POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Yes, complain to the Government snd show your evidence when the upcoming final public consultation opens.

Read this and come back regularly, without leaving months in between or you will miss it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6369188/highview-parking-pcn#latest

@Affywaffy and @MercyMeB
You can ignore tedious debt letters, as you know from post #4 of the NEWBIES thread. Including from worthless aggressors, DCBLtd who can do diddly squat before a case goes to court (which you would not ignore - that's where we win!).

PLEASE BOTH OF YOU DO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION WHICH WILL OPEN THIS SUMMER.

It is the final chance to stop the gravy train.

Fruitcake

Affywaffy said:

Fruitcake said:

Which PPC?

PoPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist, so no, you are not required to pay the charge unless a judge says so.

You are now in ignore mode unless you get a court claim in the next six years. Come back to this forum if that happens.

I now have a second debt collection letter in which it states the next step will be to recommend court action. And then a notice stating they took someone to court in 2015 and the Motorist lost the case. The charges have also crept up! Do I just continue to ignore? @Coupon-mad

Debt collectors are powerless and can safely be ignored as explained in the fourth post of the NEWBIES thread.

You are referring to the Beavis case heard in the Supreme court. It's nothing new.

The charges haven't crept up. It will remain at the same level as it was in the first instance. If it went to court and you lost, then there are permitted costs that the PPC can claim. If you won, it would cost you nothing and you may be able to claim sots up to £95.

Fruitcake

MercyMeB said:

The PPC is CCPC.
The threatening letter is from dcbl (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd) which is endorsed  with the Logo of "AS EXCLUSIVELY FEATURED ON THE POPULAR TV SHOW Can't pay? We'll Take It Away!"

Is there some body I can complain to about these stronger tactics bring used to extort money against me.

DCB Ltd are powerless debt collectors and can safely be ignored. I believe the TV company got into trouble about that particular show. I believe it is no longer being broadcast.

Have you complained to your MP?

You should also return to the forum on a weekly basis as there will be a third government consultation in the near future, specifically about the charge levels and the fake ad on debt collector charges that have not been incurred by the PPCs.

Aza83

Aza83 said:

Operator Name : Euro Car Parks - EW

Location : West Street car park, Newbury, Berkshire

Assessor Name : Naomi Littler

Decision : Successful (booyah!)

Decision date : 15/03/2022

Appeal Verification Code : 2410212396

I've won another appeal, this time on behalf of a local resident for the same car park I appealed against. Euro Car Parks still haven't updated their signs it would seem. I've also raised an issue with the council over lack of planning permission for the poke-mounted ANPR on site - not sure if it'll get anywhere, but I'm giving ECP everything I've got anyway!

Operator Name : Euro Car Parks - EW

Location : West Street car park, Newbury, Berkshire

Assessor Name : Robert Andrews

Decision : Successful

Decision date : 11/07/2022

Appeal Verification Code : 2411452251

Assessor summary of operator case : The appellant has provided a comprehensive document with full detailing’s of their grounds for appeal. This includes reference to relevant case law and includes compliance with the grace period from the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They have also stated that the entrance sign are inadequately positioned and the signs are not prominent, clear or legible as well as their being insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN. They note that the operator has not shown they are pursing the driver, who Is liable for the charge as well as there being no evidence of agreement the operator has with the landowner in order to operate on the land. They state the operator has not provided evidence of the period parked and this is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Additionally, they have stated that the vehicle images obtained by the operator and are not compliant with the BPA as well as the ANPR system being neither accurate nor reliable. The appellant also raises the fact that the signage fails to warn drivers about what the ANPR data is used as well as their being no planning permission from the local council for pole-mounted ANPR cameras.

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. It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly.
In this case the appellant has stated the sum of the PCN has not been adequately brough to the driver’s attention. I reviewed the signs in this case and must note the reference to a: “£100” PCN is written in a much smaller font than the conditions that precede it. 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.
While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, 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. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebutted the appellant’s grounds in relation to fairness of the rate of the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Umkomaas

Good result. 👍

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.

POPLA seem to have focused in on this part of the ECP signage. There have been a number of successes on this basis over the previous 3-4 pages of this thread. 

Fruitcake

Aza83, well done on your win. As well as planning permission for pole mounted ANPR scameras, do ECP have advertising consent for their signs? Not having it is a breach of the PoFA para 12, as well as being a criminal offence, but only the council can pursue it.

Aza83

@Fruitcake oh good question, I don't think they do but I'll have a check on the weekend to see what the score is

BigBaldJohn

Another success. Details on this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6360696/unable-to-pay-at-car-park

Operator was ParkingEye, location Wye Valley Visitor Centre

Decision:    Successful

Assessor Name:    Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a 5 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points.
The appellant’s case is they are appealing as the registered keeper, on the following grounds:

 1. Failure to adhere to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Consideration and Grace Periods.

 2. No contract formed due to the failure of the payment mechanism on site.

 3. Poor signage.

 4. The operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

 5. No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements.

 6. Vehicle Images contained in Parking Charge Notice: BPA Code of Practice – non compliance.

 7. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is neither reliable nor accurate.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and provided detailed comments. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence has been considered in making our determination.

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. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

The appellant’s case is that there is a failure to adhere to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to Consideration and Grace Periods. I must first establish if the appellant has entered into a parking contract.

The BPA Code of Practice sets out the standards that it expects its members to meet when managing car parks. Paragraph 13.1 requires parking operators to allow the driver a minimum of five minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted.

Having viewed the available evidence I can see that the ANPR evidence shows that the driver entered the site at 11:40 and exited it at 11:51, and their duration of stay was 11 minutes. The site is Wye Valley Visitor Centre and is a large car park. The appellant has explained that the driver attempted to use the PayByPhone app as they had no change to pay at the machine but the app failed to connect and despite multiple attempts over several minutes they were unable to pay, so they exited the site and parked elsewhere. While I acknowledge that the operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that other motorist were able to pay for parking, these transactions do not show any processing fees, so there is no evidence of any PayByPhone transaction during the time the driver was parked at the site.

I consider that the driver has provided a credible information to account for the time spent in the car park. I do not consider that the driver has gained any utility from the site, as the time was spent parking, reviewing the terms and conditions, attempting to pay, and exiting the car park. Taking into account the duration of stay was 11 minutes, the size of the car park and the events outlined by the appellant I do not consider a 5 minute consideration point is reasonable or adequate in the circumstances.

On the available evidence I have concluded that the appellant left the site within the consideration period and is not bound by the parking contract. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. 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.

Umkomaas

Well done, nice result. 👍

Taking into account the duration of stay was 11 minutes, the size of the car park and the events outlined by the appellant I do not consider a 5 minute consideration point is reasonable or adequate in the circumstances.

Interesting!

Fruitcake

Gosh, a PoPLA assessor applying common sense and good judgement. How rare to see that these days.

Well done John, and thanks for letting us know.