POPLA Decisions

mac_max

Fruitcake said:

You might get somewhere if you start your own thread as a few posters might link you to judgments they have come across if they have time, but there is no list of court cases and results on this forum.

Thanks @Fruitcake, that's very helpful. I'm just getting the hang of navigating this forum. I have (I think) started another thread in the right place. It does not need to be a court decision to illustrate the point. It just needs to be short and interesting. Ie, a parking adjudicator finding some facts, applying the law, and coming to a conclusion.

mac_max

Coupon-mad said:

This decision about PACE V LENGYEL covers what you need, though:

or Excel v Smith on appeal:

Really appreciate these, thank you @Coupon-mad!

Coupon-mad

You are muddling up parking adjudicators with Judges? 

What do you think a parking adjudicator is, there is no such thing in private parking and you will NEVER find a sensible decision from POPLA since 2015 when the current lot took over from the GOOD LondonCouncils version of (legally trained) POPLA assessors. 

In 2013-2015 we had some sensible assessor decisions.  That was the only good time for POPLA.

Coupon-mad

OPS beaten at Broadwater Street West, Worthing - a well known trap next to Halfords, with terrible signage.   

Same dodgy site as in this article featuring Neil Donohue who has recently beaten even more tickets for days when he DID pay and display and did nothing wrong:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt
That complete Sunday Times article about Neil Donohue is here (3rd August 6.21pm)-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6019249/ops-forbidding-posting-on-mse-parking-forum/p7

Anyway, this POPLA appeal involved a lady unrelated to the above case. 
She won on 'grace period not sufficient' given the poor signage with very small print.  
CCTV captured the car driving in, turning round and pulling over at the exit to let a passenger out, pretty much on street. 

Total time on site 5 minutes 42 seconds. 
This win was not down to me but the appellant was ably assisted by a non-Sussex based BMPA member on a Facebook group:

Successful

Verification Code:  4981780021

Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator caseThe operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “no payment/ ticket”.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following in her appeal to POPLA: 1. No Keeper Liability. 2. Driver Not Identified. 3. Grace Period Not Applied.4. Inadequate Signage. 5. Template Reply To Appeal. 6. Failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice for CCTV/ANPR. 7. ANPR accuracy. 8. No Landowner Authority.To support this appeal, the appellant has provided evidence of a court case regarding grace periods. The appellant has also uploaded a letter which details in full, her grounds of appeal.Assessor supporting rational for decisionIn terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. In this case, the operator has issued a PCN for failing to make a payment and display a ticket. I can see that the terms at the site state that a valid pay and display ticket must be purchased at the site and displayed in the front windscreen. Failing to do so, will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. However, the appellant has raised many grounds of appeal to POPLA. Mainly, the appellant has raised concerns with the signage at the site and has raised grace periods. As the keeper of the vehicle, she has explained that the writing on the signage was very small which had taken time to read. She has also said that she was on site for 5 minutes and that a grace period should apply for a motorist to read the terms and leave the site. She says a grace period was not given. Firstly, section 19.1 of the British Parking Association 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”. Whilst there are signs on site, I am satisfied that the writing on those signs is written in small writing which can be difficult to read from inside a vehicle. The appellant has said that the motorist would need to get out of the vehicle to read the signs. The operator has also said in its summary that a passenger got out of the vehicle. I am satisfied from this that they could have exited the vehicle to read the signage more closely. If they did not accept the terms, they then should have been given a consideration period to reject the terms and leave the site, as stated in section 13.1 of the BPA code of practice: “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”. The evidence shows that the appellant remained on site for 5 minutes and 42 seconds. Given the poor signage, I am satisfied that the appellant spent this time reading the signs and then decided to leave the site. This is within a reasonable consideration period to do so. 
Therefore, I consider that section 19.1 and section 13.1 have not been met and so, I consider the PCN to have been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I will allow this appeal and any other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.

jamesmc80

Hi there this is my original thread here for the background on my case as it goes back to June https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6184342/60-fine-for-a-4-minute-stop-help/p6

