POPLA Decisions 9 March 2013 at 6:49PM edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 4.3K replies 927.3K views

Umkomaas

@bunkersoldier - well done, a monkey off your back. 

On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and is therefore I cannot conclude it meets the test set out in ParkingEye v Beavis. Based

POPLA really seem to have got to grips with this and we should advise any PPC POPLA appeal, where the £100 charge showing on the signage does not meet the parameters of PE v Beavis, that this features prominently in the appeal. 

johnnypjr

Successful appeal against NSL Limited at Stansted Airport

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Spencer Lawrence

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for being parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that they were misdirected and stopped to read the sign, did not agree to the terms of the sign, then left. They state it was not possible to read the sign without stopping the vehicle. They state the following reasons: 1. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. 2. Non relevant land under POFA. 3. The operator has not shown that the keeper is the driver who was liable for the charge. 4. Misuse of Driving and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) data. 5. No reasonable cause to request DVLA data under Section 20.14 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 6. Misleading and unclear signage. The sign states ‘No stopping No waiting At any time to drop off / pick up’, and the operator has provided no evidence that a drop off or pick up took place. 7. No grace period given under Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice. 8. The amount demanded is a penalty and not a parking charge. The appellant has commented on the operator’s evidence reiterating the grounds made in their initial statement.

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. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant codes of practice or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. 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. After fully reviewing the operator’s evidence, I am not satisfied that it supports the reason the PCN was issued. The operator has stated the PCN was issued as the appellant parked in a restricted location during prescribed hours. Upon reviewing the evidence of the signage, the sign states, “Restricted ZONE: No stopping: No waiting At any time to drop off / pick up.” The appellant says that they stopped in order to read the signage whereby they rejected the terms and left. Therefore, the appellant has not dropped off or picked up. The wording on the signs only makes it clear that you cannot stop or wait to pick up or drop off at any time. The signs do not state that a PCN will be issued for simply stopping in the area. As the signs do not just state no stopping or waiting, and specifically mention drop off and pick up, then a PCN cannot be issued for a vehicle simply stopping in the area. The evidence the appellant’s vehicle the operator has provided only shows times between 10:10:42 and 10:10:452, therefore there is no evidence to show the appellant did drop off or pick up in the area. The appellant says they stopped in order to read the signage. If the operator wants to issue a PCN for simply stopping or waiting in the area, then the signs need to make this clear, which based on the evidence provided I am not satisfied is clear. I have to assess the reason that the PCN was issued as stated on the PCN and determine if the evidence provided supports the reason for the PCN being issued. The operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the driver has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. Based on the evidence provided, I am unable to conclude that the site has a condition of being issued a PCN for simply stopping in the area. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the driver has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I note the appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. However, I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. For the reasons stated above, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I have to allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Very good.

Three BPA members are all - IMHO - taking the Mickey at Airports at the moment with attempts at immediate ticketing, sometimes just for driving through a drop off lane without stopping at all:

NSL at Stansted
APCOA at Heathrow
NCP at Gatwick

NAMED AND SHAMED.

fuziduck

Successful POPLA appeal against APCOA Parking at Train Station carpark.

Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the penalty charge as the driver failed to purchase and/or display a valid ticket or permit

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal. They dispute that the signage at the site is adequate. They explain that the operator has not complied with the requirements of The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012 and the land is not relevant land. They believes that this means that the appellant cannot be held liable for the charge. The appellant repeats this point within their comments. The appellant questions the operator’s use of Railway Byelaws for claims. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract for the management of the site. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws. As the operator is not looking to transfer liability of the penalty charge it does not consider the provisions of PoFA 2012. The operator issued the penalty charge as the driver failed to purchase and/or display a valid ticket or permit. They dispute that the signage at the site is adequate. Section 19 of the British Parking Association code of practice sets out the requirements for signage. Section 19.3 explains that the operator must place clear, easy to read signage throughout the site Section 19.4 also requires the amount of the penalty to be adequately displayed. In this case the operator has provided a site map and photographs of the signage. This evidence shows that there is a limited amount of signage throughout the site and I am not satisfied that it is adequate to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

Thanks to everyone on this forum, but especially from the endless dedication that Coupon-mad spends helping us all fight these rogue parking companies.

