POPLA Decisions

kindofblue

Thanks to the help from awesome members on this forum, my POPLA appeal against Smart Parking's parking notice at Goose Green Altrincham was successful! If you're reading this wondering whether to appeal your own PPN, I'd say DEFINETELY DO IT. It's more straightforward than you think, and parking operators are simply exploiting the ignorance and decency of the general public.

Dear X

 Thank you for submitting your parking charge appeal to POPLA

 An appeal has been opened with the reference ****.

 Smart Parking - EW have told us they do not wish to contest the appeal. This means that your appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

 Yours sincerely

 POPLA Team 

 ET6116/001

Here's the original thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6278648/popla-appeal/p3  

71peyman71

Hi all,
I received a fine for overstaying a total of 18 minutes (paid for 240 instead of 258), and appealed to the issuer who rejected my appeal. I was clearly not trying to dodge the extra 50p that would have covered this. 

Anyway, I will be appealing to POPLA. But just in case, I wanted to know what happens if POPLA decided against me and I decide not to pay? Will I be taken to court by the company that issued the fine?

Umkomaas

71peyman71 said:

Hi all,
I received a fine for overstaying a total of 18 minutes (paid for 240 instead of 258), and appealed to the issuer who rejected my appeal. I was clearly not trying to dodge the extra 50p that would have covered this. 

Anyway, I will be appealing to POPLA. But just in case, I wanted to know what happens if POPLA decided against me and I decide not to pay? Will I be taken to court by the company that issued the fine?

We need more information to help you. Please open a new thread of your own telling us more about the parking event and, in particular, which parking firm is involved. 

ParkerstNick

I now have the POPLA decisions relating to this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6251383/ntk-from-private-road-unloading/p1

We had 2 cars involved at the same time so we submitted 2 identical appeals/responses etc: under separate ref numbers.

Here is the appeal:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ybayep51tjs3um/POPLAAppeal.docx?dl=0

Here is PCP response:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvjazyb4yc67a0b/MyResponse.docx?dl=0 

Here is our response:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvjazyb4yc67a0b/MyResponse.docx?dl=0

Here is one decision - SUCCESSFUL:

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that a parking event did not take place. They advise they stopped on double yellow lines to unload some bulky items. They advise that double yellow lines do not prevent loading/unloading. The appellant has quoted the Highway Code to support this.

The appellant states that the notice to keeper does not meet the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it does not specify the relevant land. The appellant states that the operator’s road markings and signage are inadequate to form a parking contract.

The appellant states that the parking charge has been issued based on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipment and signage that has been installed illegally.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide strict proof of its landowner authority in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

The appellant states that a parking contract was not formed and therefore the operator has unlawfully obtained keeper details from the DVLA.

The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist’s vehicle allegedly was not authorised to park. When assessing POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. Having reviewed the operator’s evidence, it does not appear to have provided anything to demonstrate that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was correctly issued. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, however addressing them will have no bearing on my decision. For the reasons
outlined above, the appeal is allowed.

Here is the other decision - UNSUCCESSFUL!

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was not authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case

Within their appeal, the appellant says that no parking event has taken place, only an unloading event. they say that the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements, as the relevant land is not specified. They say that the road markings and signage is inadequate.

The appellant says that the ANPR equipment and signage has been put up illegally and there is no landowner authority. They feel that as no parking contract has been formed, the parking operator has unlawfully obtained personal details from the
DVLA. The appellant has provided a document of evidence and grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA.) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. The operator has submitted an evidence pack that shows the signage in place at this site, which sets out the terms and conditions of the contract; each driver is given an opportunity to review the signage prior to parking and is given the option to leave, if they are not able to comply with the terms and conditions offered. At Kildare Close, the signage clearly states, ‘’AUTHORISED VEHICLES ONLY… TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY AT
ALL TIMES… FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (£600 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS OF ISSUE)’’.

The PCN was issued as the vehicle was not authorised to park. I can see from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras on site, the vehicle entered at 18:18 and departed at 18:31, totalling a stay of 13 minutes. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine all the information provided by the operator, and appellant, to determine if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN. Whilst I note that the appellant says that no parking event has taken place, only an unloading event so no contract was formed, they have admitted that the driver stopped to
unload and remained on site for 13 minutes. Furthermore, evidence that the driver did not park has not been received so we are unable to presume if they did park or not. A privately owned car park is used for the purposes of parking in return for acceptance of the contract offered. If a motorist enters a car park without the intention of reviewing the signage to agree a contract, they should not have entered and found more suitable car parking arrangements.

They say that the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements, as the relevant land is not specified. However, upon review of the Notice to Keeper, the
relevant land is clearly stated within the PCN as ‘’Kildare Close- Eastcote’’. Further PoFA 2012 requirements have been met to hold the keeper liable for the PCN, as mentioned above in my decision.

