POPLA Decisions

Fruitcake

Lizellebramall said:

Hi I’m new to this

I recieved a pcn for incorrectly putting in my reg wrong, even though I paid the correct amount of money I have appealed to popla twice and they say I must pay £100 fine as I have put the wrong reg in, I told them to look at the cameras to check if there was any other car with the incorrect reg in (there isn’t) I’ve been on the dvla website, the parking notice came 3 weeks later luckily I’ve saved the ticket and I have paid the correct amount for the time taken but just didn’t put my correct reg as I didn’t have my glasses on.  I really don’t want to pay this as I feel I paid the correct amount for the time I was there in fact I have 45 minutes left

You are now in ignore mode unless you get a court claim in the next six years.

If the NTK arrived after three weeks then it was non-PoFA compliant. You should have won at PoPLA as long as the driver's identity wasn't revealed.
You should also have been offered to pay £20 for a major keying error.

If you need further help then please start your own thread.

Paddyshepherd

POPLA Appeal Decision: Successful.
Operator: Northwest Parking Management
Location: Hartlepool Marina
Appealed as keeper on the following grounds: 

1. No Keeper Liability - NTK not PoFA Compliant (no mention of PoFA or their rights to pursue Registered Keeper)
2. Insufficient Signage (No fine amount on entrance sign, small text, generally not BPA CoP compliant)
3. Lack of standing/authority (no operating permission/authority evidence provided)
4. Unfair view of original appeal (generic reply, ignoring requests for additional information and evidence)
5. Unfair/Unreasonable change of terms (redaction of discounted rate if you enter POPLA - can be considered a punishment for appealing and/or a bribe not to appeal)
6. Further BPA CoP failings (premium rate telephone number as the only contact number).

Northwest Parking Management did not wish to contest the appeal - appeal won by default. 

TRNC

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Adele Ditchfield

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as payment was not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.

Assessor summary of your case

I will be summarising the relevant parts of the appellant’s grounds of appeal only. The appellant says the driver could have received a refund had the signage been clear. They say signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and the sum of the PCN is insufficient. They say the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing was the driver. The appellant says the operator does not have authority from the landowner. They say the PCN is disproportionate. The appellant says the evidence does not show the vehicle was parked on the land.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has not 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 registered keeper. The appellant says the operator does not have authority from the landowner. The British Parking Association code of practice states in section 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). 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. The operator has not provided evidence that shows they have a valid contract with the landowner. It is not necessary to address the remaining grounds of appeal. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237686/cel-pcn#latest

Leatham

Another grateful mse forumite!

I finally tried the landowner authority route and won!!.

FOUR UKPC PCNs cancelled back to 2015
After months of heartache and countless threatening (and upsetting) demands from DCBL

ZINXYX

Decision Unsuccessful.

 The assessor conveniently ignored the fact that Britannia did not provide proof of the "non payment contravention" and in fact went on to lie. They submitted evidence from their pay meter of a completely different day's transactions from the day in question. This was the first point I raised in commenting on their evidence.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Stephen Gordon

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is 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 has commented in response to the operator’s evidence to say that the document provided is heavily redacted, nor are there names associated with the signatories. The appellant states there is no evidence of the period parked and the notice to keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. The appellant states the vehicle images contained in the PCN are non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. The appellant states the sigs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The appellant states there is no planning permission from Birmingham City Council for pole-mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. The appellant states the signage was non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.

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 must consider the appellant’s liability for the parking charge, as the registered keeper. The burden of proof begins with the operator to demonstrate that it has correctly issued the parking charge. I note that the operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s full and correct vehicle details were not registered against a payment to park on site, on the day of the event. The operator has provided evidence to show that other motorists were able to make payment of the parking charge on site, on the same day. The appellant explains that there is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has commented in response to the operator’s evidence to say that the document provided is heavily redacted, nor are there names associated with the signatories. I note the appellant’s comments, I refer to Section 7 of the BPA’s Code of Practice, which states that: “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.” I note the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of a redacted agreement it has with the landowner. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments regarding this file, the appellant has not provided any evidence to POPLA which could cast doubt on the operator’s standing. Having reviewed the document, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements set by Section 7 of the BPA’s Code of Practice, and the operator has the appropriate authority to conduct parking management for the land.

 The appellant states there is no evidence of the period parked and the notice to keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements. I note the appellant has said the act requires the notice to specify the vehicle. Relevant land and period of parking to which the notice relates. I see the appellant has said it not in the right of the operator to substitute entry/exit in place of the period of parking. I refer to sub-section 9 of PoFA 2012, which states that: “The notice must (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” In this case, the notice to keeper states that the contravention is listed as: “Failed to make a valid payment”, the location is St Johns Road West, St Johns Road, B17 9NR, and the period of parking is the time of entry and time of exit. Whilst I note their comments, I must disagree with the appellant. I am satisfied the period of parking is clearly explained and evidenced with ANPR images of their vehicle entering and leaving the car park. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the notice to keeper is fully compliant with the requirements set by PoFA 2012, and the operator can hold the registered keeper liable for the sum of the parking charge. 

