POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Shows exactly why the new Code of Practice and statutory regime is sorely needed.

Delivering and unloading is not parking, POPLA.  The driver isn't in breach of parking terms.

ohmy6od2

A bit of background on my initial POPLA appeal.

We were issued an invoice by Parking Eye for allegedly being in a staff only area. We had delivered here 48hrs prior with no issues and no invoice. 

We appealed on the basis that this ’staff area’ is the only place you can deliver to the goods entrances to any premises on the retail park. We supplied delivery notes and copies of job requests to prove we had good reason for being there.

It was rejected and had to go through POPLA. 

We supplied all of the initial evidence as per the process. Parking Eye then supplied theirs. As part of their evidence the supplied an aerial image with an outline of this ’staff area’. It basically covered the entirety of the rear area to every premises on the retail park, thus meaning it was not possible to deliver without getting an invoice. I put this to POPLA and asked how on earth we could deliver or anyone for that matter who was delivering. They also supplied a photo of the entrance to the ’staff area’ with their sign in the background, but the retail parks signage (which says service vehicles and staff parking only) had been edited out of the photo. I supplied POPLA with evidence of this and they dismissed it without any explanation other than I failed to prove this. 

POPLA failed to take on board anything I said. I’m still none the wiser now how anyone can deliver here without being invoiced based on this ruling, even though we did 48hrs before. 

What’s the best approach now? I wouldn’t normally bother fighting so much but this has really p***ed me off and I don’t want to pay them anything. 

Umkomaas

What’s the best approach now? I wouldn’t normally bother fighting so much but this has really p***ed me off and I don’t want to pay them anything. 

Not on this thread please, this is for POPLA Decisions only, not ongoing advice. If you have a current thread about your case, please post there for more directions, or if no current thread, please open a new one, post some background detail, including the POPLA decision and we'll take it from there. 

bergkamp

SAR sent to Apcoa resulting in disclosure of two 'ghost' emails supposedly sent to me regarding my appeal .

One included a POPLA code...        So i used it.

POPLA appeal was simply;

I am the registered keeper of VRM XXXXXXX.

I am NOT the owner of the vehicle and was not the driver on the date of the event.

The Railway byelaws state:

In England and Wales

(i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

In their 'letter' dated Xth October, which I had to obtain via a SAR request as it was never sent to me, Apcoa state;

If the Penalty Notice remains unpaid, APCOA Parking is entitled to pursue you as the keeper through the Magistrates Court by way of a private criminal prosecution for payment of the Penalty Notice.

Apcoa are at best mistaken in this assumption, or at worst deliberately misleading the public.

The ONLY law that allows keeper liablity for a drivers actions, is Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. This obviously can not be used as the land is covered by Railway Byelaws and as such is not relevent land.

To clarify, as registered keeper of VRM XXXXXXX I am not liable for this Penalty Charge Notice.

XXXX  XXXXXX

Registered keeper

Today I received the following;

Mon, 21 Nov at 16:50

Dear bergkamp,

Your parking charge appeal against APCOA Parking - EW.

APCOA Parking - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here.

blah blah blah

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

A full 26 page evidence pack was on the POPLA portal.

Then I received another email, ELEVEN minutes later;

Mon, 21 Nov at 17:01

Dear  bergkamp,

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6391575/apcoa-denying-access-to-popla-penalty-charge-notices#latest

ampersand

More unwitting gibberish, predictably, from them:
'The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.'
Laughable nonsense, as only you could withdraw the appeal, you being the one who made it.😁
#
This was simply another attempt by a private parking scumpany to extort.  Enjoy their retreat and keep everything. 
Pursue them for harassment if they try to resuscitate this in the future. 
It is not unknown. 
#
Well done.🙂

erendis92

Two successful appeals against One Parking Solution for parking in our own allocated residential bay - this thread and others were extremely helpful in putting our appeal together so I wanted to share the result in case it can help others in a similar situation: 


Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Adele Ditchfield

Assessor summary of operator case:

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was not pre-authorised.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant explains they are a resident of the property and the parking bay is part of the agreement with no requirement to display a permit. They say they were not advised by the letting agent, management or their tenancy agreement that a permit had to be displayed. The appellant explains that the entrance signs only state that it is resident parking only and does not say there are any additional terms to park. The appellant says their contract cannot be altered by additional signage being placed. The appellant has provided evidence of signage and their tenancy agreement.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, 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 parking operator has issued the parking charge for the vehicle not being pre-authorised and the signage states that vehicles must either be pre-authorised or a valid permit must be displayed. However, the PCN issue reason does not cover what the full terms are. The charge reason should also include for not displaying a valid permit, as these are the terms. It is the responsibility of the parking operator to ensure the correct details are on the PCN and as they are not, I am not satisfied the charge has been issued correctly and must allow this appeal. It is not necessary to address the remaining grounds of appeal.

TL;DR: we had two PCNs issued by OPS the first two days we moved into our new flat - one listed that the vehicle was not pre-authorised as the reason for the PCN, the other that it was not displaying a valid permit (the outcome/summary of the second appeal was otherwise identical to this one) - we had plenty of other grounds for appeal (the entrance sign on-site makes no mention of permits being required and OPS submitted false evidence to POPLA, the scumbags), but it seems what swung it for the assessor in our case was that OPS did not list the full terms of the contract on the PCNs themselves (they should have listed *both* "no permit" and "vehicle not pre-authorised", rather than picking and choosing their reasoning). It looks like a technicality to me compared to the other reasons we gave but if it works, it works, so to anyone finding themselves in a similar situation I recommend triple-checking the reasoning listed on the PCN!

Many thanks again to everyone who puts in so much time and effort for free to help others dealing with the outrageous practices of these PPCs!

Coupon-mad

That's interesting! Brighton or Worthing area?

Fruitcake

A PoPLA assessor ignoring primacy of contract and scrabbling to find some other reason to allow the appeal. 
Imagine my surprise.

GordyB_2

Successful POPLA decision today for parking at New Square Shopping Centre, West Bromwich. My success was definitely down to information I got from this site, so thank you to all who share information.

Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ad you did not make payment or validate your parking through the parking terminals.

Assessor summary of your case: The appellant explains that they were parked for a couple of hours so they could work on their laptop in their car, as they were going to the Commonwealth Games in the area. They say they identified this in advance, as it looked like an out-of-town shopping centre which would allow them to park for free but also allow their daughter to shop whilst they worked. The appellant says every other shopping centre they have parked on is free parking. They say they arrived at the car park not expecting it to be pay and display, and they did not notice the signage. Once they had parked, the appellant says they did not leave the car, only their 13-year-old daughter visited the shops. They say given her age she would not be paying attention to any signs, and no one would check to ask if she was parked. The appellant says their daughter didn’t have any receipts when they received the PCN. The appellant states they would have happily paid for parking if they knew. They say they have since looked at the signage on Google Maps and they do not recall seeing any signage and states there is limited signage throughout the car park. The appellant says if there was prominent signage, with large lettering showing a PCN of £70 would be due, then they say they may have seen this, or at least feel the PCN was justified. The appellant has quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 as it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. The appellant has provided images taken from Google Maps, to support their appeal. Within the motorist comments, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal regarding signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. The appellant says if there was prominent signage, with large lettering showing a PCN of £70 would be due, then they say they may have seen this, or at least feel the PCN was justified. The appellant has quoted the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 as it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Section 19.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 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.” Upon reviewing the signage provided by the operator, the writing that informs motorists of the PCN charge is extremely small. I can only read this on the PDF version of the signage and not from any of the images taken from the site therefore, I do not believe that this is adequately bringing the charge to the motorists’ attention. As such, I am allowing this 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. Good news for you, in time for Christmas! 👍

For context, could you tell us which PPC please, otherwise there's not much we can tie this to?