POPLA Decisions

sub54bod

Umkomaas said:

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.

You are so right @Umkomaas. 

Glad to get one back for the harrassed and abused shopper being preyed on by these companies.

Hopefully my info will make it a bit easier to see what needs to be done because I suspect the hassle involved fighting it makes quite a few think it's not worth the effort which is a shame but understandable....

oscard

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6146428/one-parking-solution-notice-to-keeper-pcn/p6

One Parking Solution - Notice to Keeper - Plough Lane - Victory (x2)

POPLA 1

Decision: Successful

 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to vehicle not pre-authorised.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they are the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant advises that the PCN states the wrong location.

They explain that the operator has not allowed the correct grace periods.

They advise that the signage including the entrance sign is inadequate.

They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner.

They advise that the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice.

They explain that the PCN does not state the period parking.

They advise that the images on the PCN do not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

They question the reliability and accuracy of the ANPR system.

They advise that the signage does not warn what the ANPR data will be used for.

They dispute that the operator has planning permission for its signage.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was not pre-authorised.

The appellant disputes that the operator has allowed the correct grace period. Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association 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 evidence shows that the driver entered the site at X:05 and left at X:07. This is far less than the consideration period the driver is permitted.

There has been no indication that the driver did anything other than enter, realise they could not park and leave.

As I am not satisfied that the operator has shown that the driver breached the terms and conditions, I am allowing the appeal. As I have allowed the appeal, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

 

POPLA 2

Decision: Successful

 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to vehicle not pre-authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

He states that the PCN has incorrect location details.

He states the operator has not complied with grace periods.

He states the entry signage is inadequately positioned and the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

He states there is no evidence of landowner authority. He states the operator has failed to comply with the ICO code of Practice.

He states there is no evidence of period parked.

He states the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

He states the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

He states the signage fails to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

He states that no planning permission has been granted by Merton Borough Council. 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 appellant explains that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the PCN has incorrect location details.

He states the operator has not complied with grace periods.

He states the entry signage is inadequately positioned and the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

He states there is no evidence of landowner authority.

He states the operator has failed to comply with the ICO code of Practice. He states there is no evidence of period parked.

He states the vehicle images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. He states the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

He states the signage fails to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

He states that no planning permission has been granted by Merton Borough Council. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided to demonstrate that the area parked is not Plough Lane.

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and the PCN stipulates Plough Lane. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and must note that Plough Lane is not under the operator’s jurisdiction and as such is not covered by their terms and conditions.

The PCN needs to stipulate the area parked but as this is not covered by the operator, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the Parking Charge Notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

Umkomaas

Well done @oscard. I've replied more substantively on your original thread. 👍

Fruitcake

Well done Oscard. Two wins against the scammers.

Since the scammers had no reason to access and process your personal data for either case, but more so for the second one, you might consider complaints to the DVLA, or even a court claim for breach of DPA GDPR relations.
Complaints to the DVLA should be twofold. One that the scammers obtained and proceed keeper data without reason, and two that the DVLA released the data without any checks.

A complaint to your MP wouldn't go amiss either.

Le_Kirk

You've posted this on the decisions about POPLA appeals.  Did you mean to do that or rather on one of your other threads?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6216628/popla-appeal-decision-received#latest
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6184342/60-fine-for-a-4-minute-stop-help#latest
You will get more help if you continue the story on your original thread as posters will be able to see your whole story rather than having to jump between two or three different threads.

jamesmc80

I will put it in my thread i didn't even mean to be in here 

Londoner2020

I was given a penalty notice by P4 Parking (London) in a residents only car park for not displaying my permit whilst parked in my own space. It had fallen of the windscreen and slid partially under the dash. I appealed to P4 as but they shamelessly rejected it saying, even though in other car parks when I've either supplied a permit or receipt other parking companies have cancelled the ticket. After speaking to neighbours and looking online I was told that they have done this to countless other residents even though they are supposed to be protecting the parking for them rather than harassing them. Some neighbours have said they just ignore the tickets and others have said after losing their appeal with P4 they simply pay them £100 to get them off their back. So as they put me to strict liability I thought I would do the same and see if they were complying with the BPA code and commonly accepted signage requirements. I submitted the appeal below and after a few weeks received an email from POPLA saying P4 had told them they would not like to contest the appeal and were cancelling my ticket. I would urge other people who are victims of unscrupulous parking companies to do the same. I wrote my appeal based on helpful information I found online posted by other people and by reading the BPA code so thought I would post my appeal online to try and help other people. Even if it helps one other person it will be worth it.

1. The signs in this car park are not compatible with the BPA Code of Conduct: they do not meet minimum size requirements, are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
2. No valid contract as differing contracts are displayed across the car park

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and POFA

 

1. Signs not compatible with BPA Code and not visible or clear

Under the current edition of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Conduct (January 2020 – v8(2)) and previous editions parking operators are required to tell “drivers what your terms and conditions are”. Specifically, in paragraph 19.3 it states “Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.” The Operators signs in this car park are 42cm wide and so breach the BPA minimum requirement, see photo 1.

