POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

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"

I see what POPLA mean about the parking charge blending in!

cambs_carts

Successful appeal...

Operator: NCP

Details:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79074527#Comment_79074527

Bob__M

Hi

Appeal Success – T5 Drop Off Zone - POPLA ACPOA

Novice contributor on MSE but want to share my blissful happiness after defeating an £80 PCN from ACPOA regarding the Heathrow T5 Drop-off zone in the hope that it helps others avoid ACPOA's gouging practices.

Scenario: mistakenly drove through Drop-off Zone (DOZ) whilst attempting to find Meet & Greet (MnG) hand-over point.

Phase 1: Issued with £40 PCN which I appealed on grounds of 1) didn't make a drop-off as we drove straight through 2) I had MnG booked and offered to provide  proof  3) I suggest that ACPOA review their ANPR timestamps to see that I could not possibly have dropped anyone from the car in the time difference between entry and exit 4) no safe or legal alternative in T5 1-way system.

Phase 2: ACPOA summarily reject my appeal.  They ignore my comments on timestamp data and they claim that they had requested proof of MnG and that I had not responded.

Phase 3: I appeal to POPLA on grounds of:

1) The name “Drop-off Zone” implies fee is charged for dropping off but does not say what happens if you drive straight through.  All signs talk about Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) but when you drive through you don’t ever stop so the driver is a) unable to read the detailed Ts&Cs posted along the DOZ (according to ACPOA)  and  2) never enters into a contract to park.

2) ACPOA had ignored my request for timestamp data

3) No safe or legal alternative in 1-way system if you miss the turn

4) I supplied proof of MnG booking which, as far as I was concerned, ACPOA had not requested.

Phase 4: ACPOA respond to POPLA request for their evidence.

Over a 31 page document (!!!) ACPOA mostly just repeat everything that had gone before with 2 exceptions:

1) They show images of some of their road signs

2) they offer timestamp data that is rounded to the nearest minute and shows an interval of 2 minutes e.g. 07:40 and 07:42.

Phase 5: I offer comments on ACPOA’s evidence.

1) Signage offered as evidence is all about “PCNs” and “parking”. ACPOA have not shown signs of “DOZ” which, as name implies, is all about dropping-off, not driving straight through.  Since I did not “park” or “drop-off” then the signs were incomplete and misleading in respect of charges.

2) Time stamp data is misleading and incomplete. I calculated that driving through the 450 mt long drop off zone at an avg. speed of 15mph (there's a 20 mph limit with multiple raised pedestrian crossings) will take over a minute (1’ 7”).  I also showed that the shortest possible interval between the 2 timestamps (rounded to the nearest minute) was 1 minute 1 second.  So proving that I could not have “dropped-off”.

3) ACPOA offered no proof of sending or delivery of their request to me for proof of MnG booking

4) I asked the open questions:… why would I use DOZ why I had MnG booked and was early for flight?  And why would I ignore a request for proof of MnG booking if it was crucial for my appeal?

Phase 6  I win my appeal on grounds of incomplete/misleading signage and on timestamp calculations proving I did not stop.  POPLA did not comment on other points as case decided by the first points.

Hope this helps.

Umkomaas

Nice one, and well done. Not that it matters a jot to you now, but it's APCOA, not ACPOA! 😄

WaterBourne

Operator Name - Civil Enforcement EW (Not sure what the EW is for). 

Location - Port Of Wells P&D Car Park

Decision Date - 13 April 2022

Decision - Successful

Assessor Name - Barry Arledge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as payment not made in accordance with the terms displayed on signage.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case raises several grounds detailing why the charge is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). They have been summarised as follows: 

• The car park is not considered relevant land.
• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not invite the keeper to name the driver
• The NTK does not warn the motorist that the driver’s name is unknown to the operator
• The NTK was received by the appellant outside of the relevant period
• The signage at the site is not compliant
• Landowner Authority The appellant has provided images of the signage at the car park The appellant provided additional comments in response to the operator’s case file

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. The driver has not been identified therefore, I must first see whether the operator has complied with the relevant sections of PoFA for them to transfer liability to the keeper. Section 9 (2) (e) of PoFA states: “The notice 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;”
And; Section 9 (2) (f) of PoFA states: “(2) 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”
To establish a compliant transfer of liability under the terms of PoFA from the driver to the keeper, section 9 (2) paragraph (e) and (f) applies. I have checked this NTK against sections 9 (2) (e) and (f) of PoFA and concluded the operator did not issue a PCN compliant with this legislation.
The driver has not been identified, therefore as the keeper can only be held liable when PoFA applies I must allow this appeal. The appellant in this case is not liable for these unpaid parking charges.
I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal and commented further upon those in their response to the operator’s case file, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

The full story can be found at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6340647/wells-next-the-sea-quay-civil-enforcement/p1 

Fair_Dinkum

POPLA success - Euro Car Parks - Evesham

Thank you everyone for sharing info and helping on this forum!