My popla appeal came through today and to my utter shock it was unsuccessful here is the appeal. Am I at a stage now where I should be facing reality that am now going to have to pay 100 quid for a 4 minute stop. Popla have used my defence to their advantage saying I wasn't going to park and had entered a contract to take a phone call. Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gemma

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not compiled with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding consideration and grace periods. The appellant states there is inadequate signage. He says that there is no entrance signage and the signage is not clear or legible from all parking spaces. He explains that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the Parking Charge. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has indicated in his appeal to the parking operator that he was the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering his liability as driver of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Failure to comply with the following terms & conditions may result in a parking charge…A valid permit must be displayed for inspection at all times…£100 Parking Charge.” The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked without a valid permit. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 13:34 and exiting at 13:38. 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 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 the operator has not compiled with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding consideration and grace periods. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “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.” The appellant in his appeal to the parking operator stated he entered the site to take an urgent telephone call. As such, I do not consider they was on site deciding if they wish to stay or go. Therefore, i am satisfied the appellant entered into a parking contract with the operator by remaining on site. The appellant states there is inadequate signage.

 He says that there is no entrance signage and the signage is not clear or legible from all parking spaces. He explains that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the Parking Charge. 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. 

Within Section 19.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “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.” In addition to this, Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “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 In this case I can see that the operator has installed an entrance sign which is visible throughout the site. 

Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location, and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “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.” 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 in response to the operator’s case file that the image circled is not at the entrance. I note the appellant’s comments and I have reviewed the evidence of the signage on the site provided by the operator and I am satisfied there is sufficient signage throughout the site to notify the appellant terms applied. 

The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. 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). 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. The operator has provided a copy of its contract agreement and I am satisfied the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. On this occasion, the appellant parked without a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Am I at a stage now where I should be facing reality that am now going to have to pay 100 quid for a 4 minute stop. 

No.  Did you not yet do the obvious forum search* to allay your fears and see what all the other people who happen to lose at POPLA have done (who cares about POPLA?):

* POPLA lost

mightyreal_1

Just wanted to share the happy news with you all. Thanks to this forum, my appeal was successful!:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

sub54bod

mightyreal_1 said:

Just wanted to share the happy news with you all. Thanks to this forum, my appeal was successful!:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

mightyreal_1 - Can you say what you got the PCN for, it would be helpful to others following you?.....looking at the assessors comments it looks like it might be an " Abused Patron Parking" case...ie you they claimed you left site. Is that right?

Did you post your appeal in a thread? If so, a link to it so others can see what you said, would also be very helpful.

Thanks

sub54bod

This is the result of my appeal to POPLA for a PCN received from Care Parking for "Abused Patron Parking" which in this case means they alleged the driver left the site.  The successful appeal judgement is shown below. The parking company Care Parking (who are owned by Anchor Security Services - EW), offered no evidence when challenged to prove the driver left site:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

There aren't a lot of other examples I could find of recent appeals to POPLA for "Abused Patron Parking" in this extremely large thread (nearly 400 pages as I write).....I looked through about 250 pages to find info I could use!!

I found two that were relevant and the links are shown below to help anyone else who is accused of APP:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337/popla-decisions/p298

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337/popla-decisions/p308

In other threads there is fantastic help on constructing an appeal - the NEWBIES thread is the first essential thing to read.

This thread below was very useful as it it where I received my PCN:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6176734/abused-patron-parking-aldi-preston-care-parking/p1

The key thing you want to know is what grounds to use for your appeal. This thread shows what I used, although in my case the parking company didn't provide any evidence when challenged. So the first thing to do would be to challenge the parking company to prove the driver left site with photos etc. See this thread:

Hope this helps

Umkomaas

Well done @sub54bod, nice result. Probably the reason there are very few examples of POPLA appeals for 'Abused Patron Parking' (aka 'Leaving the site') is that it's a relatively new PPC scam income generator and so very few of them get as far as POPLA. It's always going to be the most difficult of charges to make stick, but there are plenty enough sheeple supinely opening up their wallets to a PPC showing them a couple of photos.