The BPA code specifically states under paragraph 19.3 that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As can be seen in photos 1 and 3 the font size used for the penalty charge sums is around 0.5cm tall and the font size used for the parking violation scenarios is around 1cm tall, neither sizes even from a short distance are easy to read as can be seen in photo 4. Printing companies recommend “the proper sign and banner font size is to make them at least one inch (72 pt.) tall for every 10 feet of viewing distance.”

(MSE wont let me post links but you can find this on 48hr prints website under banner font size)

 

The signs are also not conspicuous as they are all placed on one side of some parking columns rendering them invisible if you walk in the opposite direction down entire parking rows see photo 5. Nor are there signs at the car park entrance or indeed consistently placed next to other important health and safety, fire evacuation, speed or directional signs, which are written in bigger fonts, see photos 6-15.

In POPLA decision 5960956830, signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, were inadequate:

In the Parking Eye v Beavis court case the signs were seen as clear with an £85 charge in the largest font size and a contrasting colour background. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park. Here is the 'Beavis case' sign:

(MSE wont let me post link but you can find via google if you search images for beehive 85 parking eye)

   

2. No valid contract as differing contracts are displayed across the car park

As can be seen in photos 1 and 2 provided by me there are two different sets of contract terms on signs in this car park, which significantly stipulate different discount penalty charge amounts of £60 and £65 amongst other variations. All contracts must have certainty of terms to be legally binding, as stated by many legal websites and law firms. UK law firm Herrington Michael for example citing the 2018 Rosalina Investments case, state on their website:

 

What’s the test for a legally binding contract?
For a legally binding contract to exist, the following elements must occur: offer, acceptance, consideration (e.g. a payment of money or something else of value or a promise), and an intention on all parties to be legally bound by the agreed terms. It must also be established that there is certainty of terms.

(MSE wont let me post links but you can find the info on herrington michael website via google)

 

The Operator cannot rely on two contracts but only one in law, due to the basic principles of Contract Law that there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. As there are at least two different versions of the contract there can be no certainty of terms and no legally binding contract.

2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code defines the mandatory requirements for this and I put this Operator to strict proof of full compliance:
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 contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the restrictions which only the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

I consider any one of the above reasons enough for you to uphold my appeal, and so look forward to your positive response.  

Fruitcake

You did not receive a penalty notice.
Well done on your win, but what does your lease/AST say about parking, permits, parking charges, and having to pay unregulated scammers who are not a party to your contract to live there?

The residents should be hammering the landowner or management agents to get all charges cancelled and the scammers kicked out, or at least get resident's and registration numbers put on an exemption list.

jamsterc

Hello folks. I was disappointed to have my appeal rejected by POPLA (see below). Basically I parked my scooter on an 8m footpath (while I shopped for 20 mins) to keep the marked bays free for cars. This was at One Stop shopping centre in Birmingham. Got hit with a £60->100 charge, issued by Park Watch. On checking the signage I found that it actually directs people to park on the footpath through it's bad wording: "Failure to comply with the below may result in a Parking Charge…parks or causes an obstruction to any pathway". I argued that I did comply with the signage as I did indeed park there! Adele didn't seem to understand this point and even quotes the same wording. I have decided not to pay and feel confident a court assessor will see my point and dismiss it. Fingers crossed! A letter arrived from Debt Recovery Plus last week, inflating the invoice to £170, without explaining the increase, although I imagine the extra £70 is for them...

POPLA assessment and decision 

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Adele Ditchfield

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking on a footpath.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant says they parked in accordance with the terms on signage, which advises motorists to park on the pathway. They say the signage is phrased badly and encourages motorists to park the way they did. The appellant says they parked their scooter on the pathway. The appellant says the signage does not comply with section 18.3 of the code of practice. The appellant has provided evidence of signage. The appellant has reiterated their appeal in their motorist comments.

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 operator has provided photographic evidence of signage in the car park that states: “Failure to comply with the below may result in a Parking Charge…parks or causes an obstruction to any pathway…£100 Parking Charge”. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on a footpath. The appellant says they parked in accordance with the terms on signage, which advises motorists to park on the pathway. They say the signage is phrased badly and encourages motorists to park the way they did. The appellant says they parked their scooter on the pathway. Whilst I acknowledge the appellants comments, I do not agree that signage encourages motorists to park in breach of the terms. I am satisfied the signage is clear in explaining a PCN will be issued to vehicles that parks or causes an obstruction to any pathway. The appellant has mis-interpreted the signage. The appellant says the signage does not comply with section 18.3 of the code of practice. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 19.3: 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. from viewing the signage, I am satisfied it complies with the code of practice. 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. It is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant parked on a pathway, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

I have decided not to pay and feel confident a court assessor will see my point and dismiss it. 

Good, but it would be a Judge.  That is the right thing to do.

A letter arrived from Debt Recovery Plus last week, inflating the invoice to £170, without explaining the increase, although I imagine the extra £70 is for them...

And they won't get it and it is unrecoverable inflation of the parking charge, that has to already include all the letter costs.  This scam is like a plumber giving people a quote for £100, of which £70 is labour/profit, then farming the work to a sub-contractor who then adds another £70 in labour/profit for himself.

Double-counting.  Illegal.  Bloody obvious!  Hopefully the MHCLG will agree.