POPLA Decisions

james2023

POPLA assessment and decision

**/05/2023

Verification Code *********

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

************

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for abuse of patron parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They say that they complied with the signs and did not leave the car park. • They explain that they provided a copy of their receipt, and witnesses can testify if needed. • They say that the warden did not see them leaving the site and no photos can be provided. • They explain that they put the parking operator to strict proof with photos to show the driver leaving the site. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: 1. Copy of their receipt 2. Photo of their vehicle parked 3. Photo of the signage The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is a parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly and that the parking charge is therefore owed. In the present case, the appellant advises they did not leave the car park. The appellant has also provided evidence of their shopping receipt to demonstrate they were a customer of the car park. Having reviewed the parking operator’s evidence pack, I do not consider sufficient evidence has been provided to show that the appellant left the car park. Whilst I can see the parking operator has shown images of the vehicle, this does not demonstrate the appellant left the car park. The appellant throughout the appeals process has advised that they did not leave the car park. While I acknowledge the parking operator has provided a statement from the parking attendant, I do not consider this again shows the appellant left the car park. Therefore, without sufficient evidence to confirm the appellant left the site, I am unable to determine that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Umkomaas

Well done, but without the PPC name there's no context. Anyway, I've found your original thread, and it's Ocean Parking trying the old 'Abused Patron Parking' scam trick. But, POPLA sussed it, no proof, no chance! Tootle off Ocean. 

Coupon-mad

Just adding here the NSL case with the POPLA Code where the POPLA Coach has admitted that they got it wrong about 'relevant land' at Airports:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6402952/nsl-stanstead-airport/p5

POPLA 10 digit code is: 4823142005

Useful for other Airport POPLA Appeals.

Umkomaas

There are some older cases (2021/2022) over on PePiPoo where NSL were quoting their right to pursue under PoFA. The cases were on their way to POPLA but radio silence after that - presumably lost and OPs paid NSL!

I'll resurrect them and copy the link to @pathris' thread. 

friendofbillw2

Bit of an odd case this. Main thread :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6441816/cp-plus-popla-appeal-company-car#latest

The car I have access to is leased by my employer from a leasing company.

Parking Charge Notice issued to me by CP Plus for overstaying time at Motorway services (electric car was charging)

I put in the template POPLA appeal. 

CP Plus's response shows that the leasing company (registered keeper) HAS NAMED ME AS THE DRIVER. Everything I can find recommends that the lessee should keep the driver's details a secret, however in this case they have named me.

However, there are a number of people insured to drive the car, not just me, and nobody has any evidence it was actually me driving. It was dark. None of the pictures identify the driver.

My response to POPLA :

The Appellant comments as follows.

1.       The Operator has been advised that the Registered Keeper is a leasing company.

2.       The leasing company has told the Operator that the vehicle was leased by a customer of the leasing company, but has not identified the lessee.

3.       The Operator asserts that the leasing company stated “The driver was: XXXXXX”.

4.       The Appellant asserts that the vehicle was insured to be driven by a number of people, the vehicle is not restricted to Mr XXXXX’s sole use.

5.       The Operator is put to strict proof regarding its assertion that the driver was Mr XXXXX.

6.       Unless the Operator has a witness statement from the leasing company, or from one of the leasing company’s employees, or from the lessee, or from one of the Operator’s own employees, that Mr XXXXX was indeed driving the vehicle at the relevant time, the statement from the Registered Keeper is hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

7.       If the Operator cannot prove that Mr XXXXX was indeed driving at the relevant time, it cannot prove that Mr XXXXX entered into any contract with the Operator. Without this proof the Parking Charge is being pursued under false information.

8.       As such, the appeal must be allowed.

POPLA Decision :

POPLA assessment and decision

23/05/2023

Verification Code

1770883050

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Jason Cookson-Dean

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as they exceeded the free parking period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They state that they were not the driver on the day of the event and the PCN is not PofA compliant. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Parking operators can pursue payment of a parking charge from the driver of a vehicle when it was parked or, where the driver’s details aren’t known, either the keeper or hirer of a vehicle in line with a law called the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. Based on the evidence, the driver hasn’t been identified in this case, and the parking operator seems to be pursuing the appellant as the vehicle’s hirer. POFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a charge to the hirer of a vehicle as long as certain rules are followed. The rules include having to obtain specific documents from the hire company and send them to the hirer. There’s no evidence that the required documents were obtained or sent to the appellant in this case, so the parking operator doesn’t seem to have any basis to pursue them for the charge. I must allow this appeal.