The appellant states the vehicle images contained in the PCN are non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has said the PCN only contains two close up images and do not contain a date or timestamp. I refer to the BPA’s Code of Practice, which states that: “Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.” In the notice to keeper, the operator has included the full ANPR images of the appellant’s vehicle entering and leaving the car park. Both sets of images contain a colour photo, an infra-red photo, and an infra-red photo of their vehicle registration number. The images provided also contain a timestamp. The operator has included the same images in its case file which are larger. As the appellant has not provided any evidence which could cast doubt on the ANPR, I am satisfied that the ANPR images used are compliant with the requirements set by the BPA’s Code of Practice. 

The appellant states the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. Car Parks such as this one are monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology where parking time is calculated from the motorist’s point of entry to their point of exit. 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 demonstrate that it has correctly issued the parking charge. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 15:16, and exiting at 15:37, totalling a stay of 21 minutes. As stated previously, I am satisfied the images provided are clear and are compliant with the requirements set the BPA’s Code of Practice in relation to use of ANPR. 

The burden of proof now passes to the appellant to provide evidence which could cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence, or the legitimacy of the ANPR technology. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in several forms, but physical evidence, such as a receipt, a photo or dashcam footages to show their vehicle was elsewhere during these times, will often be more persuasive. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence as to why they feel the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. 

The appellant states the sigs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. I refer to Section 22.1 of the BPA’s Code of Practice, which states that: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” In this case, the operator has provided evidence of the signs in the car park which say: “Car park monitored by ANPR systems”. The same signs also state in their terms and conditions on how the operator processes its data, and how to contact the operator in relation to its data protection policy. These details are listed on each of the tariff signs in the car park. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied the signage is compliant with Section 22.1 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

 The appellant states there is no planning permission from Birmingham City Council for pole-mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, it is not within POPLA’s remit to consider local planning laws when deciding an appeal. The appellant has only quoted a message from Birmingham City Council, no actual evidence of a breach of planning laws has been provided. However, I am satisfied the operator has the appropriate authority to conduct management for the land in question on behalf of the landowner. Should the appellant have concerns about a breach of local planning laws, they would need to address this with the operator or the landowner directly. The appellant states the signage was non-compliant with the BPA 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. In order for the operator to show that it has correctly issued the parking charge, it must demonstrate that the signage on site complies with the requirements set by Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, which states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “RESTRICTIONS AND CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES… Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff… £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the signage uses clear and legible language which ensures that the terms and conditions including the sum of the parking charge are prominently displayed. The evidence also shows that the notices are fixed and sufficiently located throughout the car park. 

The burden of proof now passes to the appellant to provide evidence which could cast doubt n the signage in place in the car park. The appellant has provided two photos of the car park, one of the entrance which doesn’t show a sign, and another which shows that a sign at the payment machines is located high. In relation to entrance signs, it is also important to consider the principles set by Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice, which states: “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.” In this case, the operator has provided evidence of two entrance signs located on the right hand side of the car park when entering the car park

. These entrance signs are placed high up to ensure that they are brought to the motorist’s attention when entering the car park. Whilst I see the appellant’s photo, this is not timestamped, nor does it provide a wider section of the entrance area. For these reasons, I am satisfied the entrance sign is compliant with Section 19.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice. I agree that the sign located at the payment machine is high up for some motorists to read, however I am satisfied the level of signage displayed throughout is adequate to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the motorist. For these reasons, I am satisfied the signage is compliant with the requirements set by Section 19.3 of the BPA’s Code of Practice, and a valid parking contract can be formed between the motorist and the operator. POPLA’s role is to assess the validity of the parking charge and to establish whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. As a parking event occurred, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. In this case, as the motorist failed to make a valid payment, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

 

Coupon-mad

That will need a complaint to POPLA, that's what the complaints procedure is for (see POPLA's website), as the Assessor has made an error of fact and actually overlooked clear evidence from you that the operator sent in a machine log from the wrong day.

You are allowed to complain about that.  Address it by name to the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, John Gallagher.

DO NOT WORD IT THAT YOU 'DISAGREE WITH THE OUTCOME' OR 'WANT THE APPEAL HEARD AGAIN'.  That's not how it works.  Keep it short but sweet and clearly using the word 'error'.

ZINXYX

Please is the below okay?

FAO: POPLA Lead Adjudicator, John Gallagher.

RE: POPLA CODE xxxxxx  -ERROR OF FACT

The assessor (Mr. John Gordon) in the above appeal has made an error of fact.
He has overlooked clear evidence that the operator sent in a machine log from the wrong day. I highlighted this first in my comments on the operator's evidence but it was overlooked. In fact, it is the most relevant evidence .
However, the assessor commented on my second point about the redacted contract as proof of landowner authority, which was my second.

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

You need the words FORMAL COMPLAINT in the subject line as well, and send it to POPLA's advertised complaints email.

You have a typo as well: 'nut'.

ZINXYX

Coupon-mad said:

You need the words FORMAL COMPLAINT in the subject line as well, and send it to POPLA's advertised complaints email.

You have a typo as well: 'nut'.

Thanks for your help.
Will do as directed. However, there is no advertised email only a form on the website.

Coupon-mad

I thought it was 'complaints@'