Decision : Successful

26/04/2022

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. 

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 the site does not have marked bays. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to manage the site. The appellant has mentioned a breach of the ICO Code of Practice within their appeal. The appellant says there is no evidence of the period parked. The appellant has questioned the images of the vehicle on the PCN. The appellant has questioned the camera system at the site. The appellant says the signs do not inform motorists that cameras are used at the site. The appellant says the operator does not have planning permission for cameras and signs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Very good! Why did they bother...

Rock_Hbk

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the motorist did not pay for sufficient parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a PDF document which elaborates on their grounds of appeal in detail. 

The appellant’s case is that no Notice to Hirer was sent which is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). They advise there is no keeper or hirer liability for this charge. They say they appealed to the operator as the hirer of the vehicle and were only issued with a rejection letter and not a new Notice to Hirer. They have quoted the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. They state they are not willing to name the driver. They have also referenced a POPLA decision from 2016 regarding this point. The appellant states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear, or legible and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant explains that PoFA 2012 requires adequate notice of the sum of the charges. They state it does not comply with section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. They have referenced the ParkingEye v Beavis judgement in support of this claim. They have also referenced another previous POPLA decision from 2016 regarding this point. The appellant believes there is no evidence that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the charge in question. The appellant wishes to see the operator has complied with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. In their comments on the operator's evidence, they state they have found no evidence on company’s house to show that Pippa Rangecroft can sign on behalf of the landowner. The appellant states the photographic evidence is non-compliant with section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. They state the images on the PCN have been cropped and there is no proof the timestamps have not been digitally edited. They state the operator must be audited by a third party. The appellant believes the operator has failed to comply with data protection policies. They have referenced section 21.4 of the BPA Code of Practice and the ICO. They state the operator must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. The appellant explains that there is no evidence of the period parked. They state the notice refers to the entry and exit time and not the specific time the vehicle was parked. They state they request to see evidence the vehicle was parked. The appellant also claims the ANPR system is not reliable nor accurate and the driver may have driven in and out of the site twice. The appellant has referenced an email sent from the BPA back in 2018 suggesting the BPA does not audit the ANPR technology itself just that the operator is complying with the clause. They state it should not be up to the appellant to prove the technology is not working as they do not have access to the evidence. The appellant has raised new grounds in their comments on the operator’s evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA has received third-party authorisation from xxxxxxx allowing the appellant to appeal on behalf of the company. The company, xxxxxx, is the registered keeper of the vehicle. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the company’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. When entering onto a private car park, 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 in the car park, which states: “TERMS & CONDITIONS OF PARKING… Parking tariffs apply… Tariff is calculated based on stay time. Please note your car park entry time to correctly calculate your tariff. Failure to pay the appropriate tariff may result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)… Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge: £100… Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge of: £100… 90 MINS – 2 HOURS………….. £3.00”. The PCN was issued as the motorist did not pay for sufficient parking. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the motorist’s vehicle, entering the car park at 09:57, and exiting at 11:42, totalling a stay of 1 hour and 44 minutes. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided evidence of a system search to show that there was no payment made for the vehicle registration LO65WBU to permit parking. It has also provided a copy of the site map, indicating the locations of each sign placed within the car park. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The appellant explains that no Notice to Hirer was sent which is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). They advise there is no keeper or hirer liability for this charge. They say they appealed to the operator as the hirer of the vehicle and were only issued with a rejection letter and not a new Notice to Hirer. They have quoted the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. They state they are not willing to name the driver. They have also referenced a POPLA decision from 2016 regarding this point. The company HealthAid Ltd is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator is holding the company liable for the PCN under PoFA 2012 as the registered keeper. This means that a Notice to Hirer does not need to be issued and this is not relevant for this case. For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as detailed in section 9.2, it needs to state that if the details of the driver during the time of the contravention are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is liable for the unpaid Parking Charge. It must also have been issued to the keeper within the relevant time period of 14 days. