POPLA Decisions

Stefano123

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Mulberry Walk, Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided documentation supporting their appeal and the issues they have raised, in which they list the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made when reviewing this information. The appellant states that: • The operator has no right to charge for ‘overstaying’. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority, which the operator must provide strict proof of in full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice • The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver • 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. • Insufficient Grace Period and/ insufficient information has been provided for either the operator or car users to understand when the parking event/ grace period actually begins or ends.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. I have to assess the appeal on the reason that the PCN was issued. The operator has issued the PCN, as the driver parked on the site for longer than permitted. The appellant has highlighted that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act (2012) when it comes to pursuing the driver. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle is therefore, I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The evidence provided shows me that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. As such, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle, to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states that “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. This continues to state in Section 13 (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. Followed by section 13 (5) “The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must be given by- (a) Handing them to the creditor; (b) Leaving them at any address which is specified in the notice to keeper as an address at which documents may be given to the creditor or to which payments may be sent; (c) Sending them by post to such an address so that they are delivered to the address within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph”. (d) From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a Notice to Hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that they then provided the relevant documents to the hirer, as required in PoFA 2012. The operator has issued the initial PCN to the hire company, who then passed over the appellant’s details , so that liability could be transferred accordingly. However, the operator has not provided evidence of any hire documentation to demonstrate that they were sent to the appellant/hirer. As such, the operator has not shown that they have followed the PoFA 2012, section 13, “Notice to Hirer”. In this case, I can only conclude that PoFA 2012 was not followed and therefore, the PCN has not been issued correctly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal that the appellant has raised. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done, great win, especially as POPLA assessors increasingly have little understanding of the finer points of PoFA. 

How long does it take these jokers to get this right? It's taken them almost 8 years to understand the PoFA basics, it might take as long again to understand hire/lease nuances. Clamping was so much easier, never a grey matter cell ever ruffled with that. Why can't they go back to that?  Oh dear, Sir Greg Knight!

k3wt

JustThisGuyYouKnow said:

ParkingEye - Tower Road

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid payment being made.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided POPLA with a PDF document, which contains his evidence and several grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant does not believe that the operator has applied a reasonable grace or observation period. • The appellant believes that there was no contract entered into between the driver and the operator. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this site. • The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is inadequate. • The appellant does not feel that the signs make it clear that the car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, or what the data captured by these cameras is used for. • The appellant has questioned whether or not the operator has the relevant planning permission granted on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has described the events on the date in question. He explained that the date in question fell on a Bank Holiday weekend, and that the driver spent time trying to locate an available parking space. Given that the location of the car park is a popular tourist destination and factoring in that it was the August Bank Holiday weekend, I am willing to consider the possibility that the car park was busy on the date in question. The appellant goes on to explain that upon realising there were no available parking spaces, the driver decided to leave the car park in question and sought alternate parking arrangements. To substantiate his claims, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of a receipt from an online system showing that a payment was made for the appellant’s vehicle registration to Cornwall Council. According to Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, parking operators must allow a driver “a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide whether to stay or go”. In this instance, the images captured by the ANPR cameras show that the vehicle entered the car park at 12:41 and exited the car park at 12:52. As a result, the vehicle remained in the car park for a total of 11 minutes. Under the aforementioned circumstances, I believe that 11 minutes is a reasonable period for the driver to enter the car park, try to find an available parking space and leave the car park when they realised this was not possible. By seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract. I conclude that the operator issued this PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal in his PDF document. However, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.


Just to note, this was one of two cases ... the other was also Successful on the fact that ParkingEye failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority.

Thanks all. :beer:

Hi
This is a great result. I wish to use this as a precedent for a similar appeal i am putting together. Is it possible to get a case reference or similar to support my appeal? How would one refer to this if not?

KeithP

k3wt said:

JustThisGuyYouKnow said:

