POPLA Decisions

Johnson2015

hap397 said:

POPLA Ref: 6060253590

Operator Name

Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

Operator Case Summary

OP Case Summary

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for not entering registration details via the terminal.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and are not prominent, clear, legible or lit. • There is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN as the font size is illegible. • The signage text is small and would not be visible from a moving vehicle. • There is no badge on the sign to identify who manages the site • They question landowner authority • The signage is of a forbidding nature and makes no offer to motorists • They question if the operator has planning permission for placing signs and cameras on site • The entrance signage is too high • They wish for evidence of where the vehicle was parked • There is no offer from the operator for a major keying error • The operator has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing is the driver. They decline to name the driver of the vehicle. • The signage fails to warn drivers what ANPR data will be used for Images of signage on site have been provided as evidence to support their appeal. The appellant has provided comments in response to the parking operator’s evidence pack, reiterating their grounds of appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case, the appellant challenged the parking operator’s compliance with paragraph 22.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and has expanded on these grounds in their comments. Paragraph 22.1 specifically advises that the use of ANPR must be transparent, and that the signs need to stipulate what the data captured by the cameras will be used for. Having reviewed the signage evidence provided by the parking operator, I must note these signs do not make it clear what the data will be used for, and simply state: “Car park monitored by ANPR systems”. For this reason, I cannot consider the evidence has provided a full rebuttal of the appellant’s grounds. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Well done! That's a win for all of us. Can I ask when you went to POPLAfpr your appeal? Was it the letter before claim stage? I am currently in the process of going to CC, But I have a second ticket which I would like to appeal before it goes to CC level. Just wondering when it is necessary to contact POPLA? 

Umkomaas

Just wondering when it is necessary to contact POPLA? 

You first need to appeal to the parking firm who will provide you with a POPLA verification code when they reject your appeal to them. You use that code when you appeal to POPLA which you must do within 33 days of the date of the rejection letter. POPLA is only available if the parking firm is a member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme. 

Which parking firm is pestering you?

KeithP

@Umkomaas, it looks like @Johnson2015 is well into defending himself against a court claim...

PCM Claim Form time to write a defence

Johnson2015, you are well past any opportunity to get involved with PoPLA.

Umkomaas

KeithP said:

@Umkomaas, it looks like @Johnson2015 is well into defending himself against a court claim...

PCM Claim Form time to write a defence

Johnson2015, you are well past any opportunity to get involved with PoPLA.

@KeithP - there's a mention of a second ticket he/she 'would like to appeal before it goes to CC level.' Unknown how old this ticket is, or who has issued it. 

KeithP

Oops, my mistake.

Johnson2015

Umkomaas said:

Just wondering when it is necessary to contact POPLA? 

You first need to appeal to the parking firm who will provide you with a POPLA verification code when they reject your appeal to them. You use that code when you appeal to POPLA which you must do within 33 days of the date of the rejection letter. POPLA is only available if the parking firm is a member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme. 

Which parking firm is pestering you?

PCM again 🙄

Johnson2015

KeithP said:

Oops, my mistake.

No worries. 2nd ticket different location and different vehicle. Same company. 

Umkomaas

Johnson2015 said:

Umkomaas said:

Just wondering when it is necessary to contact POPLA? 

You first need to appeal to the parking firm who will provide you with a POPLA verification code when they reject your appeal to them. You use that code when you appeal to POPLA which you must do within 33 days of the date of the rejection letter. POPLA is only available if the parking firm is a member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme. 

Which parking firm is pestering you?

PCM again 🙄

No POPLA, PCM are not BPA operators - forget that option. Any more advice needed, please start a new thread, this one isn't for an ongoing debate.

Andy_Davies

Operator Name: Civil Enforcement - EW

Location: Rowcroft Medical Centre, Stroud, UK

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Paul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal

• They state that the surgery is closed on Saturday and Sunday and the signage confirms that Pharmacy and Patients only 90 mins free parking during surgery opening times only - Public parking Monday to Friday 8pm - midnight, Saturday 2.30pm - midnight, Sunday - all day £1 per hour - All vehicles arriving Monday to Friday between the times of 8.00pm and 6.00am and Saturday between the times of 2.30pm and midnight must pay for the full time spent in the car park It implies that someone attending the pharmacy or surgery must pay if they stay longer than 90 mins but doesn't state what those charges are nor do the signs confirm that charges apply for vehicles that arrive outside the hours listed when the surgery is closed or what the charges are for these periods.

• They explain that the British Parking Association (BPA) confirms that signs must be clear and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

• They advise that the vehicle parked from 11:27 on Saturday 21 January 2023 when the surgery was closed and was outside of the hours listed as chargeable on the signage.

• They advise that the PCN was issued as payment was not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage but the signs do not make it clear that payment is expected or what the charge is for the time the vehicle remained on site and therefore, fail the BPA Code of Practice.

• They state that had the signs made it clear that payment was expected, then payment would have been made and a clear sign stating parking charge apply 24 hours/days seven days a week and then include the exceptions for pharmacy customers and surgery patients.

• They advise that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that contract terms that may have different meanings, then the meaning most favourable to the consumer is that no payment is to prevail.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant also raises additional grounds of appeal.

The appellant has provided a screen shot and image of signage as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

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 British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards which parking operators must comply with.

Section 19 of the code refers to signage. Specifically, section 19.3 states that signs containing the site’s terms and conditions must be placed throughout a car park to give motorist the chance to read them at the time of parking. It confirms further that signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

The signage on this site confirms that pharmacy and patients have 90 minutes free parking during surgery opening times and public parking is Monday to Friday 20:00 until 00:00 and Saturday is from 14:30 to Midnight is £1.00 per hour.. 

In this instance, the vehicle parked on site on Saturday 21 January 2023 between 11:27 and 13:34. Which is prior to paid parking time on Saturdays. 

As free parking is only allowed for pharmacy and surgery patients during surgery opening times, I am not satisfied that the signs in this car park meet the requirements of section 19.3. 

On reviewing these signs, it appears that from 00:00 on Friday until 14:30 on Saturday no payment if required for parking. If parking is not permitted between these times, I would expect to see this clearly stated on the signage. 

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 PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction.

I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal and supplied further documents, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.


Image of the Sign in Question in case it's of use to anyone else

Coupon-mad

Spot on, what a good POPLA decision!

No breach of any term.