POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

And happily, fluttering tickets (and ALL keying errors) will always see PCN cancellation from 2024 when the new statutory CoP comes in, courtesy of the DLUHC.

popla_choice

Ah, thanks. If I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered writing all that!

I saw this passage in a consultation document and assumed somebody had successfully argued that displaying tickets was to continue being a point of contention ...

36. We accept the argument that the display of a Pay and Display ticket is part of the contract and that failure to do so in the local authority system represents a contravention. In keeping with our objective of greater consistency, we have removed this ground from the Appeals Charter.

B789

popla_choice said:

Ah, thanks. If I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered writing all that!

Please don't regret the effort you have put into your commentary. The research and the delivery of your comments are a joy to read. Also, the wit with which it is presented is something I wish I was able to replicate in my own miserable attempts to inform the readership of this forum.

popla_choice

B789 said:

Please don't regret the effort you have put into your commentary. The research and the delivery of your comments are a joy to read. Also, the wit with which it is presented is something I wish I was able to replicate in my own miserable attempts to inform the readership of this forum.

You do a great job. I found the whole thing quite stressful but I didn't cave in because of the work you've put in here. Many thanks once again.

Coupon-mad

popla_choice said:

Ah, thanks. If I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered writing all that!

I saw this passage in a consultation document and assumed somebody had successfully argued that displaying tickets was to continue being a point of contention ...

36. We accept the argument that the display of a Pay and Display ticket is part of the contract and that failure to do so in the local authority system represents a contravention. In keeping with our objective of greater consistency, we have removed this ground from the Appeals Charter.

Actually you have a point there.

They are wholly wrong to say removing 'fluttering ticket' cases from the Appeals Charter is consistent with the LA approach.  It's the opposite!

That was a glaring error by the DLUHC and I don't think the later code covers it, you are right.  

Luckily, I still have the ability to whisper in the DLUHC's ears... I will raise this concern.

I think we should all also raise it in the upcoming Summer Consultation.  Hope you have bookmarked the necessary thread to be alerted by us?

Fruitcake

If someone enters a VRM on a PDT machine, then said VRM and ticket details will usually be shown on the screen, meaning a ticket was displayed. 
In any case, where a ticket is purchased using an app' it is impossible to display said ticket at all, other than on one's mobile 'phone.

popla_choice

Coupon-mad said:

Actually you have a point there.

They are wholly wrong to say removing 'fluttering ticket' cases from the Appeals Charter is consistent with the LA approach.  It's the opposite!

That was a glaring error by the DLUHC and I don't think the later code covers it, you are right.  

Luckily, I still have the ability to whisper in the DLUHC's ears... I will raise this concern.

I think we should all also raise it in the upcoming Summer Consultation.  Hope you have bookmarked the necessary thread to be alerted by us?

In that case, I'm glad I wrote that section after all. It wasn't going to get me anywhere with the appeal but I wrote it in response to that consultation doc and pasted it in anyway.

I'll whack it - or perhaps a less overdramatic version - into the next consultation.

Coupon-mad

Yes I think concise, focussed replies are going to be key.

I guess there will be targeted questions like last time, then a more general one asking if respondents have anything to add about parking charge levels.  That's where we can attack things like:

- the disproportionate £130 London level which has no valid place in this industry.  The DLUHC should not be blindly mirroring Central London LA penalty levels for the sake of it because that approach is plainly wrong and disproportionate in terms of contract law charges;

- the mistake of removing the right to appeal fluttering ticket cases and see PCNs overturned by producing a valid pay & display ticket.  The DLUHC was misled. This is not consistent with LA appeals policies and will see paying motorists sued;

- the ludicrous industry-dictated decision to add all the extra 'private land only' new contraventions as 'higher level', which includes such heinous '£130 crimes' as not knowing to input your VRM in a pub or restaurant, and yet there's NO appeals charter clause to see those cancelled for genuine patrons.  What the heck?!  HOW is that accidental conduct in, say, Bromley, a 30% higher charge than taking up a disabled bay all day in Brighton?

dexion7

there's a thread about this case here 

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6427985/parking-eye-appeal/p2

 but here are the details of my results received today 

Received POPLA response today - they allowed the appeal.

Interestingly, they address the appeal firstly by considering whether it's on 'relevant land' to determine whether POFA *could* apply even though the NTK was non-POFA compliant in any case.   

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time.

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: • the site is not relevant land so the parking operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. • the operator has not shown that it is pursuing the driver. • the signage is insufficient and cannot be seen in the dark. • there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge. • the operator does not have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. • the operator has breached the ICO Code of Practice. • there isn’t any evidence of the period parked. • the images of the vehicle do not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice and may have been forged. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided various links. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN as the driver has not been identified. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Within PoFA 2012, it states that the act only applies on “relevant land”. Section 3(1) defines “relevant land” as any land other than: “(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” As the site in which the PCN was issued is a railway, it cannot be classed as relevant land. As such, the operator is not able to meet the provisions of PoFA 2012 and is therefore unable to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

evileye

POPLA Ref: 1411173391
Operator Name: Civil Enforcement
Decision: PCN Cancelled

Summary:
The PCN was issued due to an unusual case of double dipping without entering the car park. I made a u-turn on the road outside twice on the same day and the ANPR captured that as entering and exiting at different times. First appeal was rejected but after submitting appeal to POPLA, they cancelled the PCN after I provided them with evidence of their inadequate signage and google timeline of the car being at a different place. It was a straightforward case and shouldn't really have gone to POPLA but anyways.

These are the points which I raised:

1. Inadequate signage

2. Lack of evidence of parking having occurred

3. Evidence of car being at another place nearby at the alleged event of parking

4. The ANPR system is unreliable

5. No evidence of Landowner Authority