POPLA Decisions

ChoccyJoJo

A successful outcome against a new parking scheme introduced without notice in Abingdon town centre. Thank to you all for the templates etc. I stuck to them all religiously and threw EVERYTHING I had had it. It was worth the time and effort. In the end, I actually had them on three separate points (font size of the charge total, no Data Protection information displayed and no planning permission) but the one that won easily was the font size, which I thought least likely. They did the usual trick of sending a photograph of the poster in full zoom. I took an image from the perspective on a driver in a bay - much smaller and harder to read. It was a technicality but that's all it takes. Using the info shared on here (especially about the ParkingEye v's Beavis case which they tried to use against me) it has saved me £300 - THANK YOU!

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Andy Prescott

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • The appellant has provided various other grounds of appeal, and a comprehensive supporting submission, that I have not summarised as it is not central to my decision. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their grounds: • Photos from around the site and links to various supporting information. After reviewing the parking operator’s submission the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The above will be considered in making my determination.

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 has challenged the parking operator’s signage in respect adequate notice of the rate of the PCN. They have also made reference to the signage precedence set by the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. While I have noted the rate of the PCN is placed in a highlighted box, I must concur with the appellant that it is written in a small font, particularly in relation to the conditions that precede it. I must also state that I cannot consider the design of this sign is consistent with the signage considered in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Therefore, I am unable to conclude the parking operator’s evidence is sufficient to rebut the appellant’s grounds in respect of notice of the rate of the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Umkomaas

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.

Please supply the PPC name, otherwise a decision lacks important context. Well done on winning. 

ChoccyJoJo

Umkomaas said:

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.

Please supply the PPC name, otherwise a decision lacks important context. Well done on winning. 

Ah sorry, its a Civil Enforecment one.

Umkomaas

ChoccyJoJo said:

Umkomaas said:

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.

Please supply the PPC name, otherwise a decision lacks important context. Well done on winning. 

Ah sorry, it's a Civil Enforecment one.

Thank you. 

While I have noted the rate of the PCN is placed in a highlighted box, I must concur with the appellant that it is written in a small font, particularly in relation to the conditions that precede it. I must also state that I cannot consider the design of this sign is consistent with the signage considered in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

POPLA seem to have the bit between their teeth in regard to the size and noticeability of the font displaying the PCN charge level. Looks like we can add Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) to Euro Car Parks (ECP) as open to a strong POPLA appeal point referencing their inadequate signage. For future appeals - Assessor: Andy Prescott. 

kryten3000

From one of the Facebook Groups:

ParkingEye Sign says:  

90 Minute Free Stay

Up to 1 hour  £3
Up to 2 hours £5

Up to 3 hours £6
Up to 24 hours £10
All tariffs include the first 90 minutes free.

The driver parked for 90 minutes then when they realised they were going to be late back, downloaded the relevant app and  paid £3.20 staying another 20 minutes.

PCN issued (of course) because the driver should have paid at the start of their parking session.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal
• Say the appeal is based on ambiguityof the sign showing the tariffs on site.
• Top of the sign says that there is a 90 minutes free stay. 

• At the bottom of the sign is states that all tariffs include the first 90 minutes free.
• Say that the shortest period of parking that can be paid is 1 hour. 

• As this is
only 60 minutes it cannot include a 90 minute free period. 

• Say that the signs displaying the tariffs is confusing. 

• Say they had paid for the full period of parking.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is clear on the matter of ambiguous signs.
• The appellant has then provided information relating to part 2, unfair terms.
• They have provided 3 points from this section with further information section with further information about it. 

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:
• An image of the sign on site
• An image of their payment made for parking.

The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision
The appellant has raised multiple grounds for appeal; however, my decision will focus on signage as this has convinced me to allow the appeal. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to demonstrate that they have issued the parking charge correctly. In this case the charge was issued for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. 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. I can see that the operator has provided images of the signs on site that set out the terms and conditions of parking.
The sign states 90 minute free stay and explains further down that all tariffs include the first 90 minutes free. Under the tariffs, there is a tariff that can be purchased for up to 1 hour. However, when purchasing up to 1 hour of parking, it would only entitle a motorist to 60 minutes of parking. The BPA code of practice states that the signs need to be clear and easy to read. The signage on site is confusing as it is not possible for the 90 minutes free stay to be included in the up to 1 hour tariff. The signage on site should either state that the tariffs purchased are additional hours or is for time thereafter the free stay. As such, I cannot be satisfied that the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions of parking as the signage on site is not clear and is misleading. 

