POPLA Decisions

Scrapit

Anyone got a clue on how to update popla appeals that were on hold? 

Umkomaas

Scrapit said:

Anyone got a clue on how to update popla appeals that were on hold? 

I think POPLA contact you when they're ready to adjudicate your particular case. I bet there's a fair backlog for them to get through. 

You could phone or email them to ask if you want to go early on it. I think they're quite receptive to phone calls, and seem to be helpful. 

Scrapit

Umkomaas said:

Scrapit said:

Anyone got a clue on how to update popla appeals that were on hold? 

I think POPLA contact you when they're ready to adjudicate your particular case. I bet there's a fair backlog for them to get through. 

You could phone or email them to ask if you want to go early on it. I think they're quite receptive to phone calls, and seem to be helpful. 

Yes they have emailed, with two options to:

Confirm you are happy with the case you have submitted; or

·   Provide any additional grounds of appeal or evidence you wish for us to consider

These need to be done within 21 days otherwise they assume you are happy to crack on as is. However I'm choosing to add to my appeal having come across new information. I dont get an option on the Web site so presume I reply to the email however it is a generic email with no details what so ever. I'll fire them an email and see what happens. Surprised no one on here has experience of it though.

Umkomaas

Scrapit said:

Umkomaas said:

Scrapit said:

Anyone got a clue on how to update popla appeals that were on hold? 

I think POPLA contact you when they're ready to adjudicate your particular case. I bet there's a fair backlog for them to get through. 

You could phone or email them to ask if you want to go early on it. I think they're quite receptive to phone calls, and seem to be helpful. 

Yes they have emailed, with two options to:

Confirm you are happy with the case you have submitted; or

·   Provide any additional grounds of appeal or evidence you wish for us to consider

These need to be done within 21 days otherwise they assume you are happy to crack on as is. However I'm choosing to add to my appeal having come across new information. I dont get an option on the Web site so presume I reply to the email however it is a generic email with no details what so ever. I'll fire them an email and see what happens. Surprised no one on here has experience of it though.

Ordinarily, once you've submitted your appeal, that's it. But with Covid, POPLA allowed even the briefest of 'holding' appeal, with the opportunity to add to it later.  Even if yours was a much more detailed appeal, this relaxation should allow you to add to it. Maybe you should introduce your addition with words to the effect that lockdown prevented you from fully gaining the evidence necessary to complete your appeal. 

Surprised no one on here has experience of it though.

The re-opening of POPLA has only been very recent. I think I've only seen a handful of cases where posters have been invited to make further inputs.  I guess there'll be plenty more in the weeks to come. 

Coupon-mad

You can email additional stuff for your appeal if it was on hold due to Covid.  Just make sure you put the ten digit code in the subject line.

Jamesterror

Thanks to the advice from these forums. I haven't posted here before but did a lot of reading which was helpful to articulate a solid response. I did advise POPLA I was the driver of the vehicle for transparency.
My appeal following Operator response

Dear Sir/Madam,

The sign on pg 26/30 in the Operator response states that “You agree to comply with these terms and conditions and are authorised to park only if you follow these correctly, including making payment where directed, entering your registration details via the payment and/or permit system. If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for authorised parking.”

As stated to the Operator, as far as I was aware on 30th June 2020, I complied with the conditions of the car park by making payment at the pay and display machine, entering my registration, and from what I had seen on the machine on the 3rd attempt to pay with 3 different cards, the message stating Payment Accepted. It feels that I have been misled into believing that I had complied with the terms and conditions and thereafter issued with a fine.

As per my interaction with HSBC/Monzo, each bank stated there is no record of a charge, successful or failed which indicates an issue with the Operator's end in processing the payment. The machine stated the payment was accepted, and the Operator is responsible for managing the payment processing of transactions. 

The evidence on pg 6/7 is not sufficient to confirm the machine was in working order as the transactions stated did not occur during my attendance of the car park, nor prior to my arrival, and does not confirm whether there were any temporary technical issues for connecting to 3rd parties to process payment. The first transaction was 58 minutes after my departure.

The ParkingEye website states “market leading SLA’s”. An industry standard for Service Level Agreements (SLA) is usually 99.9% service availability. 0.1% unavailability is equivalent to 8 hours 45mins per year. 

It seems I have been unfortunate to be impacted with a technical communication error which has led to a failed collection of the monies I intended to pay for the period of parking on 30th June 2020.