They say that the road markings and signage is inadequate. Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice relates to signage. Within Section 19.2, it 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.’’ After reviewing the evidence pack and the photographs provided, I can see that an entrance sign is present. This is on a white sign and has the parking logo alongside text which reads, ‘’Authorised Vehicles Only… Camera Controlled… Terms and conditions apply… See signage in car park for full details’’. The entrance sign is located to the right of the site and is an appropriate size for motorists to view upon entering the car park. I am satisfied that the entrance sign is in an appropriate place and clearly shows that the car park is managed and that there are terms and
conditions in place. Within the BPA Code of Practice, Section 19.3 states, 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.’’ Upon review of the signage available on site, provided by the appellant and the parking operator, I can see that signage is located around site on yellow backgrounds with clear, bold blue text.

This informs motorists about the terms and conditions for parking on site. The information stating the terms and conditions within the signage is written in intelligible language and I am satisfied that they are easy to see, read and understand. After reviewing the site map, I can see that there are numerous signs
located throughout the site, indicating that parking restrictions are in place and detailing the terms and conditions. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage on site complies with Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note that the appellant has stated that the road markings are inadequate and has provided evidence of this. In private car parks, it is not a requirement of parking operators to use painted markings on the ground to advise motorists of any aspects of the parking contract they are entering into. Parking operators use signs to inform motorists of the parking contract, in order for the motorist to decide whether or not they wish to enter into this contract. The signs are also there to inform motorists of the
consequences of not complying with the terms and conditions of this parking contract. As such, it is not in the nature of a private parking operator to use ground markings to convey all of this important information to motorists. Nor is it compulsory.

The appellant says that the ANPR equipment and signage has been put
up illegally and there is no landowner authority. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that a parking operator must have written authorisation from the landowner or an appointed agent prior to enforcement commencing on a private car park. The written authority must state
that the landowner or its appointed agent is required to keep to the BPA Code of Practice and that authority has been granted to issue enforcement and pursue outstanding charges. However, although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner
would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the BPA Code of Practice and is compliant.

Section 23.16b of the BPA Code of Practice states, “Witness statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within an independent appeal evidence pack and as such these statements must be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent, and not by a member of the operator’s staff”. I am satisfied that the document supplied by the parking operator is sufficient.

Upon review of the signage on site, I can see that it clearly states, ‘’WE ARE USING AUTOMATIC NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES TO MONITOR AND ENFORCE THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS’’. I am satisfied that the signage states that ANPR technology is being used on site and makes motorists aware what this would be used for. The appellant feels that as no parking contract has been formed, the parking operator has unlawfully obtained personal details from the DVLA. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail.

Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comment to make about these grounds at this stage. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms of parking,
ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

I suspect that PoPLA will say one appeal result has no bearing on the other.

They say, "Furthermore, evidence that the driver did not park has not been received so we are unable to presume if they did park or not"

Neither has proof that the driver did park been provided. The assessor says, "we are unable to presume if they did park or not" yet has presumed that the driver did park, despite lack of proof either way. 

What a load of cobblers. This is why we need an independent appeals service with legally trained persons employed so they can correctly interpret the law.

Umkomaas

Get a complaint email into John Gallagher, Lead Assessor, and ask him to rationalise the two decisions. Both can't be correct!

danny_dom

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to failing to pay for parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s handling of their appeal. The appellant states they were asked to pay a PCN for not paying for parking. The appellant says the operator is insistent their system does not recognise the appellant’s vehicle registration. The appellant has questioned the machine with a registered technician. The appellant says the operator told them only the first digit of their vehicle registration was used. The appellant says it is unlawful and morally incorrect to demand money even if the customer provides evidence of payment. The appellant says they are unable to answer why the ticket machine prints a ticket with just the first digit. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and as such, will be considering their liability for the PCN. The signage at the site states: “Parking Tariffs Apply…Please enter FULL vehicle registration when paying for parking…Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge of: £100…”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the appellant was at the car park for 21 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to failing to pay for parking. The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s handling of their appeal. For clarity, any customer service issues regarding the way the operator dealt with the appellant’s are outside of POPLA’s remit, POPLA’s remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The appellant states they were asked to pay a PCN for not paying for parking. The appellant says the operator is insistent their system does not recognise the appellant’s vehicle registration. The appellant has questioned the machine with a registered technician. The appellant says the operator told them only the first digit of their vehicle registration was used. The appellant says it is unlawful and morally incorrect to demand money even if the customer provides evidence of payment. The appellant says they are unable to answer why the ticket machine prints a ticket with just the first digit. In regard to the legality of the PCN, the legality of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. To conclude on whether the charge is fair, I must first look at what the Court said. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair: “In our opinion, the same considerations which show that the £85 charge is not a penalty, demonstrate that it is not unfair for the purpose of the Regulations.” (paragraph 104) With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair, I must consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. The appellant has questioned the reliability of the ticket machine at the site; however, they have failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate the ticket machine was at fault on the day. The site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, these cameras capture images of vehicles as they enter and exit the site, this information is then compared to all tickets purchased. If the camera data does not match tickets, a PCN will be issued. Which is what happened on the day as the appellant made a keying error, and did not use the full registration of the vehicle they were driving on the day when they purchased their ticket. A ticket machine is just that, a machine, it does not have the knowledge to know if a vehicle registration is being entered correctly or not, which is why it is important that motorists enter the full and correct vehicle registration. Payment can then be assigned to the correct vehicle. Ticket machines are set up for any vehicle registration to be entered, such a personal registration plates or foreign registration plate, consisting of any alpha numerical order. As the appellant made a keying error on the day, the operator identified this, and offered the appellant a £20 payment. This is within the guidelines laid out within the British Parking Association Code of Practice Section 17. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. As they did not purchase a ticket for the registration of the vehicle they parked at the site, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I am satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

