POPLA Decisions

_unknown_user_

Really happy with this result. When you pay for parking, you expect the expiry time to line up with what is stated on the ticket you purchase, not the time from being picked up by ANPR camera.

Operator Name

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

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant says a grace period has not been allowed. The appellant has questioned the signage at the site. The appellant says they were unaware cameras were using at the site. The appellant says there is no evidence they were parked during the times picked up by the cameras. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to manage the site. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal, they have also provided comments on the operator’s evidence pack.

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…Up to 1 hour £1.20 Up to 2 hours £2.40… Failure to comply with the terms and conditions 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 one hour 13 minutes.

The operator has provided a system print out, which shows that a payment for one hour was made. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. In regard to the time the appellant spent at the site, The British Parking Association Consideration and Grace Periods 13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. 13.3 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".

The appellant entered the site at 15:48, an hour’s parking was purchased three minutes later at 15:51, valid until 16:51, the appellant let the site at 17:02. It is evident the operator has not allowed a grace period before issuing the PCN. Due to this, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

The appellant entered the site at 15:48, an hour’s parking was purchased three minutes later at 15:51, valid until 16:51, the appellant let the site at 17:02. It is evident the operator has not allowed a grace period before issuing the PCN. Due to this, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. 

But that seems to be an eleven minute grace period. What hasn't the operator allowed?

Anyhoo, a win is a win, well done. 🤐 

NiJella

I am immensely grateful to this forum for such valuable help here. Top team! Thank you

Decision

Successful

Operator Name

Civil Enforcement

Assessor Name

Natasha Rhodes

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for: “Payment not made in accordance with the terms displayed on signage”

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedom’s Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states 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. The appellant states the parking fee was paid. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

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 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. 

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. 

The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “The notice must – f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”. 

Having reviewed the NTK, I note the wording does not mention any of the above. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012. 

I can only conclude that on this occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. 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.

Final Driver Comments submitted at final POPLA appeal stage (for interest and hopefully for others to use)

The facts are simple:

 ·  I am not the driver; I am the keeper of the vehicle which I have made clear to the operator.

 ·  The operator has failed to identify the driver, their own paperwork states:

The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current service address for the driver(found on the reverse of their original NTK, page 4 of my POPLA appeal document).

 ·  The operator has failed to act in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 sub-paragraph 9 (5) which states that the notice to keeper must be sent by post within 14 days from the day after the event. Again, their own paperwork clearly shows that the NTK is dated 42 days after the date of the alleged event.

 ·  The operator has failed to act in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice though the BPA logo is on their paperwork. 

Under paragraph 22.10 the BPA clearly states:

…If you are not making use of the keeper liability provisions of POFA or you are unable to achieve the deadlines specified therein, your letter must not reference POFA or state that the keeper is liable.

 Therefore, as the keeper of the vehicle, I CANNOT be held liable.

 Thank you for your time.

Coupon-mad

Quite right, POPLA!

rowley

Hello, I need helping finding advice for my popla appeal, finding it very overwhelming and think I may have already fluffed it by not using templates etc. We parked in a Britannia car park from 8pm to midday next day. Paid correct amount for the hours parked but should have returned at midnight to purchase new ticket according to them. I don't know if we have a leg to stand on but need to try! 

Le_Kirk

rowley said:

Hello, I need helping finding advice for my popla appeal, finding it very overwhelming and think I may have already fluffed it by not using templates etc. We parked in a Britannia car park from 8pm to midday next day. Paid correct amount for the hours parked but should have returned at midnight to purchase new ticket according to them. I don't know if we have a leg to stand on but need to try! 

1) Start your own thread/discussion - unless you already have one, in which case use that to ask for help.
2) Go to the NEWBIES sticky third post and you will find all the POPLA appeal info.

bucket1

Decision : Successful

Operator Name : Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

Location : Royal Bolton Hospital – Staff 4 (Minerva, Rowlands, Estates, Ridgeway and temporary) car park