Thanks all here for your help!!!

thepeopleschamp

POPLA assessment and decision

**/05/2023

Verification Code

xxxxxx

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

xxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the driver parked in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The parking operator needs to give two grace periods, one at the beginning of a stay and one at the end. • There is insufficient signage and it is not clear and legible from all spaces. • The signs do not give adequate notice of the charge. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided photographs of the site. This evidence has been considered when making my decision. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in the motorist comments

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When a parking operator has terms and conditions at its site, parking at the site might mean that the driver has entered a contract. The terms and conditions of the site are set out in the signs. Signs state: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME…Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice” The parking operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition cameras, showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 09:27:39 and exiting at 11:17:37. A total stay of one hour and 49 minutes. The parking operator keeps a list of vehicles that made payment on the day in question and I can see that the appellant paid for one hour’s parking. It appears a contract between the driver and the parking operator was formed, and the parking 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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) can be used to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for any parking charge, where the driver has not been identified. The parking operator has provided a copy of the PCN in its evidence pack. I have reviewed the PCN and I am satisfied that it does meet the requirements of POFA and therefore the appellant, as the keeper of the vehicle is liable. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of five minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. At a site where parking is not permitted, such as this one, the parking operator does not need to provide a consideration period. Section 13.3 of the Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver 10 minutes to leave if parking is permitted for a limited amount of time or on paid car parks. A grace period is not a period of free parking for a motorist. It is the time for them to leave the site after their parking has ended. If a motorist parks in breach of the terms and conditions, such as parking where they are not allowed to, they are not entitled to any grace period. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that on entering the site there is a sign that states: “PARKING TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY…See notices on site for more details” This makes clear that there are terms and conditions to parking and the driver would have driven past this sign to enter the site. It would have then been the their responsibility to read the terms and conditions on other signs. Underneath the entrance sign, there is a sign that states: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME” Again, the appellant would have driven past this sign to enter the site. Looking at the photographs provided by both the driver and the parking operator, this sign is clearly visible from the area where the driver parked. The parking operator has provided a site map, which shows that there are numerous signs at the site. Signs do not need to be visible from every space on the site, they only need to be placed throughout the site so that the motorist has the opportunity to read the terms and conditions. Looking at the photographs from both the appellant and parking operator and also the site map, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions would have been visible to the driver and that the signs comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Looking at the sign, the text stating “£100 Parking Charge Notice” is in a larger font than the text around it and it is also in bold. This makes it more noticeable that the rest of the text around it, so I consider that the signs do give adequate notice of the charge. Within its case file, the parking operator has provided a copy of its contract with the parking operator. This shows that the contract started on 12 April 2021 for 12 months. It also states that after 12 months it will automatically renew. This shows that the parking operator does have landowner at the site. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear and that the driver broke them by parking in a no parking area. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

They seem to have made an error where they have stated ANPR cameras and overstaying in a car park. This car park doesnt even have any ANPR cameras and isn't pay and display. I complained to POPLA regarding this and got this response from them this morning:

 

Your complaint about POPLA appeal 5660873890

 

Thank you for contacting us via our complaints webform. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

 

It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service, and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.

 

Clearly, the crux of your complaint is the assessor has made a mistake within their report as they refer to ANPR timings and that a payment was made for you stay on site. You say you feel the assessor has mixed up your appeal with someone else’s as there are no ANPR cameras on site nor are there any payment machines on site. 

 

I have reviewed the concerns you have raised and the decision outcome reached by our assessor and my findings are as follows:

 

The assessor has stated the following within the decision rationale:

 

“The parking operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition cameras, showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 09:27:39 and exiting at 11:17:37. A total stay of one hour and 49 minutes. The parking operator keeps a list of vehicles that made payment on the day in question and I can see that the appellant paid for one hour’s parking”.

 

I agree that the assessor has made an error here within their report and for this, please accept my apologies for the confusion it has caused. I will feed this back to our assessor for coaching purposes.

 

On reviewing the decision rationale, I am satisfied that they have considered the points you raised and that the error made by our assessor does not change the overall outcome of the appeal. This is due to the fact that the PCN was issued for ‘parking in a no parking area’ and the assessor explains at the end of their report, “After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear and that the driver broke them by parking in a no parking area”.

 

The images provided by the parking operator confirm your vehicle was parked in the no parking area and so, the assessor was satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued.

 

Ultimately, as a complaints handler, it is my role to determine if the POPLA assessor has followed our process and procedures in place. Whilst an error has been made and I will be providing feedback, the decision outcome reached is appropriate based on the information and evidence received. No procedural error has been made and so, I have no cause to overturn the assessor’s decision.

 

As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

 

I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended, and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.

 

You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

xxxx

POPLA Complaints Team

Umkomaas

@thepeopleschamp - can you give the name of the PPC for context please?

When a parking operator has terms and conditions at its site, parking at the site might mean that the driver has entered a contract. The terms and conditions of the site are set out in the signs. Signs state: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME

It's not possible to enter a contract to do something that is forbidden. POPLA get it wrong ...... yet again!

thepeopleschamp

Umkomaas said:

@thepeopleschamp - can you give the name of the PPC for context please?

When a parking operator has terms and conditions at its site, parking at the site might mean that the driver has entered a contract. The terms and conditions of the site are set out in the signs. Signs state: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME

It's not possible to enter a contract to do something that is forbidden. POPLA get it wrong ...... yet again!

Hi @Umkomaas the PPC is Private Parking Solution (London) - EW

Coupon-mad

Just ignore them and SPECIFICALLY IGNORE (and please don't tell us about!) the £170 threatograms.

Tell the PPC if you move house.

Come back and start a discussion if and when you get a court claim. Or continue on your existing thread if you have one.

B789

If the signs are forbidding and so no contract can be entered into then it must come under trespass. Wait for an LBC, if one ever comes and make sure it is defended on trespass terms not breach of contract terms.