POPLA Decisions

Aza83

Umkomaas said:

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 not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis.

Well, that's a very nice decision as ECP have pretty standard signage across the country. This outcome should be quoted in every ECP POPLA appeal as it's first appeal point, with the name of the Assessor (Naomi Littler) and the POPLA Decision reference number (not known at time of posting, but if @Aza83 could quote it here please, that will be so helpful). 

@Aza83 very well done!

Here is the POPLA Appeal with photos of the ECP signage that found disfavour with Assessor Naomi with which future ECP appellants can compare their own photos of signage.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LkX8CdGCZNd-LuU2hNS_ey6JFOj9Jh6o/view

Blimey I hadn't thought of it like that, nice that might outcome may be able to help others! I've added the decision date and the verification code to my original post, which is 15/03/2022 and 2410212396.

I'll keep an eye on the signage when I'm in the town centre to see if they do change anything. I've also raised the lack of planning permission for the pole mounted signs and ANPR cameras with the council (not sure I'll get anywhere with this) and I'm going to be complaining to Poundland about the experience I've had. I've also signposted these forums on Nextdoor so hopefully this could all help some Newburians in a similar situation.

I should also specifically thank the forum members that kindly reviewed my Popla appeal: @1505grandad @Coupon-mad, thank you - you are superstars!

Jay12647

Operator name: ParkingEye

Location: Wilbraham Road, Manchester

Decision date: 15/03/22

Decision Successful

Assessor Name

Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not enter their vehicle registration details via the terminal.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was not issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that it is pursuing the liable party. The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority to form contracts with motorists and issue PCNs. The appellant states that the motorist was a visitor and the signage is misleading as there is no reception or means for motorists to register their vehicles. They believe it to be impossible for motorists to fulfil the contract and have suggested changes to the wording on the signs. The appellant states that the operator has not complied with The British Parking Association Code of Practice with regards to its use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. They state that the operator has not checked that the charge is appropriate. They state that the operator has failed to inform motorists what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition data will be issued for. They believe that the operator has breached data protection laws. The appellant states that the parking charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is prohibited/unfair. They believe it cannot be saved by the Supreme Court Case ParkingEye v Beavis. The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. They have requested strict proof of what the signs looked like from where the car park was parked on the day in question. The appellant has provided various links to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not enter their vehicle registration details via the terminal. In response, the appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage that day. While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my report will focus solely on signage as this supersedes other aspects of the appeal. Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises to private parking operators: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… signs must be conspicuous, and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Within its evidence pack, the operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution throughout. Having reviewed the images, I can see that they were taken the day after the parking event. As such, it is unclear whether the signs were in situ at the time the motorist parked. As a result, I have been unbale to conclude that the motorist was presented with the opportunity to review and comply with them. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is allowed.

Its a shame i'll never find out if all the other points would have won too, but a win is a win. How it wasn't immediately thrown out for a non-existent terminal is beyond me. 

hangrygal

Eurocar park Birmingham- overstay of 15 minutes 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that they were not the driver and are refusing to disclose who the driver on the date in question was. The appellant added that In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. The appellant included photographic evidence of lack of signage on the car park. The appellant added that the £100 PCN is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. The appellant feels there is insufficient signage and it is illegible. The appellant also added that the ANPR images are not reliable or accurate. The operator failed to transparently inform the appellant that there is ANPR on site. The appellant also raised landowner authority which they dispute. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the land. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions and the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the amount of the charge as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is disproportionate to the time they overstayed. 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. 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 not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. I note the parking amount is in bold, capital letters, however it does not stand out from the other signage sufficiently and still blends in with the rest of the notice. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. For the reasons stated above, I cannot determine that the appellant has agreed to pay this fee for breaching the terms and conditions. Consequently, I cannot consider that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. I note the parking amount is in bold, capital letters, however it does not stand out from the other signage sufficiently and still blends in with the rest of the notice

Another ECP case being upheld on the basis of signage this week. I wonder if POPLA have taken against them? 😮

As per my suggestion on the post by Aza83, this should now be the opening appeal point for any ECP cases. 

Coupon-mad

Agreed, everyone should quote POPLA in cases v Euro Car Parks.  I'm not at all impressed with them right now about something, and they deserve some pushback!

POPLA now have a better handle on unclear signage than HHJ Simpkiss did in Norma's case:

On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. I note the parking amount is in bold, capital letters, however it does not stand out from the other signage sufficiently and still blends in with the rest of the notice. 

Can someone post a pic of a recent ECP sign here so we know what the issue is?

Umkomaas

Can someone post a pic of a recent ECP sign here so we know what the issue is?

The photos adjudicated on in @Aza83's case are in the link to his appeal at the top of this page. I can't extract the actual photos to post here as separate images. Someone with better IT skills than me might be able to do that?

Fruitcake

From Aza83's PoPLA appeal.

The charge amount is in the yellow strip that is a different shade from the rest, above where it hypocritically says, "DISPLAY A VALID TICKET CLEARLY"

SPlatten

Today I received a "NOTICE TO KEEPER" for an incident where I parked in front of an EV charger at the allocated and dedicated area for the charger.   As quoted on the notice I parked on the 10/03/2022 at 19:35:34 leaving when charging had completed at 20:55:36, a total of 1 hour 35 minutes and 34 seconds.  Originally I tried to use a charger by a Holiday Inn, however this unit was faulty so I telephoned the customer care number on the charger and was directed to another charger operated by the same company near by, which is the one I successfully charged at and paid for on my credit card, however after a week I received this letter from Euro Car Parks.  I don't dispute the time I parked in front of the charger as this was the allocated parking space, the notice informs me that I owe £85.00 for parking without permission and this can be discounted to £50.00 if I pay before the end of the month quoted date 30/03/2022. 

There is no way to speak with anyone at Euro Car Parks so I have written a letter to them.  I refuse to pay this and I am prepared to see them in court as the only reason I parked in front of this unit was because I was advised to by the units customer care help line.

I consider this behaviour and demand by Euro Car Parks to be completely disgusting.

Umkomaas

@SPlatten - wrong place really to be airing this. If you don't a thread of your own about your specific case, please read the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, first post, then open a new thread if you need further advice. 

Fruitcake

SPlatten, did you intend to post this on your own thread instead of here, assuming you have one, because this thread is about PoPLA decisions.

Have you read the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES?