POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Ludicrous.  Sit tight, and defend if a claim arrives.

Throwawaycheesecake

Context - car was stopped on double yellow lines in front of the barriers to load/unload as allowed by the highway code (mentioned but missed by POPLA) as the mid-stay drop off barriers would not open. Car was stopped for 53 seconds. 

Evidence pack also mentioned the driver stopped in a bus lane without evidence, POPLA completely ignored this. You also couldn't read the map from the businesses evidence pack but you can't raise new points of appeal in comments. 

Its a shame frustration of contract is just a personal circumstance. 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as dropping off or picking up outside designated areas.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • Drop off car park in-accessible – business breach of contract and unfair penalty charge. • Inadequate signage. • No genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. The appellant added additional comments in relation to grace period (13.1 of the British Parking Association code of practice). The vehicle did not park. Ineligible map and can’t enforce charges in this area. They added photographic evidence of their email conversation with the operator in support of their appeal. I have included this in my assessment.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, a motorist might form a contract with the parking 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: “RED ROUTE…No stopping at any time…ANPR enforcement in operation…Charge of £95 for infringements…” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Restricted Zone…No stopping at any time to drop off or pick up…CCTV and numberplate recognition in operation…This area is private land…” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Mid term car park…Up to 15 minutes FREE…” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PARKING CHARGE NOTICES ISSUED FOR BREACHES OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS…Dropping off/ Picking up outside designated parking area…The charge payable for a Parking Charge Notice is £95…” 

The operator has provided video evidence of the driver picking up a passenger in an area that was not the pickup / drop off car park. They have also provided a site map with evidence of the signage and their position in the area. 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. • Drop off car park in-accessible – business breach of contract and unfair penalty charge. I also note that the appellant added that the operator can’t provide evidence that the barriers were in operation on the date in question and that it does not make logical sense why they would stop before the entrance to a free pick up and drop off car park. I note the appellant's comments and can see that the barriers appear to not be working and can see the amount of traffic in the area. POPLA’s remit is to decide appeals based on facts, relevant law, and the applicable code of practice. This means that we cannot allow appeals on personal circumstances that prevented the motorist from keeping to the terms and conditions of the car park in question. Furthermore, as the vehicle has come to a halt for the purpose of stopping, parking, or waiting, it is therefore no longer in motion and is considered to be making use of the area. I can see that they were able to collect their passenger and have clearly gained utility by being stopped in an area they were not permitted to stop and pick their passenger up in. 

In relation to their comment about breach of contract and unfair penalty, the appellant would need to take that up with the operator directly as POPLA is an independent body we are unable to become involved with anything to do with the costs, collections, or payments of the PCN or contract. If a motorist is unable to comply with the terms and conditions for whatever reason, then by choosing to stay, they risk contravening the terms and conditions of that car park, which remain in place regardless. Consequently, they are accepting the possibility of receiving a PCN. If such a situation arises, and the motorist wishes to avoid receiving a PCN, they should consider parking elsewhere. 

• Inadequate signage. Signage can’t be seen from a moving car at night. I note the appellant's comments. I can see from the signage on site and the site map that there are several signs on the site. Additionally, there is a sign to the right of where the appellant was stopped which clearly states: ““Restricted Zone…No stopping at any time to drop off or pick up…CCTV and numberplate recognition in operation…This area is private land…”. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the code says operators need to have signs that are clear and unambiguous and set out the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the BPA code of practice. I would also add that I acknowledge that it was dark, however I can see from the street lighting and lighting from the cars in the area that the area is sufficiently lit up and signage is visible. I am satisfied the signage on site meets the British Parking Association code of practice Appendix B which states that signage must be visible during the hours or darkness and have sufficient contrast and illumination. 

• No genuine pre-estimate of loss. I note the appellant's remarks and understand they feel that they did not block any vehicles and that it was after 9pm on a Sunday evening which was and extremely quiet time. Although I note the appellant’s earlier version of events which state that it was incredibly busy – which I can see from the operator's video evidence. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to be fair or reflect any loss to the landowner or operator. As the charge is in the region of £85 the judge ruled the charge allowable. The court’s full judgment in the case is available to read online should the appellant choose to. 

