POPLA Decisions

MauriceMiller

Smart Parking.

I bumbled my way through it based on my understanding on the judges conclusion of the Beavis case.  It was a 50p parking fee for an hour but for some reason I cannot explain/excuse I thought blue badges were accepted.  ANPR car park I was done twice in 3 days at £100 each.  Received on last day of the 14 day period I was faced with £200.  I contacted them and made an offer acknowledging I used the car park mistakenly.  Obviously this was rejected.

I went to POPLA without thinking they had the scope for this as I acknowledge a ticket should have been issued.  Just didn't think it a fair amount.  I had no idea what the chances were but approached it throughout with the aim to resolve it fairly considering a council penalty for the same offence is £50(£25).

I received the email saying one appeal needed a response to evidence.  The next day I received one for the other ticket which SP had withdrawn for some reason (copy and paste defence).  I was prepared for court, whatever my chances were.

I was just about to put my comments to their evidence in last night when a last minute search led me to Parking Eye's website and the faq which mentioned Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.  A rushed read through and I thought they hadn't followed this properly.  The PCN being issued to the car.  They didn't say the driver was responsible for the charge or that they didn't know the driver details.  It said that if I wasn't the driver and wish to give them the drivers details I could do so.  I also questioned if the PCN was in fact a NTK since it seemed, without a NTD it should have been received by me in 14 days.  I hurriedly squeezed it into my response to comments with the admission I didn't know if I had understood it correctly. 

I wasn't confident it wouldn't be considered as new evidence but SP had said driver details hadn't been disputed.  I argued that no details on the driver had been given to dispute.  I was the registered owner, had taken accountability, didn't wish to discus the driver and I didn't believe I was compelled to.


________________________________
*added so it's on same page*

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. In this instance, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Umkomaas

Nicely done. If you get any more Smart Parking tickets, there's a much faster, guaranteed win against SP than POPLA, come back on a new thread if you fall foul of them again. 

I contacted them and made an offer acknowledging I used the car park mistakenly.  Obviously this was rejected.

Oh dear. Not only have they lost out on whatever it was you were offering, but POPLA will have charged them around £30 for the pleasure of their (failed!) assessment.  How unfortunate!

Coupon-mad

Yep you could have seen these off with one email and had 100% win at POPLA guaranteed if Smart pushed it that far, as they don't use POFA wording (as the Assessor spotted).

Glad you stumbled on that silver bullet right at the end!  Next time ask us before doing any appeal though.  We share your wrath but we know how to kill these scams without any stress.

DrudgeJedd

Similar to another decision a page or so back against ECP

Operator Name: Euro Car Parks

Location: Swindon - Regent Circus

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Paul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the P&D/Permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: They state that the grace period is non-compliant with sections 13.1 13.2 and 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They explain that the signs are not prominent clear nor legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The appellant has stated that et signs on this site is not prominent clear nor legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Section 19.3 state: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where POFA does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA, I am not satisfied that the signage is sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Happy with the win, all thanks to the many examples of defences and associated support on these forums. I must say I bungled it a bit in my original defence to ECP by not identifying myself as the driver, right up until I said “I used the vehicle”… oops! Nevertheless, recovered by sending a 10 page defence to POPLA that cited many of the defences used across cases here, although hilariously none of it was necessary in the end - when ECP submitted their “defence”, their pictures of the signs on site were proof that you couldn’t read the text from 3 feet away, thereby making my winning point for me!

Umkomaas

Well done on winning this at POPLA. The lack of clarity (especially of the £100 parking charge) in the ECP signage has been a winning point so many times now, that anyone with an ECP charge must use this as their primary submission to POPLA.

when ECP submitted their “defence”, their pictures of the signs on site were proof that you couldn’t read the text from 3 feet away,

You just couldn't make some of this up. Oh dear, own goal! 🥅 

DE_612183

Umkomaas said:

Well done on winning this at POPLA. The lack of clarity (especially of the £100 parking charge) in the ECP signage has been a winning point so many times now, that anyone with an ECP charge must use this as their primary submission to POPLA.

when ECP submitted their “defence”, their pictures of the signs on site were proof that you couldn’t read the text from 3 feet away,

You just couldn't make some of this up. Oh dear, own goal! 🥅 

What I don't understand is that if the appeal wins at POPLA - why are POPLA then not instructing ECP to change their signage so it is compliant?

B789

MauriceMiller said:

Smart Parking.

