POPLA Decisions

Ralph-y

link to the above posts

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6066995/help-got-until-24th-november-to-submit-defence-for-vcs#latest

Ralph

deighton2002

krielj said:

Coupon-mad said:

The appellant states that the vehicle was only left for 30 seconds whilst they went to withdraw

money from the cash machine. The appellant has advised that their daughter was waiting outside

with a baby that was unwell. The appellant has advised that the vehicle was not blocking any other users or pedestrians.

No wonder you lost.  Oh dear. 

not a very helpful response. Would you care to elaborate?

I've seen this here before.  If a grace period or 5 minutes 'cooling off' is being used as a defence, then never say anyone was doing something with that time, other than leaving the car-park or deciding if you wanted to park/reading signs.  And watch out for 'video evidence', which could cause problems.

untitled2020

Won at POPLA.

Here is my original thread with my story in case it helps anyone.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6199968/p4parking-residential-car-park-appeal-rejected#latest

Ralph-y

well done .... a report is contained in the link given

Ralph

Quidz

Have many received the following from POPLA? I am not sure if individual cases or across POPLA as that'll be an almighty back log if across all appeals!

We have adjourned your appeal 

Thank you for raising your appeal with POPLA.  

POPLA understands that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is going to be difficult or impossible for motorists and operators to effectively appeal. In the interests of fairness, we have decided to adjourn all appeals received 28 November onwards in addition to some appeals received shortly before this time. Adjournment means that appeals will be put on hold and we will take no action until things return to normal. It also means operators are not allowed to chase payment while this appeal is registered with POPLA. 

 We have placed your appeal on hold. When we start considering appeals again, we will write to affected parties and let them know what steps we need them to take, if any, to ensure everyone gets a fair opportunity to put their case forward. 

 Please check our website and your inbox regularly for more information and updates. 

 Kind regards 

POPLA Team

Umkomaas

When did you receive that?  They have started to deal with those cases they suspended activity on from November onwards. They may be applying a 'brake' to new appeals because, as you say, there is likely to be already an almighty backlog. 

drebee

Won at POPLA! 
So grateful to all on this forum for their help & advice. This is the link to my story if it helps:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6224190/ukpc-fine-whether-to-pay

Ralph-y

thread can be found here ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6224190/ukpc-fine-whether-to-pay/p1

Ralph

thegentleway

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal:
 - The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.
 - The appellant states that the operator has not shown it is pursuing the driver, who is liable for the charge.
 - The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence of its landowner authority. They have put the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
 - The appellant states that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is unreliable.
 - The appellant states that the use of ANPR is unjustified.
 - The appellant states that the wording of the signage forbids parking and therefore there is no offer to park and a contract cannot be entered into. The appellant has provided various images, links and correspondence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the driver of the vehicle is unknown. As such, the operator has transferred liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the driver to the keeper, #######, in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, I am assessing ######’s liability for the PCN.

When parking in a private parking area, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. In this specific car park, the terms and conditions state: “Delivery vehicles only. Strictly no parking. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked without authorisation.

Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the delivery area at 08:39 and exited at 09:28 on the day in question, staying for a total of 49 minutes. In response, the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately.

The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises to private parking operators: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs 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”. The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. While I acknowledge the appellant’s photograph of the site, it is clear that this has been taken from online mapping tools and I do not consider it to be an accurate representation of the signage displayed throughout.

The appellant states that the operator has not shown it is pursuing the driver, who is liable for the charge. As advised, the driver of the vehicle is unknown. Therefore, the operator has transferred liability to the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied that this is clearly stated on the notice to keeper.

The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence of its landowner authority. They have put the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 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”. More specifically, Section 7.3 sets out what information proof of authorisation must contain”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a witness statement signed by or on behalf of the landowner. Having reviewed this and taking into consideration the fact that there are many signs at the site, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land.

The appellant states that the ANPR system is unreliable. Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, we do receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, we look to see 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. In this case, the appellant has provided correspondence received from the operator with images detailing their entries and exits to the site 10 days prior to the date of the parking event.

The appellant has also disputed the fact that the images of them exiting are front facing. While I acknowledge these images, they have no relevance to the date in question. Additionally, the operator has demonstrated that there are two entrances and exits to the site. Depending on the way a motorist enters/exits the site, it is possible that their vehicle can be captured by different angles. Overall, the images demonstrate that the vehicle remained within the delivery area for 49 minutes. In the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, I can only conclude that the motorist parked there.

The appellant then states that the use of ANPR is unjustified. The appellant has made reference to the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. While I acknowledge this ground of appeal, the ANPR technology is in use to deter motorists from incorrectly parking. Motorists are warned by the signage that ANPR technology is in use and images of their vehicles will be taken. In this case, the images have been used as the motorist parked in an area where they are not permitted to do so. Regardless, this does not affect the validity of the PCN.

Furthermore, the appellant states that the wording of the signage forbids parking and therefore there is no offer to park and a contract cannot be entered into. Having reviewed the signage, I can see that it clearly states that the area is for use of authorised delivery vehicles only. The motorist simply was not there for the intended purpose. While there may be signs and red lines which indicate parking is not permitted, again, parking is permitted for authorised delivery vehicles only.

Overall, I am satisfied that the motorist entered into a parking contract. By remaining in the delivery area for 49 minutes without the authorisation to do so, the motorist has failed to comply with the parking conditions. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is refused.

Umkomaas

@thegentleway - do you have a current thread with the evidence submitted by the PPC?

Overall, I am satisfied that the motorist entered into a parking contract. By remaining in the delivery area for 49 minutes without the authorisation to do so, the motorist has failed to comply with the parking conditions. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is refused.

How can you enter a contract if there is no contract in place?  There is no offer to park! 'Offer' is a fundamental and essential element of a contract. 

This is therefore a penalty, a punishment, which no private organisation can administer.