POPLA Decisions

Fruitcake

zoro99 said:

UKPC Ticket "vehicle owner/driver left site" 

This thread is for posting PoPLA decisions, not asking questions about a PCN.

If you need help, please read the sticky thread for NEWBIES that will have been just above or below this thread. If you need further help then start your own thread.

Do not blab about the driver's identity like you did in your post above.

Coupon-mad

This isn't a thread for questions.  If you have your own thread you will get answers.

remzeh1

Please could I have some opinions on the POPLA appeal on my own post???

Le_Kirk

Please see the post above yours!

thegentleway

lol - is POPLA taking bribes from PE!?
My appeal contained a picture of the car park entrance clearly showing there was no sign at the entrance (The BPA code of practise clearly states "A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area.").

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gayle Stanton

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 purchase the appropriate parking time and remained for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • 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. • 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. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant states that: • The alleged time in car park is 1h10m (page 2). • There is no evidence the car stayed in the car park during the time alleged: only a couple of pictures (page 3) with some time stamps photoshopped onto the pictures. • The driver could have left and re-entered the car park multiple times during the alleged time. • The witness statement on Page 6 is illegible, they can only make out the name Kay Prashar. They have looked him up on the University people search and his job description is temporary worker and type casual staff. He does not have authority to make statements on behalf of the land owner. • Page 7 is not evidence that the driver did not have a permit. The driver can supply a permit, however there is no option to attach it to this comment box. It was clearly displayed in the tax holder on the bottom left hand side of the windscreen, which can be seen on the pictures in page. The text for signs shown on page 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27 is clearly way too small to be able to read without a magnifying glass. The sign on page 27 is also clearly so high it is impossible to see or even possible read without a ladder. The signs are also too small; the sizes on page 30 are misleading. The signs are clearly different sizes despite page 30 claiming they are the same size. The signage layout plan on page 32 is a complete work of fiction; in fact the key on page 31 clearly states the signs are to be installed. There is no evidence any of these signs have been installed. • They say they have already submitted evidence which clearly shows there are no signs at the entrance and proves this so called plan is inaccurate and misleading. The appellant has provided images of the site and a letter detailing their appeal.

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 purchase the appropriate parking time and remained for longer than permitted. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “Parking Tariffs Apply”,” Community members are entitled to 3 hours free parking , tariffs apply thereafter. If you stay over 3 hours, you must pay at the machine”,” Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions will result in a Parking Charge of :£70”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 07:57 and exiting the site at 09:08 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 and the vehicle had not been registered for a permit. 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 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. In the comments section they state that the text for signs shown on page 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27 is clearly way too small to be able to read without a magnifying glass. The sign on page 27 is also clearly so high it is impossible to see or even possible read without a ladder. The signs are also too small; the sizes on page 30 are misleading. The signs are clearly different sizes despite page 30 claiming they are the same size. The signage layout plan on page 32 is a complete work of fiction; in fact the key on page 31 clearly states the signs are to be installed. There is no evidence any of these signs have been installed. They say they have already submitted evidence which clearly shows there are no signs at the entrance and proves this so called plan is inaccurate and misleading. 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”. 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.” I am also satisfied that the signage complies with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice that the amount of the charge is clear and visible. The appellant states that 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. 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 appellant states that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. In the comments they say that the witness statement on Page 6 is illegible, they can only make out the name Kay Prashar. They have looked him up on the University people search and his job description is temporary worker and type casual staff. He does not have authority to make statements on behalf of the land owner. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice which states in 7 .1 “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).

thegentleway

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”. The operator has provided a 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. We accept witness statements from operators to confirm they have landowner authority to operate at a site, and we do this because it is only a small part of confirming on the balance of probabilities that they have landowner authority. The fact that there are signs, camera, personnel, etc, at the site also supports that proof. The evidence in this case is sufficient for POPLA’s needs. In the comments the appellant states that the alleged time in car park is 1h10m (page 2). There is no evidence the car stayed in the car park during the time alleged: only a couple of pictures (page 3) with some time stamps photoshopped onto the pictures. The driver could have left and re-entered the car park multiple times during the alleged time. 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. 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. They state that Page 4 of the operator’s evidence states: Community members are entitled to 3 hours free parking however the alleged time in car park is 1h10m (page 2). Page 7 is not evidence that the driver did not have a permit. They say that The driver can supply a permit, however there is no option to attach it to this comment box. It was clearly displayed in the tax holder on the bottom left hand side of the windscreen, which can be seen on the pictures in page. POPLA assess appeals on the evidence provided by both parties at the time of the assessment. Although I note that the appellant has advised that a permit can be provided there was not evidence provided by them to support this. I am satisfied that if the appellant had registered for a permit this would have been located on the printout provided by the operator which includes payments and permits. 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 purchase the appropriate parking time and remained for longer than permitted, 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.

KeithP

If you are hoping that someone will read that stuff, then it might be a good idea to edit those posts to make them readable.

