POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

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. 

Always a potentially potent appeal point if the PCN was incurred during the hours of darkness. 

Well done @Usk812, nice getting one over on CEL. 👍

Usk812

Umkomaas said:

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. 

Always a potentially potent appeal point if the PCN was incurred during the hours of darkness. 

Well done @Usk812, nice getting one over on CEL. 👍

Thanks very much, it was a nice Nee Year present lol

Bonz123

Umkomaas said:

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

It was Euro Car Parks 

yung

Operator Name

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

Operator Case Summary

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for reason: ‘By 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’s case is that their appeal was rejected on the basis of insufficient tariff. They say that they requested a copy of the transaction as they believe they paid the correct amount of £5.00 for four hours parking time but their appeal was rejected. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. This includes a photograph of the tariffs and a copy of the rejection letter. The appellant has provided comments after reviewing the operator’s evidence pack. Their motorist’s comments raised several further grounds of appeal such as: • It was dark and raining when they arrived and they checked the sign, returned to the vehicle to get change and then had queue to use the machine. They say that they had to use a torch to enter the vehicle registration and are confident they entered five £1.00 coins. They say that the operator has not mentioned how many coins were inserted. • They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1 regarding a consideration period and section 13.3 regarding a grace period. They mention that the guidance is legally binding and forms part of the terms of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Up to 2 hours £3.00…Up to 4 hours £5.00…Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 17:55:51 and exiting at 20:07:03, totalling a stay of two hours and 11 minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was registered against a payment covering two hours parking time. The PCN was issued as the vehicle was parked on this land for two hours and 11 minutes, however the operator could only locate a payment for two hours of their stay. 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 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’s case is that their appeal was rejected on the basis of insufficient tariff. They say that they requested a copy of the transaction as they believe they paid the correct amount of £5.00 for four hours parking time but their appeal was rejected. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. This includes a photograph of the tariffs and a copy of the rejection letter. The appellant has provided comments after reviewing the operator’s evidence pack. Their motorist’s comments raised several further grounds of appeal such as: • It was dark and raining when they arrived and they checked the sign, returned to the vehicle to get change and then had queue to use the machine. They say that they had to use a torch to enter the vehicle registration and are confident they entered five £1.00 coins. They say that the operator has not mentioned how many coins were inserted. • They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1 regarding a consideration period and section 13.3 regarding a grace period. They mention that the guidance is legally binding and forms part of the terms of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove that the PCN has been issued correctly. The BPA monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. It states in section 13.3 in relation to a grace period after a contract has expired: “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’s payment was made at 18:03 which is eight minutes after arrival at 17:55:51. This payment covered two hours parking time, expiring at 20:03. The appellant’s vehicle exited the site at 20:07::03 which is roughly three minutes after the time expired. The time added up equates to 11 minutes parking time. Having reviewed the time between purchasing the ticket and exiting after the ticket expired, I am satisfied that a grace period in line with 13.3 should be granted on this occasion. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I am unable to conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

 

Umkomaas

Nice result, but without even the name of the PPC, there's not a lot of context. Perhaps name of PPC and location please (certain PPCs and certain locations have 'form' for 'insufficient tariff paid' cases.

Maybe a link if you already have a thread for this. 

EDIT TO ADD - just spotted your new thread for this case. ParkingEye!

Can you tell us the location please?

yung

Operator Name

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

The PPC is Parkingeye and the location is Liverpool city centre Britannia Adelphi, Liverpool, L3 5UL and here is my comment to Popla following Parkingeye evidence if that may help.

Dear POPLA

 Upon entering the car park, I parked my vehicle and went to the payment machine to check the charge for parking.

 It was dark and raining.

 Upon checking, I returned to my vehicle to get some money and upon my return to the machine, there was a queue and had to wait my turn.

 I had to use my torch to enter my vehicle reg.  I am confident I inserted 5 x £1.00 coins into the machine for 4 hours of parking.

 I took the ticket without looking at it.

 I am confident I paid for 4 hours of parking.

 Of course, Parking Eye has not stated how many coins were inserted.   They do not dispute I put in 5 coins.

 In any event, I note that the BPA guidance at 13.1 says a minimum of 5 minutes is to be added for a consideration period.  At 13.3, a minimum of 10 minutes is to be added at the end of the parking event.   This guidance is legally binding and forms parts of the terms of the contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

 As you will see I was parked for a total of 2 hours 11 minutes. 

 If Parking Eye is to be believed and I did only pay for 2 hours then no penalty charge should be payable as if we add the minimum 15 minutes to the 2 hours, we get 2 hours 15 minutes.  As I was only in the car park for 2 hours 11 minutes, there is no breach and no penalty is payable.