ParkingEye - Tower Road

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid payment being made.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided POPLA with a PDF document, which contains his evidence and several grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant does not believe that the operator has applied a reasonable grace or observation period. • The appellant believes that there was no contract entered into between the driver and the operator. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this site. • The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is inadequate. • The appellant does not feel that the signs make it clear that the car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, or what the data captured by these cameras is used for. • The appellant has questioned whether or not the operator has the relevant planning permission granted on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has described the events on the date in question. He explained that the date in question fell on a Bank Holiday weekend, and that the driver spent time trying to locate an available parking space. Given that the location of the car park is a popular tourist destination and factoring in that it was the August Bank Holiday weekend, I am willing to consider the possibility that the car park was busy on the date in question. The appellant goes on to explain that upon realising there were no available parking spaces, the driver decided to leave the car park in question and sought alternate parking arrangements. To substantiate his claims, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of a receipt from an online system showing that a payment was made for the appellant’s vehicle registration to Cornwall Council. According to Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, parking operators must allow a driver “a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide whether to stay or go”. In this instance, the images captured by the ANPR cameras show that the vehicle entered the car park at 12:41 and exited the car park at 12:52. As a result, the vehicle remained in the car park for a total of 11 minutes. Under the aforementioned circumstances, I believe that 11 minutes is a reasonable period for the driver to enter the car park, try to find an available parking space and leave the car park when they realised this was not possible. By seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract. I conclude that the operator issued this PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal in his PDF document. However, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.


Just to note, this was one of two cases ... the other was also Successful on the fact that ParkingEye failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority.

Thanks all. :beer:

Hi
This is a great result. I wish to use this as a precedent for a similar appeal i am putting together. Is it possible to get a case reference or similar to support my appeal? How would one refer to this if not?

Send a PM to @JustThisGuyYouKnow and ask him, but it is over two years since he last visited MSE forums.

Poseidondevil

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the driver did not park within a marked bay at Manchester Royal Infirmary

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) and does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states there is unclear and inadequate signage and inadequate markings.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is a parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly and that the parking charge is therefore owed. The appellant has appealed the PCN as the registered Keeper of the vehicle therefore my assessment will focus on keeper’s liability. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, I do not consider it contains the required wording. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

^^ ParkingEye ^^

calmwalks

Thread can be found here.  Huge thank you for all the advice given by everyone.

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for a failure to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has advised that they were not the driver and appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As the driver has not been identified I must consider if the Notice to Keeper (NTK) complies with the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the NTK I can see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to the operator within 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given. As this information has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to pursue the keeper of the vehicle, in this case the appellant. As such, I will be considering their liability for this charge.

The appellant has expanded on their appeal within the document they have provided. They state that the parking operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and has raised the following grounds for appeal: • The appellant explains the grace period does not comply with the Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. They say that a stay of 15 minutes is not unreasonable as the site was not well lit at the time of the contravention which occurred at 19:55, when it was dark. • They also advise that there was a lack of entrance signs and specific parking terms signage throughout the site, which is in breach of Section 18.2 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. • The appellant states there was a failure to light up signage which would’ve allowed signage to be visible from all parking spaces. • They also say that the wording of the signage is lengthy and written in small text . • The appellant also states that there is no evidence that the operator has landowner authority to manage the site. • The appellant says there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked, which means the NTK failed to meet the requirements of PoFA 2012. • The appellant also states the images of the vehicle in the PCN does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice • They also advise that the signage fails to transparently warn what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) data will be used for.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction as the operator failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that payment has not been made for the during of the stay. Due to the insufficient evidence provided, I am therefore unable to determine that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news and here is your thread with your really good example of a POPLA appeal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6195922/pcn-help-please/p1

The defeated PPC was Local Parking Security Ltd. 

Hooray - well done!

booter

Operator Name

Secure Parking Solutions Ltd - EW

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for the following reason, parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a document which outlines their grounds of appeal. The appellant has raised the following: • A compliant notice to keeper was never served. The operator has failed to show that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge. • No evidence of landowner authority. • The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum itself. • Accuracy of ticket machine. To support this appeal, the appellant has provided a photo of the sign on site along with a ticket they purchased.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has indicated in their appeal to us that they are the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has also informed the operator, in their original appeal to them, that they are appealing as the keeper. The driver has not been identified throughout the appeal process. After reviewing the evidence provided by the appellant and operator, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. The operator, in its evidence, appears to be pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle. However, I do not consider that the appellant identified themselves as the driver. The PCN that was issued was a Notice to Driver attached to the vehicle on the day in question. Within the appeal to the operator, I can see that the appellant did not name the driver. As the operator has not requested the registered keepers’ details, and issued a Notice to Keeper, then only the driver can be held liable. As the appellant has not identified themselves as the driver, I would expect the operator to issue a Notice to Keeper. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I note the appellant has submitted multiple grounds of appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal, then I have not considered these. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6190065/online-appeal-form-secure-parking-solutions-ltd

Hopefully this should link to my thread!

Umkomaas

Well done and thanks for feedback. This just shows how little the PPC understood PoFA, they just continued to pursue without anything to back up their position. They deserve to have lost at POPLA ..... and to have cost themselves the £30 fee in the process!