POPLA Decisions

hangrygal

Fruitcake said:

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.

@fruitcake for this one I was unable to find the landowner. Would you be able to help? 

Fruitcake

hangrygal said:

Fruitcake said:

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.

@fruitcake for this one I was unable to find the landowner. Would you be able to help? 

Have a look at this post by Umkomaas where he makes several suggestions on how to identify a landowner.

If it ever gets to a court claim then it is worth paying the Land Registry a few quid to get a definitive answer.

3 Windscreen PCNs - Premier Parking Logistics/Premier Parking Enforcement LTD — MoneySavingExpert Forum

zest

I have not yet received my POPLA decision yet but I’m guessing they are going to reject my appeal, I tried to use the ticket machine and it looked like it charged me - twice - without rendering a ticket, I took a screenshot of my bank transactions at the time, and I even queried it with a council parking enforcement officer who was obviously unable to help, ironically increasing my time spent in the car park (an incredible 20 minutes), where will I stand when they reject my appeal??

Coupon-mad

You just ignore losing at POPLA.

miltwin

As usual, thanks everyone for help and guidance. Third time successful.

These bunch of chancers had shabby signs, amongst a load of other issues. The assessor went with the signs so I'm happy with that.

POPLA assessment and decision

21/03/2023

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Gregory McGlynn

Location: Castle Drive, Praa Sands

Company: Premiere Park Ltd


Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to whole period of parking not paid for.


Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all of the parking spaces. • There is insuffcient notice of the PCN amount. • The parking operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. • No evidence of landowner authority. • The images of the vehicle are not authentic. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments. The appellant has provided a detailed appeal document as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my 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 whole period of parking not paid for. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case I appreciate the parking operator’s evidence shows there are signs installed at the site, however most of these signs are installed in the first part of the car park. The appellant has advised in their comments that the left side of the site is not adequately signed, there are only 3 signs installed in this area which is a large field. If a vehicle did park in this area, it would be possible that the motorists may not see a sign so they would not be aware of the terms and conditions of the site. Due to this I am not satisifed that the parking operator has complied with section 19 of BPA code and adequately informed all motorists that may use the site of the terms and conditions that apply. 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. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

jozxyqk

Parking Group Limited

Market Hall car park, Chester-le-Street

POPLA assessment and decision

22/03/2023

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to pay for parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1 and 3. They say the operator did not state the duration of the vehicle’s visit on its PCN. They say the operator supplied images of the vehicle time stamped as taken 10 minutes apart, however, these images were not included on the Notice to Keeper. They say they can therefore argue that the duration is not an unreasonable grace period given. • They say there are unclear signs for the regular entry points, and signs are not prominent clear or legible from all spaces. They say the site was poorly lit and relied on street lighting nearby as the primary source of lighting. They say visibility was hindered further as it was in darkness at 17:30 in December. They say the lack of signs meant that the BPA Code of Practice section 19 was not met. They provide images of the site map and signs and say there’s no lighting on the signs and the only illumination is from the street map on the entry sign. They say they do not identify it is a privately enforced site and not a council car park. • No evidence of landowner authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. They say that the operator must produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner and witness statements are not of sound evidence. They say section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice must be met. • No evidence of the period parked. They say the Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They raise paragraph 9 (2) (a) of PoFA 2012 must be met and therefore the PCN did not meet these requirements as there was no period of parking and only two unclear pictures.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided images of the signs, other operator’s signs as a comparison and the site map as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The burden of proof lies with the operator in order to prove that the PCN was issued correctly. As above the appellant tells  POPLA the signs were not su􀀁ciently illuminated when they arrived at the site. Having viewed the image of the appellant entering at 19:31 it was dark at that time. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. It also says in Appendix B under contrast and illumination that signs should be readable and understandable at all times including the hours of darkness or dusk if parking enforcement takes place at those times. The
operator within its evidence pack has provided images of the signs in the dark. Whilst I can see there are signs on this land, these images were taken close up and not from a distance showing the entirety of the car park and how the site as a whole was illuminated. In providing these images, the operator would con􀀂rm how the visibility was for other motorists. Without seeing images of the entirety of the site site at darkness or dusk I am unable to determine whether the signage was readable and understandable at the time of the appellant entering the car park. As such I cannot conclude that the appellant had an opportunity to view or adjust to the terms and conditions of this site on entry to this car park. Upon consideration of the above, I am not satis􀀂ed that the PCN has been issued correctly. I note they mentioned other grounds, however due to allowing the appeal for this reason, I have not been required to consider them. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

imnothappy

omg don't go to POPLA...   

Fruitcake

imnothappy said:

omg don't go to POPLA...   

Why ever not? Your comment makes no sense at all.

imnothappy

the parking company have to prove they have contract with you....if they cant they have no case...  if you accept POPLA then you agree to its outcome ie Lose....   

Umkomaas

imnothappy said:

the parking company have to prove they have contract with you....if they cant they have no case...  if you accept POPLA then you agree to its outcome ie Lose....   

Utter nonsense.