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that: • There was no infringement, the vehicle did not enter the area stated and at no time did the vehicle park in, or even enter any car park. • The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. • 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. • ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass • Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver In their comments on the evidence the appellant states the images show their vehicle travelling along an access road to get to a certain part at the hospital, this area has multiple entrances, exit and roads and would like Parking Eye to point out on their map where they believed the vehicle parked. The letter of authority is unreadable, but they are certain it does not provide any authority to Parking eye to issue parking tickets in the area their car was parked. Parking eye have supplied many pages of signage, and a map, the map does not show the area their vehicle was parked. Parking eye have failed to address any of the points made in their appeal. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. The appellant has raised a number of grounds that I will address separately or grouped together as appropriate • There was no infringement, the vehicle did not enter the area stated and at no time did the vehicle park in, or even enter any car park. • Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver 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) has been issued correctly. Also, it is the operator’s responsibility to provide evidence to POPLA, which rebut the appellant’s claims. In the detail of their grounds the appellant has stated that they parked at the side of a road in the hospital grounds with no parking restrictions, and have provided an image of a vehicle in support of this ground. This is a large site with interconnecting roads between different sections. The operator evidence states that this site is a Staff Permit Holders only car park and the PCN has been issued for not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation. It should be noted that large areas of this site are No Parking areas with no mention of permit/authorisation. These are areas distinct from the staff permit requirement areas. The signage key show that there are 29 No Parking signs on this site which is indicative of the areas covered by this condition. In a POPLA appeal the burden of proof is with the operator. From the operator’s evidence, several terms and conditions apply on the site, dependent where the motorist is parked. As the operator has only supplied evidence of entry and exit to the site, and not of where on the site the appellant was parked, I cannot determine which of the differing terms and conditions applied to the appellant on the day. Consequently, I am unable to determine if the PCN has been issued for the correct reason. Accordingly, I am allowing the appeal on this basis and there is no need to address any other issues raised by the appellant.

Handbags-at-dawn

Premier Park's  standard Notice to Keeper fails POFA in quite a few  ways. Here, the assessor picked out one of the most straightforward - shed 4 para 9(2)(e)(ii): failed to invite the keeper to pass the NTK on to the driver. He didn't need to consider the rest. 

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name

Matthew Woodhouse

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for the whole period of parking not being paid for.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that: - The notice to keeper is not compliant with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). - The signage is insufficient for a contract to exist between the operator and driver. - The operator must prove they have authority from the landowner to manage this site. 

The appellant has provided a document expanding on each of these points in great detail. While I have read the document, for brevity I am only summarising the points here. In their comments, they advise why the feel the operator’s evidence pack does not rebut their appeal grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The driver on the day in question has not been confirmed, and the operator is seeking to hold the appellant liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the parking charge correctly. In this instance, the operator is attempting to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

 To do this, the parking charge notice needs to comply with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). One of the ways the notice needs to comply with PoFA is Paragraph 9(2)(e), that states that the notice to keeper must: “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;” 

Upon reviewing the 6 August 2021 notice to keeper, I can see that it confirms that the operator does not know the name and address of the driver, and it requests that the keeper pay the parking charge. The PCN also states that if the keeper was not the driver, to supply the name and ‘current serviceable postal address’ of the driver - wording that the appellant disputes. 

I am not dealing with that specific wording dispute however, as the PCN does not advise the keeper to pass the notice to driver, and that particular wording is required by PoFA. Without that wording, this PCN cannot be PoFA-compliant. Accordingly, I consider that the operator has been unsuccessful in attempting to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, and I therefore allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however, as I am allowing this appeal I do not need to consider those further grounds.

Coupon-mad

Very good!  Worth remembering for others with Premier Park NTKs:

I am not dealing with that specific wording dispute however, as the PCN does not advise the keeper to pass the notice to driver, and that particular wording is required by PoFA. Without that wording, this PCN cannot be PoFA-compliant. 

They will be spitting feathers but PP have always struggled to have a POFA compliant NTK over the years.  My heart bleeds for them...after all, they've only had the best part of a decade to get it right.

dcq147

Another uncontested Golden Ticket win from ParkingEye at Southampton Town Quay.

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for submitting your parking charge appeal to POPLA

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

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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Timeline:

11/08/2021 - alleged date of event

14/09/2021 - NTK received.

20/09/2021 - appeal sent to PE

08/10/2021 - received expected rejection letter with POPLA code

19/10/2021 - POPLA appeal submitted

02/11/2021 - Appeal successful

Appeal was 4 pages long but boiled down to 4 points (although only the first 2 were really necessary):

1. PCB issued outside of POFA timescale

2. Operator not shown they are pursuing the driver

3. Site subject to ABP byelaws

4. No evidence of landowner authority.

£100 saved albeit at a cost of several hours perusing threads on this forum and constructing the appeal.  Incredibly satisfying though - thank you all very much for your dedication to this cause!