Umkomaas

The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper.

On what authority?  Is there any law that supports this?

silly_seagull

Charlestown Harbour Car Park, near St Austell, Cornwall

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator says the vehicle was parked not wholly within a bay, and has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant says the PCN didn’t comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. They advise signs on site weren’t adequate. They say the operator wasn’t authorised by the landowner to operate. They advise there were mitigating circumstances around why the driver parked as they did. They say the bays on site are too small. They advise the operator frustrated the driver’s ability to comply with the contract. They say there was no loss incurred. The appellant has provided a document elaborating on the above appeal grounds in detail. Having seen the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on some of their original appeal grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator is a member of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme, and must follow the associated Code of Practice. The Code says that if an operator doesn’t “own the land on which [it is] carrying out parking management, [it] must have the written authorisation of the landowner”, that authorisation “must be given before […] operating on the land in question and give […] authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management” and that “it must say that the landowner […] requires [the operator] to keep to the Code of Practice and that [it has] the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The appellant has queried whether the operator was authorised by the landowner to operate on site. The operator has provided a copy of a document which it says shows it was authorised, but, having reviewed the document, I can’t agree. The document provided is a contract between a landowner and the operator, authorising the operator to manage parking at a particular car park. The location of the car park is given as “Shipwreck & Heritage Car Park, Quay Road, St Austell, PL25 3NJ”. The evidence also includes a copy of the PCN, which gave the location of parking as “Charlestown Pay & Display, Charlestown, PL25 3NJ”. Whilst the two locations share a postcode, they don’t otherwise appear to be the same location. If they are the same location, it’s unclear why the operator’s contract with the landowner would give the location one name and the PCN another. I’m not satisfied from the evidence that the operator had appropriate authority to operate on site. I’m not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Yay that's a first!  Well spotted that Assessor.

PrezvanRat26

Beetham Plaza Car Park, Liverpool

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Cafferty

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

Within their appeal, the appellant says that the parking charge is punitive and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to either the operator or the landowner. The appellant has commented on how the driver was not parked in the car park in question, they say that no parking activity or any other activity listed on the terms and conditions were engaged in. The appellant has referenced how the there is no information on the signage at site to indicate what the reasonable consideration period is or if there even is one. The appellant says that the driver was on site for less than the 10 minute grace period afforded to drivers. They say that the time spent on site was due to the driver having to drive around the whole car park looking for somewhere to park and decided to leave and park elsewhere as they did not feel safe. The appellant says that the operator are not the landowner and do not have the right to enter into a contract with the driver. They say that the operator do not have the authority to issue parking charge notices. For their evidence the appellant has provided a screenshot of a newspaper article and an image of the signage on site. Within their comments, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on how long the driver remained on the site, as this ground of appeal has persuaded my decision. The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. The appellant has stated within their appeal that the driver entered site drove around the car park to find a space to park as they could, they decided to leave and park elsewhere as they did not feel safe in the car park. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 13.1 states: “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes”. I appreciate that the operator has provided a site map the layout of the car park and where the signage is located. However, the appellant has said that the driver had drove around the car park and felt unsafe so left. The site maps shows that the car park in question is a multistorey. As we are unable to account for how busy the car park may have been and in the event that the car park was full. It is not reasonable to say that the driver would have been able to enter the car park, drive around the car park decide they did not want to park and leave site within 5 minutes. In this present case, the driver remained on site for 8 minutes and after understanding they could park, they left site. I acknowledge that the driver stayed for 3 minutes over the 5 minutes allowed however, they say during that time it was spent driving around the car park and then spent trying to leave the car park after deciding they did not want to stay. Therefore, I am satisfied that there was no intention to accept the parking contract. As such, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal, I do not feel they need to be addressed.

Umkomaas

@PrezvanRat26 - well done. For context, could you tell us which parking firm was involved. If they were following the BPA Code of Practice they should not have rejected the initial appeal and should never have forced you to POPLA!  

PrezvanRat26

Umkomaas said:

@PrezvanRat26 - well done. For context, could you tell us which parking firm was involved. If they were following the BPA Code of Practice they should not have rejected the initial appeal and should never have forced you to POPLA!  

It was ParkingEye