I can't read that wall of text. I know it is how you received it but it is making my eyes go funny. 
Please post it again but with paragraphs.

The most important thing to note is that the decision is not binding on the motorist, so there is no requirement to pay unless a judge says so.

danny_dom

Resending Again

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to failing to pay for parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s handling of their appeal. The appellant states they were asked to pay a PCN for not paying for parking. The appellant says the operator is insistent their system does not recognise the appellant’s vehicle registration. The appellant has questioned the machine with a registered technician. The appellant says the operator told them only the first digit of their vehicle registration was used. The appellant says it is unlawful and morally incorrect to demand money even if the customer provides evidence of payment. The appellant says they are unable to answer why the ticket machine prints a ticket with just the first digit. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and as such, will be considering their liability for the PCN. The signage at the site states: “Parking Tariffs Apply…Please enter FULL vehicle registration when paying for parking…Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge of: £100…”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the appellant was at the car park for 21 minutes.

 The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to failing to pay for parking. The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s handling of their appeal. For clarity, any customer service issues regarding the way the operator dealt with the appellant’s are outside of POPLA’s remit, POPLA’s remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The appellant states they were asked to pay a PCN for not paying for parking. The appellant says the operator is insistent their system does not recognise the appellant’s vehicle registration.

The appellant has questioned the machine with a registered technician. The appellant says the operator told them only the first digit of their vehicle registration was used. The appellant says it is unlawful and morally incorrect to demand money even if the customer provides evidence of payment.

The appellant says they are unable to answer why the ticket machine prints a ticket with just the first digit. In regard to the legality of the PCN, the legality of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. To conclude on whether the charge is fair, I must first look at what the Court said.

The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage.

 The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair: “In our opinion, the same considerations which show that the £85 charge is not a penalty, demonstrate that it is not unfair for the purpose of the Regulations.” (paragraph 104) With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair, I must consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. The appellant has questioned the reliability of the ticket machine at the site; however, they have failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate the ticket machine was at fault on the day.

The site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, these cameras capture images of vehicles as they enter and exit the site, this information is then compared to all tickets purchased. If the camera data does not match tickets, a PCN will be issued. Which is what happened on the day as the appellant made a keying error, and did not use the full registration of the vehicle they were driving on the day when they purchased their ticket.

 A ticket machine is just that, a machine, it does not have the knowledge to know if a vehicle registration is being entered correctly or not, which is why it is important that motorists enter the full and correct vehicle registration. Payment can then be assigned to the correct vehicle. Ticket machines are set up for any vehicle registration to be entered, such a personal registration plates or foreign registration plate, consisting of any alpha numerical order.

As the appellant made a keying error on the day, the operator identified this, and offered the appellant a £20 payment. This is within the guidelines laid out within the British Parking Association Code of Practice Section 17. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions.

As they did not purchase a ticket for the registration of the vehicle they parked at the site, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I am satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Majinate

I succesfully appealed a ticket issued by ParkingEye at the Holiday Inn Scotch Corner Tesla supercharger charging bay. Submitted 15/06/202, decided 06/08/2021

Operator Name

Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver either failed to purchase a valid pay and display ticket, remained parked for longer than was permitted or failed to register their vehicle using the terminal provided.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they were on site to charge their vehicle as they had been doing since 2018. They explain that they had a vulnerable passenger in their vehicle. They question if the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. They advise that the entrance sign is not clear and there is insufficient signage within the site. The appellant explain that the use of the charging bay is managed by Tesla. They believe that the PCN is putative. They advise that they were only in the charging bay and were not parked within the site. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal. Within their comments the appellant has repeated their grounds of appeal and advises that they cannot read the terms and conditions provided on the examples of the 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 driver either failed to purchase a valid pay and display ticket, remained parked for longer than was permitted or failed to register their vehicle using the terminal provided. The appellant has disputed that the operator holds a valid contract with the landowner. I would therefore have expected the operator to have provided a witness statement or copy of a contract to show that there is a valid contract in place. The operator has not provided any evidence of this nature. As i am allowing the appeal on this basis i do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.