POPLA Decisions

Fruitcake

garethpick said:

Any advice on whether I should continue to fight?  Might be easier to throw in the towel and pay the £100

Don't really want the hassle of more letters, County Court Summons, bailiffs, debt collectors etc. etc.

A PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist. Nobody here will suggest you pay an unregulated parking company. Only you can make that decision.
Powerless debt collectors can be ignored.

If you want people to read the PoPLA decision, please will you repost it with some paragraph breaks.

danny_dom

@garethpick The POPLA decision is not binding and usually supports the operators arguments.You may get chasing emails /letters and it may be worth ignoring.
Please find Trust pilot review on POPLA..
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/popla.co.uk

The debt collector letter are just papers and County Court summons are normally never raised…Even if raised , it is within a certain cost limit.

Fruitcake

danny_dom said:

@garethpick The POPLA decision is not binding and usually supports the operators arguments.You may get chasing emails /letters and it may be worth ignoring.
Please find Trust pilot review on POPLA..
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/popla.co.uk

The debt collector letter are just papers and County Court summons are normally never raised…Even if raised , it is within a certain cost limit.

ParkingEye regularly take people to court; several thousand motorists per year, but as you say, there is a limit to the amount they can claim (£175 - £200), and currently they are one of the few companies that do not add on fake debt recovery fees.
It will all depend on how strong they believe their case is, whereas other companies will go to court no matter what.

hangrygal

Got a charge from Parking collection services on behalf of JD parking consultant. Followed the advise from newbies and argued grace periods and illegible signage. A win! https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78840867#Comment_78840867

Coupon-mad

Very good indeed!

rstarmach

Decision: Refused

Parking Company: Parkingeye on Lidl land

Assessor: Matthew Yorke

Lidl refused on the complaint to either send a message to Parkingeye - Reply from template - passing full responsibility on the driver.

After the period has passed for a motorist to provide comments, the case is open for assessment. In your case the assessment has already been completed as per the below.We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the Parking Charge Notice number; xxxxxxxThe decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful and the operator should cancel the parking charge. When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator.The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:Assessor summary of operator's case: The operator’s case is that it issued a parking charge notice (PCN) because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than was made permitted or did not enter their registration details via the terminal. Assessor summary of appellant's case: The appellant’s case is that they were a customer on the site, and the signs clearly state that the car park is for customers.

The appellant says the parking terminals are not sanitised, and there is not anything to safely enter your car details to not be exposed to Covid-19.

The appellant says their evidence has not been considered by the operator.

The appellant states in other cases providing proof of customer were satisfactory.

The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. Assessor summary of reasons: The appellant has told us they were driving on the date of the parking event. I will therefore be considering their responsibility as driver of the vehicle

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “customer parking only: CONDITIONS: You must enter your complete vehicle registration number using the terminal in-store: CHARGES: Lidl customers – no charge for up to 90 minutes (if the other terms of parking are complied with): A charge of £90 applies to: non-Lidl customers: drivers who breach any of the other terms of parking.”

The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than was made permitted or did not enter their registration details via the terminal.

The site operates using an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras captured the appellant’s vehicle registration, yyyyyy ,  <redacted>  staying on the site ~1h <redacted>

The operator has provided a system generated print out, showing a search for the appellant’s vehicle registration number. This confirms that the vehicle has not been registered on the system for a permit on the date of the event.

Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, and it appears that the appellant did breach the terms and conditions. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments surrounding the circumstances on the day in question. However, 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. Even if a motorist presents circumstances setting out reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed.
I appreciate the appellant’s comments about why they were at the site. However, the signage is clear that customers must enter their registration number via the details, and a PCN will be issued to non-Lidl customers or drivers who breach any of the other terms of parking.

The appellant has provided evidence that they were a legitimate user of the site.

In circumstances like this the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out the process which operators must follow.

Section 17 of the BPA code of practice recognizes that drivers are more frequently required to enter their vehicle registration when paying for parking or registering for a permit. Section 17.4B requires the operator to have process for dealing with major keying errors. Where more than one character has been incorrectly entered it requires the operator to offer to reduce the amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site.

In this case the appellant was fully aware of the requirement to enter their vehicle registration number, however the appellant did not feel safe to do so. Therefore, a keying error has not occurred as the appellant did not forget to enter their registration or not know that it was required, the appellant has chosen to remain on the site without entering their registration number.

The operator has stated it did not apply Section 17 of the BPA Code of Practice as the appellant made no attempt to enter their registration number. Which would usually be incorrect, as there is no need for this to happen for Section 17 to apply. However, as stated because the appellant was fully aware of this requirement but chose not to comply with it then a keying error has not occurred. Therefore, I am satisfied that the fact the operator did not consider the appellant’s evidence has no effect on my decision.

If the appellant was unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the site and enter their registration number, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator, by remaining and parking at the site this is an acceptance of the terms and conditions.

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.

I note the appellant has stated that providing evidence of them being a customer has been satisfactory in other cases. However, POPLA assess each appeal on its own individual basis, and whether the appellant has had other PCNs cancelled for the same reason has no effect on the validity of the PCN in question or my decision.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the appellant’s vehicle has been on site without registering their full, correct vehicle registration number, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

For the reasons set out above, I consider the charge to be valid. Therefore, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

The PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist, so all you can do now is see if ParkingEye issue a court claim sometime in the next six years, unless Lidl don't own the site and you can complain to the landowner.

The only thing you can proactively do now is to shop elsewhere, and get everyone you know to do the same.

Bonz123

Hi all,
Happy to have received a successful appeal by POPLA for my PCN, based on the following:

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and note the appellant has requested a copy of the landowner agreement. The operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with it’s Code of Practice. The BPA Code of Practice 7.1 relates to written authority and states: If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. 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 have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has failed to provide any evidence that it has authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question, without this I am unable to verify if the operator does have sufficient authority to monitor the land or issue PCN’s and as such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

Umkomaas

Well done. Name of parking firm please - for some context. 

Usk812

BPA Operator: Civil Enforcement

I used the appeal points in Coupon Mad’s sticky thread on here, I appealed with several appeal points, as you can see Popla concentrated only on one:

The visibility of signage 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal however, I will be focussing on their grounds regarding signage and the lighting conditions, as this is what has persuaded me to allow the appeal. It is evident, due to the time present on the ANPR images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park, that it did not enter or exit the car park in daylight hours. 

Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. 

This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area”. As the operator is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, the burden of proof rests with the operator in showing that a contravention of the terms and conditions took place. 

The operator has failed to provide evidence of the signage present at the car park in darkness, I therefore cannot evidence that the appellant was able to see or read the signage present at the car park in question during the time they spent at the car park. 

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. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. 

I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant submitted other grounds of appeal to POPLA. However, I do not feel that the additional grounds require any further consideration as I have concentrated my decision on the reasoning above. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.