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with PoFA 2012 and hence I am able to consider the company’s liability for the charge as the registered keeper. POPLA’s role is to consider whether a parking contract was formed, and whether the motorist complied to the terms and conditions of the parking contract. We cannot take into consideration any successful outcomes for previous appeals as this does not dispute the validity of the PCN issued. The appellant states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear, or legible and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant explains that PoFA 2012 requires adequate notice of the sum of the charges. They state it does not comply with section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. They have referenced the ParkingEye v Beavis judgement in support of this claim. They have also referenced another previous POPLA decision from 2016 regarding this point. The appellant appears to have referenced Section 18.4 of the BPA Code of Practice which is from version 7 of the BPA Code of Practice issued in January 2018. However, POPLA uses the latest version of the BPA Code of Practice, version 8, which was issued in January 2020. It is section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice that states “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.” PoFA 2012 section 2(3) states, “For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which— (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.” I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the operator of the signs on the site adequately draw attention to the driver the total sum of the charges payable for not complying to the terms and conditions. The charge is highlighted in a separated black box and the text is in a contrasting white colour. I must reiterate that I cannot take into consideration previous appeal decisions as this has no bearings on the validity of the charge in question. The appellant believes there is no evidence that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the charge in question. The appellant wishes to see the operator has complied with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. In their comments on the operator's evidence, they state they have found no evidence on company’s house to show that Pippa Rangecroft can sign on behalf of the landowner. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.” The operator has provided a redacted contract confirming their authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the Parking Charge in question. After revieing the redacted contract, I can confirm the landowner authorised the contract to commence in July 2019 and ends in June 2022. I appreciate they say they cannot be certain Pippa Rangecroft was authorised to sign on the landowner’s behalf. It is reasonable to assume if the operator did not have the authority from the landowner, then the signs and ANPR equipment would have been removed from the premises. If the appellant wishes to dispute this claim, it is outside of POPLA’s remit and the appellant may wish to seek legal advice. The appellant states the photographic evidence is non-compliant with section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. They state the images on the PCN have been cropped and there is no proof the timestamps have not been digitally edited. They state the operator must be audited by a third party. Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice states: “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator and do not consider that these images have been digitally edited. There are clear images of the vehicle entering and exiting the site and the timestamps appear to be consistent. It is not within POPLA’s remit to determine whether the timestamps are fraudulent and if the appellant believes this is the case, they will need to raise this with the relevant authorities. The appellant believes the operator has failed to comply with data protection policies. They have referenced section 21.4 of the BPA Code of Practice and the ICO. They state the operator must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It appears the appellant has referenced an older version of the BPA Code of Practice code of practice. Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice permits the use of ANPR cameras to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, providing it is in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The signs installed on the site state that the data captured by their ANPR technology is being used to ensure drivers comply to the terms and conditions and for enforcement purposes when necessary. POPLA does not have any authority over the operator. If the appellant believes the operator is failing to undertaker a privacy impact assessment, they can raise this with the ICO. The appellant explains that there is no evidence of the period parked. They state the notice refers to the entry and exit time and not the specific time the vehicle was parked. They state they request to see evidence the vehicle was parked. The PCN has been issued for remaining on site for the duration of 1 hour and 44 minutes without a valid payment for this time. The duration on site has been calculated from the time the vehicle entered the site until the time the vehicle exited the site. The operator has provided timestamped ANPR images to evidence this. The operator is not required to provide evidence of that the vehicle parked on site. If the motorist drove around without parking, but still remained on site for this duration of time, the PCN issued is still valid. The PCN specifies that the location the notice relates to The Oaks Car Park, W3 6RE. The operator has provided ANPR imagery of the vehicle entering and exiting this site. I have no reason to doubt that these ANPR images do not relate to the site specified and the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the vehicle was elsewhere during this period of time. As such, I am satisfied this does not dispute the validity of the PCN issued. The appellant also claims the ANPR system is not reliable nor accurate and the driver may have driven in and out of the site twice. The appellant has referenced an email sent from the BPA back in 2018 suggesting the BPA does not audit the ANPR technology itself just that the operator is complying with the clause. They state it should not be up to the appellant to prove the technology is not working as they do not have access to the evidence. Section 22.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.” Therefore, the operator is not required to provide evidence of how or when they complete maintenance checks on their ANPR equipment as their process may be audited by the BPA. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. I accept that there is the possibility of inaccuracies regarding the timestamps on the parking event in question. I would need tangible evidence to conclusively accept that the appellant’s vehicle was not on site for the full duration of time stated on the PCN. As the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate that this was the case, I will work on the basis that the ANPR technology was accurate at the time of the contravention. POPLA’s remit does not have any authority over the operator’s equipment. If the appellant wishes to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they will need to contact the operator or the British Parking Association directly. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. 

Rock_Hbk

Sorry guys i want to delete above post but can not do it from my end if anyone can please delete this for  me and i will re-post it again 

Fruitcake

Does the edit cog-like icon not work for you, or are you accessing this site on a 'phone where not all the functions work?

Nobody here can delete it, but you could send a PM to one of the board guides, soolin or savvy, and ask one of them to delete it.

Since the post contains personal data you could also report it yourself and click on that reason in the drop down menu, which I have done as well.