Paragraphs please.

Edit: yes I know that's how PoPLA supplied it to you.

Scrapit

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Stephen Gordon

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no payment/ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the notice does not comply with the requirements of PoFA. The appellant has referred to legislation and has stated that upon carrying out research they cannot find the Parking Places Order (PPO) to have been delisted. The appellant states that as the PPO is still in place, the place cannot be the relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

 The appellant states that the driver has not been identified and strict proof of relevant land is required. The appellant has further reiterated their grounds of appeal in response to the operator’s evidence pack. 

The appellant states that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. The appellant explains that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has further referred to PoFA and has explained that adequate notice including the sum of the parking charge was not clearly displayed in comparison to other signs. The appellant has further reiterated the legibility of the signage in response to the operator’s evidence pack. 

The appellant states that the recent change of operators and the change of the terms have not been communicated to car park users in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has explained that upon review of Google Street View the car park was previously ran by the council and the former signage shows clear and consider wording for the fees, conditions and conclusions. The appellant explains that the change of ownership has not been made clear, nor whether terms such as free parking on a Sunday is permitted. 

The appellant states that the vehicle is shown in a public street within the Notice to Keeper. The appellant explains that the two images show the vehicle on a public highway. The appellant says that the operator need to prove that the vehicle entered their land. 

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. The appellant states that the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states that the PCN in question contains two images of a vehicle in transit and there is no timestamp on the photo itself which can clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving the car park. 

The appellant states that there is no evidence of advertising consent for signage. The appellant has requested evidence of advertising consent for the signs. 

The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the registered keeper 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. The appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal in their case, however I will be considering the following the point the appellant has raised. 

The appellant states that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. The appellant explains that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has further referred to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and has explained that adequate notice including the sum of the parking charge was not clearly displayed in comparison to other signs. The appellant has further reiterated the legibility of the signage in response to the operator’s evidence pack. I acknowledge the comments made by the appellant in their appeal. I refer the appellant to the high profile court case that debated the legality of parking charges. 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 the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 19.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 19.3 continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the 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. PoFA 2012 defines “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, this is 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 10 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. 

Whilst I accept there are a number of signs on display in the car park, the value of the parking charge is not prominently displayed by means of a large font on the sign in a separate coloured box for instance. Nor does the evidence suggest that the parking charge can be read from a distance. I also note that a number of notices are displayed high up which would be more difficult to read for some motorists. 

Therefore, I cannot be certain that the motorist was given adequate notice of the sum of the parking charge itself on the day of the event.

 As such, I am unable to assess the validity of the parking charge. 

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. As I am allowing the appeal there is no requirement to cover the appellant’s other points.

Umkomaas

Excellent result @Scrapit. It's a pity POPLA avoided adjudicating on the 'tougher' points you raised, opting for signage as an easier 'out' for them. 

I expect @D_P_Dance will be going down to his wine cellar right now to get a bottle of his best Blue Nun to send you as a congratulatory token to celebrate your success. 

Don't worry ... he can afford it! 😆

IduntExist

Thread: here

POPLA assessment and decision

26/10/2020

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site either for longer than authorised or without authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that the PCN was not issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states that the relevant grace period was not allowed. He states that signs on site did not make the terms, including the PCN amount, clear. He states that he has not been identified as the vehicle’s driver when it was parked on site. He states that there is no evidence the operator had the landowner’s authority to operate on site on the date in question. He states that the photographs of his vehicle included on the PCN did not comply with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that the camera system in use on site is not reliable or accurate. He states that the operator did not obtain relevant planning permission for the cameras or signs on site. He states that the driver was delayed on site by the actions of the restaurant. The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds in great detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator states in its evidence that the appellant identified himself as the vehicle’s driver when appealing the charge directly, however having reviewed the content of the original appeal I cannot agree that this is correct. The appellant identified himself to the operator only as the vehicle’s registered keeper. He did accept that he had been present when the vehicle was parked, but he did not actually state that he had been driving at any point. He has specifically denied having been the driver within his appeal to POPLA. I will therefore be considering whether the appellant is liable for the charge as the vehicle’s registered keeper, not as its driver. In order to transfer liability for payment of a charge from the unidentified driver of a vehicle to the registered keeper of that vehicle, POFA requires that an operator must issue a “notice to keeper” by “handing it to the keeper” or “sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.” The relevant period is defined as “the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” The Act goes on to clarify that “a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered […] on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in England and Wales.” The alleged breach occurred on X February 2020 and the relevant period as defined above therefore ended on X March 2020. In order for the operator to transfer liability for the charge to the appellant, POFA requires that the notice to keeper must have been issued so as to be received by the appellant on or before that date. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN, which is dated XX March 2020 and cannot therefore be considered to have been received by the appellant until YY March 2020, being the second working day after it was posted. This date was outside of the required period. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator is within its legal rights to pursue the appellant for payment of the charge as the vehicle’s registered keeper under POFA. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.