-----

Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that they visited Waltham Abbey with their partner on the day. The appellant says they spent approximately 5 to 10 minutes of 36 minutes spent on site trying to make payment of £1 for the parking charge. The appellant says that Monzo confirm the issue may have been caused on the merchant’s end meaning that the transaction would not have shown as failed on their statement. The appellant states they had the same confirmation from HSBC on 30 June. The appellant states it took them until the third attempt by using a different card. The appellant states once they typed in their PIN, the machine displayed the message “Payment Accepted”. The appellant states that they had requested a receipt from the machine but was not provided with one. The appellant asked the operator to check the failed merchant transactions for the timeframe, as well as the CCTV footage. The appellant states this was not provided by the operator. The appellant has further reiterated their points in response to the operator’s evidence pack. The appellant feels that they have been misled and fined as a result of the operator’s communication error. The appellant states the fine of £100 for 30 minutes is unreasonable for the 30 minutes spent, as when the parking charge is only £1 for up to 1 hour. 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. The appellant explains that they visited Waltham Abbey with their partner on the day. The appellant says they spent approximately 5 to 10 minutes of 36 minutes spent on site trying to make payment of £1 for the parking charge. The appellant says that Monzo confirm the issue may have been caused on the merchant’s end meaning that the transaction would not have shown as failed on their statement. The appellant states they had the same confirmation from HSBC on 30 June. The appellant states it took them until the third attempt by using a different card. The appellant states once they typed in their PIN, the machine displayed the message “Payment Accepted”. The appellant states that they had requested a receipt from the machine but was not provided with one. The appellant asked the operator to check the failed merchant transactions for the timeframe, as well as the CCTV footage. The appellant states this was not provided by the operator. The appellant has further reiterated their points in response to the operator’s evidence pack. The appellant feels that they have been misled and fined as a result of the operator’s communication error. I acknowledge the comments made by the appellant in their appeal. The burden of proof begins with the operator to demonstrate that it has correctly issued the parking charge. It in this case must demonstrate to POPLA that the payment machines were in working order on the day of the parking event, during the times that the appellant was parked on site. I note the operator has provided a list of vehicles that were able to make payment between the times of 12:43 and 18:18 on the day of the event. Whilst this demonstrates to me that the payment machines were working an hour after the appellant left the car park, this evidence does not demonstrate to me that it was in working order during the times the appellant had parked on site. I am satisfied that given the circumstances identified by the appellant, they were aware that payment needed to be made and only left the payment machines when they were told that the payment had been accepted. As the operator has not indicated to POPLA whether other motorists were able to pay by any means between 11:08 and 11:45 on the day of the event, I cannot be certain whether the payment machines were in working order at all. Therefore, I am unable to assess the validity of the parking charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. As I am allowing the appeal, there is no requirement to cover the appellant’s other points.

Fruitcake

Well done. A good result from an assessor who believed and sided with the motorist.

Coupon-mad

That's a good result, nicely written individual POPLA appeal too.

Please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

thegentleway

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle and is appealing the PCN. He states that signs in the 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. He states the operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing is the driver. The appellant adds that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has not 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 registered keeper. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Parking Tariffs Apply. Tariff Applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Up to 1 hour £1.20…Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 20:41, and exiting at 21:33, totalling a stay of 52 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not pay to park. The appellant explains that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle and is appealing the PCN. He states the operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing is the driver. I acknowledge that the appellant is the registered keeper and has not confirmed he was driving the vehicle at the time of the breach. As such I must consider if the operator has followed the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA 2012). I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 17th February and the PCN was issued on 20th February 2020, well within the 14 day timeframe set out in POFA. I also note that the PCN stipulates that if after 29 days the driver has not been named and the PCN has not been paid, the operator has the right to pursue the registered keeper for payment. As such I must advise that the operator has fully complied with POFA. He states that signs in the 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. I acknowledge the further comments made and have reviewed the evidence provided by the appellant firstly. I note that from the road upon entry into the site I can see at least 4 signs, whilst I do not expect any motorist to read them from that distance or whilst moving, it is clear that they are in situ. It is the responsibility of the motorist to review the signage once parked and comply with the terms and conditions. I can also see a further sign to the right upon entry, but I am unable to zoom in far enough to read it. It is possible that this is the entrance signage as stipulated in the operators site map which demonstrates it is on the right hand side upon entry. The operator has confirmed it is in situ, and the appellant has demonstrated there is signage to the right, but due to the quality of the image I am unable to verify if this is the entrance signage. As such, I must conclude that entrance signage is present as demonstrated by the operator as the appellant has failed to demonstrate there is not entrance signage. I have further reviewed the signage provided by the operator and must advise that the sum of the charge is clearly stated on the signage, it is in white lettering on a black background to make it prominent and stand out. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by both parties that there is signage on site and would be visible to all motorists at the time of parking. The appellant adds that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The operator has provided a copy of the witness statement to demonstrate it has authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question. The statement shows the site in question, the date the contract is in place from and to and is also signed by the landowner. This is more than sufficient to demonstrate that the operator has authority on the land. The operator has provided a list to demonstrate it searched for the appellants vehicle registration and found no payments or permits against it, demonstrating that the driver did not pay to park. POPLA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN and whilst I appreciate the points raised, the appellant has not mentioned why the driver was on site. It is clear the driver remained on site for 52 minutes and did not pay for the privilege, as such I must conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly. 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 are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however 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 purchase the appropriate parking time. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

zoro99

UKPC Ticket "vehicle owner/driver left site" My wife and daughter went to shops on a retail site in Lincoln. I went for for walk around site avoiding going in shops to reduce covid risk. I may have walked offsite , boundary was not clear don't recall seeing any warning signs. Returned to car when family had finished shop, we have receipts. Found ticket £100 , could not find attendant. Any advice on appeal? Anyone had similar?