POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

You tick what the third post of the NEWBIES thread (all about how to win at POPLA) explains to tick and you submit a full appeal by PDF.

chrishluk

Good win especially with all the proof of no driver liability i gave the company in the initial appeal, can't believe i actually had to go to POPLA.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for parking in a permit holder only area without a permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • They have said that they are exercising their right not to name the driver. • They have said that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the BPA code of practice. • They have said that the registered keeper has named the hirer, however the creditor has not satisfied the conditions to transfer liability to the hirer as prescribed, as the relevant documents were not supplied with the NTK that was sent to the hirer. • They have said that no Notice to Hirer was sent. • They have said that the operator has not shown that the individual they are pursuing is the driver alleged to be liable for a charge. • They have raised landowner authority. • They have said that there was a lack of and unclear signage on site. • They have said that they feel the parking charge is not brought adequately to the attention of drivers. The appellant has provided an image of a sign. This has been considered in making my determination. In their motorist comments the appellant has reiterated their case.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. From the evidence provided it is clear that the appellant is the hirer of the vehicle. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. 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

Good win especially with all the proof of no driver liability i gave the company in the initial appeal, can't believe i actually had to go to POPLA.

Decision

Successful

Glad you won, but unless we know the name of the PPC, the result lacks some context. I've checked your thread, but even that has no PPC identification. Can you fill in the blank please?

chrishluk

It was Civil Enforcement Ltd. They just sent a NTK with no further document despite it being a lease vehicle. They have no idea of PoFA legislation or hoped that people will cave and not pursue to POPLA.

hangrygal

Operator Name

Euro Car Parks - EW

Operator Case Summary

Please find attached POPLA evidence pack.

POPLA assessment and decisionDecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameJamie MacraeAssessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to not purchasing sufficient parking time. Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant has mentioned planning permission for cameras and signs. The appellant explains they were not the driver of the vehicle, and the parking operator has not complied with The Protection of Freedoms (POFA) Act 2012. The appellant has questioned the signs within the car park. The appellant says the parking operator does not warn motorists that cameras are used at the car park. The appellant has questioned the cameras at the car park. The appellant has questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the car park. The appellant says the £100 PCN is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered, and the prominence on the signs. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided images of signs within the car park. Assessor supporting rational for decisionWhen 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 signs at the site states: “24 HOURS PAY AND DISPLAY/PAY BY PHONE CAR PARK. TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY AT ALL TIMES. UP TO 2 HORUS £4.50 UP TO 4 HOURS £6.50…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIOMS WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…PURCHASE AND DISPLAY A VALID TICKET CLEARLY INSIDE YOUR WINDSCREEN OR HAVE A VALID PAY BY PHONE SESSION FOR THE LENGTH OF YOUR STAY…”. The parking operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the motorist was at the car park for three hours one minute. The parking operator has also provided a system print out, which shows there was two hours payment registered against the motorist’s vehicle on the day. The parking operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to not purchasing sufficient parking time. 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 has mentioned planning permission for cameras and signs. POPLA role is to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly line with the advertised terms and conditions, we are not the local council whose remit this falls within. The appellant explains they were not the driver of the vehicle, and the parking operator has not complied with POFA 2012. The name of the driver has not been disclosed, however, as the PCN complies with all requirements within POFA Act 2012, the operator has transferred liability from the driver to the keeper, and it is the keeper’s liability for the PCN I will be considering. The appellant has questioned the signs within the car park. The appellant says the parking operator does not warn motorists that cameras are used at the car park. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. In relation to signs, Section 19.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator and the appellant, that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. Further, as the motorist paid for parking, is it reasonable to assume they saw and read the signs to understand this. Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” The signs within the car park feature and camera logo, and states: “ WE ARE USING AUTOMATIC NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION AND/OR HANDHELD CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATE TO MONITOR AND ENFORCE THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS”. I would therefore be satisfied the operator has made it clear that camera technology is in place to determine the duration of stay of vehicles. The appellant has questioned the cameras at the car park. The parking operator has provided specific evidence documenting the vehicle entering and leaving the site at the times mentioned on the PCN, while the appellant has been unable to provide any evidence, which would cast doubt on the legitimacy of these images. I must accept that the images provided are a true reflection of the vehicles’ movements on the date of the contravention. The appellant has questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the car park. 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. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority manage the car park. The appellant says the £100 PCN is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered, and the prominence on the signs. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge does not reflect the loss to the landowner and is therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 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 not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, 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 appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. I do not dispute the motorist made a payment on the day; however, it is evident they did not purchase sufficient time to cover the duration of their stay. It is the responsibility to ensure that when they have entered a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions before deciding to park. On this occasion by remaining parked at the site the motorist accepted the terms and conditions. As they did not purchase sufficient parking time, they did not adhere to the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly I refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

hangrygal, Never mind, the decision is not binding on the motorist. Ignore debt collectors but come back if you get a letter of/before claim or a court claim.

In future when mentioning advertising consent for signs, point out that it is a criminal offence and a breach of section 12 of the PoFA.

There is nothing stopping you from making a complaint to the council about lack of planning permission for ANPR scameras and control boxes, and lack of advertising consent for signs, as well as a complaint to the landowner and your MP.

