data will be used for. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states “By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems”. 

Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

What is the name oif the PPC?
Did you have a thread for this case?

You are now in ignore mode unless you receive a court claim. The PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist so there is no requirement to pay unless a judge later says so.

Coupon-mad

No-one cares about losing at POPLA.

velvetyfrog

Decision

Successful (dated 03/09/2020)

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s (ParkingEye) case is that the vehicle exceeded the maximum parking period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds for appeal: • The operator has failed to deliver a notice to hirer which was fully compliant with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver. • The operator failed to give a grace period compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, • The operator has failed to maintain Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and carry out quality checks. • The appellant says that the operator has failed to state the period of parking as required by PoFA 2012. • They say that the signage is unclear and inadequate • They say that there is no evidence of landowner authority. • They state there is a misrepresentation of statutory authority. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a PDF document detailing in great length the above grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the hirer for the PCN. As such I need to consult with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Schedule 4 paragraph 13 (2) of PoiFA 2012 states: “ (2) The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” Having reviewed the operator’s evidence I can see that the operator has not provided any of the documents which are required under 13 (2) of PoFA 2012. As such, I am unable to determine that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the hirer of the vehicle and must allow this appeal as PoFA 2012 has not been met. Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has raised other grounds, I have not considered them as PoFA 2012 has not been met. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

*****thanks to everyone contributing to this forum, I would not have done it without you******

Coupon-mad

Nice to see a POPLA Assessor getting a decision about POFA non-compliance right.