POPLA Decisions

JVK210315

I have been unsuccessful at appealing a Euro Car Parks PCN with POPLA I have posted the required details below. I used the guidance on the forum under the newbies thread but found it to be a bit difficult to follow and ensure I included the right information, and did try and reach out to other forum members but was directed back to the newbies forum. 

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: The operator has failed to comply with data protection laws. They advise that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge and there is no keeper liability. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and photographs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum period allowed. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: ”Maximum stay 3 hours…This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of an £85 parking charge notice…Maximum stay 3 hours…”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 10:28 and exiting the site at 15:01 totalling a stay of four hours and 33 minutes on the day in question. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with data protection laws. I note the appellant’s comments however POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. If the appellant has an concerns regarding date protection they will need to contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) directly. The appellant advises that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge and there is no keeper liability. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The operator has provided date stamped images of all the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. After reviewing the signage, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. This states “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”. Further to this Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice advises :” If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations. See paragraphs 2(2), 2(3) and 12 of the Schedule. 19.5 The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I am also satisfied that the signage complies with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice and that the charges are clear. The appellant says that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice which states in 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. 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. 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 operator has provided a redacted contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum period allowed and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused.

Umkomaas

Sorry to hear this, but you do know you are under no obligation to pay the charge. If ECP want any money they're going to have to ask a Judge to decide. 

Did you receive a copy of the landowner contract in the evidence pack they sent you?

Coupon-mad

JVK210315 said:

I have been unsuccessful at appealing a Euro Car Parks PCN with POPLA I have posted the required details below. I used the guidance on the forum under the newbies thread but found it to be a bit difficult to follow and ensure I included the right information, and did try and reach out to other forum members but was directed back to the newbies forum. 

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: The operator has failed to comply with data protection laws. They advise that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge and there is no keeper liability. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and photographs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

(Computer said no)

...

Majinate said:

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 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.

I really hope that everyone posting or lurking here has done the Government Consultation by email and objected absolutely to ANY debt recovery fake 'costs' being added on top of a parking charge (of course) and told them what you think of them increasing charges to £130 instead of £100...

closes Friday morning.

mshaverin

I have just been successful with an appeal to POPLA in that ParkingEye have decided not to contest my appeal.

I parked in a car park managed by Parking Eye (would have parked elsewhere if I could have found a space I will be honest!). I paid using the PayByPhone telephone service, had payment authorisation code texted from my bank and believed that payment had been made. Clearly something somewhere has gone wrong. Appeal to Parking Eye declined as payment had not been received.

Having read through numerous threads on here and the advice given (thank you Prankster, am sure I recall you from Pepipoo) I lodged an appeal on the following grounds:

1)      The PCN fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise

2)      Evidence of Landowner Authority is required

3)      Contravention advised on the PCN did not occur

4)      The parking charge being demanded is not justified and is excessive

As advised above, ParkingEye have advised that they will not contest it.  If anyone would like the full text of the appeal then I am happy to post

Coupon-mad

Very good! Make sure you do the Government Consultation and the Group Action (see my post above yours, you have 4 days).

Morus

Thank you for everyone at this site. I'm just getting in touch to let you know that my POPLA appeal was successful thanks to the excellent advice from you all (just logged in by chance but didn't get an email from POPLA).

Didn't have a chance to post the appeal prior to submitting but it consisted of:

1)    No evidence of a “period of parking”, NtK fails to meet POFA requirements

2)    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

3)    The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, and signs in the car park are not prominent or clear from all parking spaces

4)    No Evidence of Landowner Authority

5)    No planning permission for pole mounted cameras or advertising consent for signage from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Outcome:

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: -----------------

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: There is no evidence of the period of parking and the Notice to Keeper fails to meet PoFA requirements; The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, and signs in the car park are not prominent or clear from all parking spaces; No Evidence of Landowner Authority; No planning permission for pole mounted cameras or advertising consent for signage from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and a receipt. The appellant has provided comments in response to the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum time permitted. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: ”Maximum Stay of 90 minutes…Customer parking only…A charge of £90 applies to …Drivers who breach any of the above terms of parking”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at ------ and exiting at ------- on the day in question. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Also, it is the operator’s responsibility to provide evidence to POPLA, which rebut the appellants grounds of appeal. The appellant states that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. I note the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice which states in 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. 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. 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”. In this case the operator has not provided a copy of the contract and I am not satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. 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. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Umkomaas

Well done. In order to give your win some context, could you tell us which parking firm please?

Sheffield91

Hi All

POPLA have just informed me that ParkingEye have withdrawn from the process and that I have therefore been successful. Would like to thank the contributors to this forum as I completely forgot about the POPLA deadline and appealed the day before (about 5 mins from the deadline), using information from this forum.

I have attached the redacted appeal that I used below (it was very rushed and I was kicking myself that I did not add some of the other points I found on this forum after I submitted).