Plicata

Fruitcake said:

Does it specifically mention the admin fee in the Ts and Cs for dealing with private parking charges from unregulated private parking companies, or only for fines and penalties from an authority?

Thanks for all the suggestions. The rental agreement is non-specific, to cover all bases. The agreement summary states:

"I am liable for all traffic violations; parking fees, fines and/or penalties; toll fees and/or penalties; and any associated administrative costs."

The T&C document also states:

"pay any administrative fines, fees, charges, costs, penalties, or other fines that are imposed, issued or incurred in connection with the Renter's usage of the Vehicle"

I may be able to argue the point but honestly don't think the potential return justifies the effort. Parkingeye are the problem here, not the hire company.Sorry for lacking the stamina to follow through, but now that the fight with Parkingeye is over, real life goes on...

SkyeScrambler

Operator Name  - Premier Park

POPLA assessment and decision

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • their passenger was disabled and therefore has the right to park in a disabled bay. • the parking operator will have been aware of this due to the fact that a Blue Badge was displayed. • the Equality Act 2010 does not require a disabled driver to display a Blue Badge when parking in a disabled bay. • the disabled bays are “reasonable adjustments” under the Equality Act 2010. • the operator’s claim is no basis in law. • the Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land. • the operator does not have authority to add arbitrary rules to the lawful right of their disabled passenger. • making disabled car park users pay is a breach of the Equality Act 2010. • the Blue Badge had only recently expired and their passenger was preparing to apply for a new one at the time. • the parking operator is treating their passenger unfairly. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments and expanded on their grounds of appeal. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided a copy of their passengers PIP entitlement letter, along with evidence of their disability. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When parking in a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. In this specific car park, the terms and conditions state: “Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. A valid blue badge must be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen areas. No concessions apply…If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay: PCN £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge. Within its evidence file, the operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle at the time of the parking event. Having reviewed them, I can see that the appellant parked with an expired Blue Badge on display. 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. Although it is appreciated that the appellant’s passenger is disabled and I acknowledge their evidence of this, the appellant was still required to ensure that they had complied with the parking conditions. For the avoidance of doubt, it is solely a motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they have complied with the terms and conditions of parking; it is not the responsibility of their passengers. While the appellant was not prevented from parking in the disabled bay, they were required to ensure that a valid, up to date, Blue Badge was displayed when doing so; the appellant is solely responsible for parking their own vehicle. In relation to this, Section 16 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice recognises the Equality Act 2010 and advises that parking operators must make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers which discriminate against disabled people. Section 16.2 states that reasonable adjustments must be made, such as having disabled parking spaces closer to entrances, along with lower payment machines. However, there isn’t a requirement that parking operators allow motorists to park in breach of its terms and conditions. Section 16.4 of the Code of Practice advises parking operators that they are at risk of a claim under the Equality Act if they do not discourage the abuse of the disabled spaces. While the Blue Badge scheme does not necessarily apply on private land, most car park operators ask that motorists using disabled bays display their Blue Badges in order to comply with this and prevent disabled bays from being abused. Although the Equality Act 2010 does not require disabled motorists to display a Blue Badge, the terms and conditions of parking at the site in question do. For the avoidance of doubt, the appellant entered into a contractual agreement by choosing to park. The terms and conditions of the agreement are stated on the signs. As such, the appellant agreed to display a valid Blue Badge and was made aware of the consequences of failing to do so. If the appellant was unhappy with the terms and conditions or felt that they could not be met, they would need to have made alternative parking arrangements to avoid incurring a PCN. While it is appreciated that the appellant’s passenger was in the process of applying for a new Blue Badge, if they were not in possession of a valid, up to date one, one, then the appellant was simply not permitted to park in a Blue Badge bay. Although I understand that the appellant believes this to be unfair and has claimed multiple times that the parking operator has breached the Equality Act 2010, I must advise that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site. Should the appellant believe the parking operator to be acting in a discriminatory manner, then they would need to refer this to the relevant authority. Furthermore, I note that the appellant is unhappy with the contents of the parking operator’s case file. I acknowledge the appellant’s grievances, however I must re-iterate that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly. As the appellant in a disabled bay without a valid Blue Badge on display in contravention of the parking conditions, I am satisfied that it has been. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is refused.

B789

@SkyeScrambler never mind. No paying the scamming PPC. Losing at POPLA doesn't mean anything and you now play the waiting game and ignore the eejits until/if you get an LoC or LBCCC.

You can ignore all the pathetic debt collection demands as you will know from reading the Newbies thread that they are toothless, scare tactics. Also, ignore the false and illegal £70 add-on charges they will say you now owe.

The only thing you need to do is, if you change address in the next 6 years, to let the PPC know and advise them to erase your old one.

VolksSaver

Hi All,

MET Parking Services issued me (my wife being the driver) a PCN at the notorious Southgate Park car park at Stansted - where there is a single entrance and you cannot go into McD's if you parked in the "Starbucks area" and vice versa, even though there are no differentiating parking areas.
I took it to POPLA using some templates from this forum, and managed to get the PCN "withdrawn" by the idiots. I think the 10000 word appeal may have swayed them not to mess with me LOL.

This is the POPLA response:

Dear Mr XXXX,

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

VICTORY