Rossbr

Initial Parking at Marazion

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as incorrectly parked.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant’s case is that they were the registered keep of the vehicle in question. The appellant is appealing the PCN as they feel there has been no keeper liability, the appellants states payment was made, they feel the operator had contradictory contract terms. The appellant had a disabled occupant, the appellant feels insufficient signage on site and feels the operator breached the Equality Act 2010 and that the operator does not have a contract with the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. 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. In this case, the operator has not provided a copy of the evidence pack to POPLA in order to assess if the PCN was issued correctly. As this was not included, I am therefore unable to assess if the PCN is valid. I must therefore allow this PCN.

Rossbr

The wording of my successful Initial Parking appeal:

POPLA APPEAL –  INITIAL PARKING CHARGE  NUMBER:

I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration:       and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge number:      using POPLA appeal code:          . My appeal was refused by Initial Parking on the grounds stated in their appeal reply letter dated 25th October

2021 (see Image 4).

I am appealing this penalty on the grounds stated below and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1.   No Keeper Liability

2.   Payment was actually made

3.   Contradictory contract terms

4.   Disabled occupant

5.   Inadequate Signage

6.   Equality Act 2010

7.   No contract with the Landowner

 1. No Keeper Liability.

A compliant Notice to Keeper has not been served. I assert that Initial Parking have failed to

comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. Initial Parking cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged contravention from the driver at the time to me (the registered keeper). I attach scanned copies of the front and rear Notice to Keeper sent by Initial Parking dated 18th October 2021 (see Image 1 and Image 2).

 2. Payment was actually made.

In their appeal reply letter dated 25th October 2021 (see Image 4 and 4A) Initial Parking erroneously alleges that the vehicle was parked without payment being made. On the Notice to Keeper photos (See image 2) supplied by initial parking a parking ticket can clearly be seen on the dashboard of the vehicle. I also attach a copy of a card statement (See attached Image 3) showing that payment was made by one of the occupants of the vehicle. Payment shown on bank statement as St Michaels Mount Marazion – amount £3.00 The image has been redacted for

security reasons.  (It is normal banking practice for payments to be drawn from bank accounts the day after payment was actually made).

 3. Contradictory contract terms

In large letters on the Initial Parking tariff board (see image 6) it states “Payment can be made at

any time throughout the duration of your stay”.

 Also in very small lettering (underneath the JustPark banner on the tariff board) it states

"Payment must be made on arrival".

 In these circumstances I assert that the wording of the tariff board is ambiguous and in breach of

Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act says effectively that if there is any ambiguity, then the statement that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail:

 “69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.”

 4. Disabled Occupant

As one of the occupants of the vehicle I am able to confirm that I am the holder of a blue

disability badge. I attach a copy of both the front and rear of my blue disability badge with this appeal. (see image 7 and image 8)

 5. Inadequate Signage

I assert that:

 (1) The text on the “Terms and conditions” sign (see image 5) is too small to be read from a vehicle prior to the vehicle being parked and is difficult to be easily read. Section 19.3 of the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice (current version 8 - January 2020) states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”  I believe that the “Terms and conditions” sign does not comply with this requirement.

(2) The signage is inadequate for disabled occupants of vehicles. On the Initial Parking tariff board (Image 6) it states in large writing: “These tariffs do apply to blue badge holders”. However, hidden within the small print on the aforementioned “Terms and Conditions” sign (Image 5) it states “all vehicles parked within a designated disabled bay must display a valid disabled blue badge in the windscreen of the vehicle at all times. Where disabled concessions apply, you agree to follow the instructions on the signage in order to qualify for the concession”.

(3) In so far as it is relevant to this case the signage does not comply with Section 19.9 of the

BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice (current version 8 - January 2020). Section

19.9 states “So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists”.

(4) The signage provided by Initial Parking Ltd is not compliant with the requirements of theEquality Act 2010.

 6. Equality Act 2010

I consider that the conduct of Initial Parking Ltd on this matter breaches The Equality Act 2010.

 7. No Landowner Authority

There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator (Initial Parking) is put to strict proof

of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

 As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

 Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the aforementioned BPA Code of Practice) and basic but crucial informationsuch as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the aforementioned BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

 “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”

Additionally any such document produced by Initial Parking Ltd must be compliant with the legal requirements of Companies House.

In these circumstances I request that my appeal is upheld and that the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled,

Yours faithfully

 

Fruitcake

Rossbr, well done, and without the need of a thread beforehand. This is what we like to see.

katiemcc

I have appealed to POPAL today after smart parking rejected my appeal. I paided for an hour and there is a sign clearing stating first 15mins free. I was in the car park for 73 mins so I have not broken any parking terms. I have sent photos of signs and my tickets to POPAL. I live in Northern Ireland my friends have had these before and just ignore them and they eventually go away. If I don’t get this appeal is it wise to ignore them even though I have engaged with them or because I have will it get worse? 

Any advice would be helpful.