I bumbled my way through it based on my understanding on the judges conclusion of the Beavis case.  It was a 50p parking fee for an hour but for some reason I cannot explain/excuse I thought blue badges were accepted.  ANPR car park I was done twice in 3 days at £100 each.  Received on last day of the 14 day period I was faced with £200.  I contacted them and made an offer acknowledging I used the car park mistakenly.  Obviously this was rejected.

I went to POPLA without thinking they had the scope for this as I acknowledge a ticket should have been issued.  Just didn't think it a fair amount.  I had no idea what the chances were but approached it throughout with the aim to resolve it fairly considering a council penalty for the same offence is £50(£25).

I received the email saying one appeal needed a response to evidence.  The next day I received one for the other ticket which SP had withdrawn for some reason (copy and paste defence).  I was prepared for court, whatever my chances were.

I was just about to put my comments to their evidence in last night when a last minute search led me to Parking Eye's website and the faq which mentioned Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.  A rushed read through and I thought they hadn't followed this properly.  The PCN being issued to the car.  They didn't say the driver was responsible for the charge or that they didn't know the driver details.  It said that if I wasn't the driver and wish to give them the drivers details I could do so.  I also questioned if the PCN was in fact a NTK since it seemed, without a NTD it should have been received by me in 14 days.  I hurriedly squeezed it into my response to comments with the admission I didn't know if I had understood it correctly. 

I wasn't confident it wouldn't be considered as new evidence but SP had said driver details hadn't been disputed.  I argued that no details on the driver had been given to dispute.  I was the registered owner, had taken accountability and didn't wish to discus the driver and I didn't believe I was compelled to.

@MauriceMiller, have you actually had the POPLA response yet? It is not clear from what you have written. It reads more like you had one PCN withdrawn by SP but you have now submitted your POPLA appeal and response to SPs evidence nad are now waiting for the response from POPLA.

Coupon-mad

POPLA has no remit or clout to instruct anyone.

It is up to each operator to make sure their signs comply.  And they don't!

MauriceMiller

B789 said:

MauriceMiller said:

Smart Parking.

I bumbled my way through it based on my understanding on the judges conclusion of the Beavis case.  It was a 50p parking fee for an hour but for some reason I cannot explain/excuse I thought blue badges were accepted.  ANPR car park I was done twice in 3 days at £100 each.  Received on last day of the 14 day period I was faced with £200.  I contacted them and made an offer acknowledging I used the car park mistakenly.  Obviously this was rejected.

I went to POPLA without thinking they had the scope for this as I acknowledge a ticket should have been issued.  Just didn't think it a fair amount.  I had no idea what the chances were but approached it throughout with the aim to resolve it fairly considering a council penalty for the same offence is £50(£25).

I received the email saying one appeal needed a response to evidence.  The next day I received one for the other ticket which SP had withdrawn for some reason (copy and paste defence).  I was prepared for court, whatever my chances were.

I was just about to put my comments to their evidence in last night when a last minute search led me to Parking Eye's website and the faq which mentioned Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.  A rushed read through and I thought they hadn't followed this properly.  The PCN being issued to the car.  They didn't say the driver was responsible for the charge or that they didn't know the driver details.  It said that if I wasn't the driver and wish to give them the drivers details I could do so.  I also questioned if the PCN was in fact a NTK since it seemed, without a NTD it should have been received by me in 14 days.  I hurriedly squeezed it into my response to comments with the admission I didn't know if I had understood it correctly. 

I wasn't confident it wouldn't be considered as new evidence but SP had said driver details hadn't been disputed.  I argued that no details on the driver had been given to dispute.  I was the registered owner, had taken accountability and didn't wish to discus the driver and I didn't believe I was compelled to.

@MauriceMiller, have you actually had the POPLA response yet? It is not clear from what you have written. It reads more like you had one PCN withdrawn by SP but you have now submitted your POPLA appeal and response to SPs evidence nad are now waiting for the response from POPLA.

Both went to appeal with same defence.  I had one email received on Tuesday 21/03/23 saying that SP had uploaded evidence to the first appeal.  The following day I had an email saying the 2nd had been withdrawn by SP.

I uploaded my comments on Monday night (27/03/23) told 2-4 weeks wait.  Lunchtime the following day I had the response from POPLA saying they upheld my appeal.

B789

Well done. Just goes to show what eejits they are. Two identical appeals. Withdraw one and pay POPLA to assess the other and lose. You couldn't make up this Muppetry.

Another Not-So-Smart Parkers fail.