Therefore, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal...

Reference: 6061023XXX
Assessor: Amy Cafferty

Coupon-mad

Nice! Very good to have that POPLA Code. 

YMike

Appeal against Spring Parking


Decision   Successful

Assessor Name   Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to unauthorised parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided comprehensive details of their grounds for appeal. In essence, their grounds of appeal come down to: • The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible. • They state there is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN. • There is no evidence of landowner authority and the parking operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA). • The feel the parking operator has not complied with the BPA’s grace period. • The parking operator has not evidenced that they are pursuing the driver. • They feel the signs do not warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The above evidence  (All gleaned from this forum )   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. Within their grounds for appeal, the appellant has stated that the signage does not warns drivers what the ANPR data is used for. The BPA has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 22.1 of the Code of Practice says that parking operators may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The signs at the car park must tell drivers that this technology is being used and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for. In this case, the parking operator has provided evidence of their signage that is located around this site. While I note this signage refers to the CCTV cameras that are in use, there is no mention of ANPR or what the captured data is used for. With ANPR in use on this site, I would expect the parking operator to comply with the BPA and make motorists fully aware of what the data that is captured is used for. I note the evidence the parking operator has provided of a sign within the shop however, the terms and conditions must be located in the car park meaning that this sign is insufficient in details what the ANPR cameras are used for. As such, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, I will not be addressing these.

Thanks everyone!!!!

Umkomaas

@YMike - thank you very much for the feedback, and very well done in achieving this with minimal forum help. 

this sign is insufficient in details what the ANPR cameras are used for. As such, I must allow this appeal.

Wow, not seen one of those before!  @YMike - would it be possible to annotate your post above with the POPLA Decision reference number please. Will be useful for future appeals.

Original thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6431297/popla-apeal-spring-parkin#latest

h8prkingcowbois

PCN for parking at a commercial car park in cambridge that does not allow any parking after 9pm and 1 hour during business opening times. 4 charges received altogether which resulted in 2 POPLA appeal cases:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), however the reason for this has not been evidenced.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The signage fails to adequately inform drivers of ANPR data usage and data • The signs are inconspicuous, not prominently displayed, clear legible or adequately lit • The signage is of a forbidding nature and does not make an offer, so misleads drivers • They request proof of the landowner authorisation for the site in question • They question what the purpose is of the operator issuing PCN’s and what losses they can justify if other vehicles are breaching the terms Evidence of another vehicle parked and signage has been provided towards their appeal. The appellant has provided comments in response to the operator’s evidence pack, reiterating their grounds of appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the operator’s evidence of the alleged breach, as this has persuaded me to allow the appeal. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence of the PCN issued to the appellant, or the signage on site. As such, the contravention reason cannot be established to determine if the appellant breached the terms and conditions offered at the car park. As the operator has not provided the required evidence for this appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. As such, the grounds given by the appellant do not require any comment or investigation. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

h8prkingcowbois

These were against Parking Eye Ltd by the way:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The signage fails to adequately inform drivers of ANPR data usage and data • The signs are inconspicuous, not prominently displayed, clear legible or adequately lit • The signage is of a forbidding nature and does not make an offer, so misleads drivers • They request proof of the landowner authorisation for the site in question • They question what the purpose is of the operator issuing PCN’s and what losses they can justify if other vehicles are breaching the terms Evidence of another vehicle parked and signage has been provided towards their appeal. The appellant has provided comments in response to the operator’s evidence pack, reiterating their grounds of appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am satisfied that having reviewed the ANPR images, the parking event itself occurred during darkness. In order for the operator to show that it has correctly issued the parking charge, it must demonstrate that the signage on site complies with the requirements defined by The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. Whilst I am satisfied that the signs use clear and legible language on the signage images in daylight, no evidence has been provided to POPLA of the car park itself during darkness. Nor has evidence been provided which would demonstrate to me whether the signs can be read when a light source is shone upon them, for instance from a car. As the operator has not provided evidence of this to POPLA, I cannot establish whether the signage complies with the requirements defined by Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, I am unable to ascertain whether the motorist was given sufficient notice of the terms and conditions when on site. Therefore, I am unable to assess the validity of the parking contract itself. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.