• The appellant added additional comments in relation to grace period (13.1 of the British Parking Association code of practice). The vehicle did not park. Ineligible map and can’t enforce charges in this area. It should be noted that the motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review. As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist comments section have been disregarded in this appeal response. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the drop off zone. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant picked up a passenger outside the designated area, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. There is always a human element to assessing PCN’s and sometimes refusing an appeal can feel uncomfortable nonetheless, when a breach of a contract has occurred, we cannot allow an appeal. As noted within my report above, I have refused this appeal.

Coupon-mad

So according to that Assessor, you can't comment:

(a) pointing out that the grace period rules in the BPA CoP have been broken, and/or

(b) pointing out that a map in the evidence pack (that you've never seen before) is illegible!

Which useless PPC is operating a (wholly inappropriate for the industrial area) no stopping zone, calling it a RED route but painting double YELLOW lines?!

Why didn't the landowner cancel it?

Throwawaycheesecake

APCOA Luton Airport, I have contacted the Airport who referred me back to Apcoa to appeal which was swiftly rejected. I have chased them again. 

Check outside the Mid-stay car park for the double yellow lines.

As mentioned interestingly APCOA said I parked in a bus lane (which did not happen) which is similar to G1ll1anJ's post and the tickets were issued within a week of each other. 

I wonder how many others they caught in that one evening due to the barriers who just decided to accept it. 

Coupon-mad

Ah you can safely ignore APCOA.

But you would have won easily, had you come here first and appealed as keeper, pointing out that the PCN was non-POFA.

Should have been impossible to lose.
Example here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79833812/#Comment_79833812

mrakscrudge

POPLA: Withdrawn (operator cancelled parking charge)

Context: confusing city centre multi story only controlled by ANPR (no entry or exit barriers); misleading signage states 'Pay on Exit'; exit ramp has no opportunity to stop, or barriers to pay by card. 

----

Dear MrXXX,

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

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

-----

Dear POPLA,
Regarding POPLA CODE: XXX,
On the 9th January 2023, Britannia Parking Group Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the vehicle XXX had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for the following alleged contravention: "Failed to make a valid payment"

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

3) Car park physical layout, combined with misleading signage, does not give drivers the opportunity to ‘pay on exit’ as stated on signage.

4) Britannia Parking Group Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.

5) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and therefore are insufficient to form any contract with a driver.

---

3) This specific car park is fully controlled by ANPR, with no entry or exit barriers. It is a large, multi-storey car park in the centre of Birmingham, with separate entrance and exit ramps. It is very unusual to have a multi-storey car park of this type with no entry or exit barriers. This unfamiliarity leads to confusion on how, exactly, a driver is supposed to pay for their parking.

The signage, at first glance, indicates ‘Pay on Exit’. It is therefore easy to assume, on return to the vehicle, that you will have the opportunity to pay when driving out of the car park: literally ‘pay on exit’. However, this is not the case – there is no exit barrier, no facility to pull up and pay at a payment machine, and no opportunity to stop or reverse in the single lane exit ramp. By the time that you realise your mistake, it is too late. The layout of the car park, combined with the payment system and misleading signage, is in fact the perfect system to exploit unfamiliar drivers and generate unpaid parking charges.

---

Resterday

POPLA assessment and decision

15/02/2023

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle did not pay by phone.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and a copy of a letter form the parking operator. They have provided a time line of the correspondence sent between them and the operator. They dispute that a valid notice to keeper has been issued so only the driver can be held liable. They question the adequacy of the signs at the site. They have asked to see evidence that the operator has a valid contact to manage the site. The appellant has commented on the operator’s evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle did not pay by phone. The operator has a burden of proof to show that the PCN has been issued correctly. Part of this burden is to prove that the terms and conditions have been breached. In this case the operator indicates that the appellants vehicle does not appear on the list of paid visitors. It has not provide a copy of the list it has described and as such has failed to prove that the terms and conditions have been breached. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

B789

Well done. However, I don't quite follow the Assessors reasoning in that "In this case the operator indicates that the appellants vehicle does not appear on the list of paid visitors. It has not provide a copy of the list it has described and as such has failed to prove that the terms and conditions have been breached."

What term was breached? If the vehicle is claimed to not appear on the list, how would producing that list, which doesn't have the vehicle details on it, breach anything?

Resterday

Basically the operator should have proven that the car reg was NOT on the list of cars that had paid. It failed to provide a list at all hence there was no proof that the fee had not been paid.

Umkomaas

Above case is for a Minster Baywatch PCN. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6408004/popla-appeal#latest