The car park in all honesty was very unclearly signed by PE (and when I noticed it was a PE carpark i quickly left). The first sign I noticed in the car park was an old clampers one so I was actually confused (I gave a better argument than this in my appeal).

Link to POPLA appeal I submitted (let me know if a better way to share as this link only lasts 7 days): https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20210902QUkJNiuM

POPLA response: 

Thank you for submitting your parking charge appeal to POPLA

 

An appeal has been opened with the reference XXX.

 

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

Thanks again everyone!

Umkomaas

Excellent result, well done. ParkingEye can be quite a handful, so this is doubly sweet. 

Would like to thank the contributors to this forum as I completely forgot about the POPLA deadline and appealed the day before (about 5 mins from the deadline), using information from this forum.

Lucky, lucky! 😄

Khaggis

This was my one, unsure what to do now. receiving a 100 quid charge for the sake of 1 minute seems very extreme. is there any other action i can take rather than bury my head in the sand and ignore it? should i start my own post on this forum? new here and came for advice. cheers guys.


Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Niall Whittaker

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellants case is that there was originally an issue as their friend paid for the ticket for them, inputting their registration plate as XXXXXX0 instead of the correct XXXXXXO. The appellant advised they received a parking charge notice from parking eye stating that they had not paid for their entire duration, which did not seem right. Upon investigating they noticed the above error and contacted the operator to appeal the incident. They received an email acknowledging the payment, but because they left shortly after the 1-hour cut-off time, they would still be subject to a £100 charge. The appellant advised the letter states they left at 14:57 and the ticket states they paid at 13:49 with an hour of parking. The appellant said they were back in the carpark within the hour, but by the time they had put away their shopping and set up their satnav, they left slightly past this. The appellant advised that as parking eye is a member of the British Parking Association, its code of practise section 13.3 states "Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN." As the appellant was only 8 minutes into their "grace period" they feel they should not be receiving a fine for this. The appellant added that additionally, 8 minutes in a 1GBP per hour charge works out at around 21p. In a car park that had multiple free spaces available, they believe a 100GBP parking charge is completely unfair and disproportionate to their loss of earnings. The appellant provided photographic evidence of their parking ticket 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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place. The signage states “Tariff Payable at Machine or By Phone. Parking Tariffs Apply. Per Hour - £1.00. How To Pay: At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park. Your full, correct vehicle registration will be required. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 13:46, and exiting at 14:57, totalling a stay of 01 hour and 11 minutes. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. The operator provided evidence of a search for the appellants vehicle registration within the payment system, this shows a £1.00 payment was made which allows up to 1 hour of parking. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied there is a valid contract and it has been breached. However, before concluding, I need to consider whether the appellant’s grounds of appeal challenge the validity of the operator’s claim. The appellants case is that there was originally an issue as their friend paid for the ticket for them, inputting their registration plate as XXXXXX0 instead of the correct XXXXXXO. The appellant advised they received a parking charge notice from parking eye stating that they had not paid for their entire duration, which did not seem right. Upon investigating they noticed the above error and contacted the operator to appeal the incident. They received an email acknowledging the payment, but because they left shortly after the 1-hour cut-off time, they would still be subject to a £100 charge. The PCN has been issued as the tariff purchased was insufficient and did not cover the total parking time. As a result of this, I will not consider the appellants advised issue with the registration as it has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal as it was not the reason for the Parking Charge Notice. The appellant advised the letter states they left at 14:57 and the ticket states they paid at 13:49 with an hour of parking. The appellant said they were back in the carpark within the hour, but by the time they had put away their shopping and set up their satnav, they left slightly past this. The appellant advised that as parking eye is a member of the British Parking Association, its code of practise section 13.3 states "Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN." As the appellant was only 8 minutes into their "grace period" they feel they should not be receiving a fine for this. The appellant has made reference to section 13.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.3 states that “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.” Section 13.6 of the BPA Code of Practice goes on to state: “Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period.” The signage on sites states that payment can be made at any time prior to exiting the car park. The parking time begins upon entry to the car park, and not from the time the parking ticket is purchased. As payment can be made any time prior to exiting, it is up to the motorist to calculate the duration of their stay and pay the appropriate tariff amount prior to leaving the car park. The site in question uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras to capture vehicles entry and exit times and calculate the duration of stay. In the appellants case, the total duration of the stay was 1 Hour and 11 Minutes. This is one minute over the allocated 10 minute grace period and as set out in section 13.6 above, operators are not required to offer any additional time to this grace period. As a result of this, the appellant would have been required to pay for an additional hour as they exceeded the 1 hour tariff they paid for and did not pay for the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted. The appellant added that additionally, 8 minutes in a 1GBP per hour charge works out at around 21p. In a car park that had multiple free spaces available, they believe a 100GBP parking charge is completely unfair and disproportionate to their loss of earnings. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge does not reflect the loss to the landowner and is therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “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. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to 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. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted, 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.