POPLA Decisions

h8prkingcowbois

h8prkingcowbois said:

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.

{Removed by Forum Team}

h8prkingcowbois

h8prkingcowbois said:

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.

{Removed by Forum Team}

Coupon-mad

Very good results against Parking Eye!

Fruitcake

Very well done. Including the PoPLA number is extremely useful to us, so thank you for that.

h8prkingcowbois

Fruitcake said:

Very well done. Including the PoPLA number is extremely useful to us, so thank you for that.

They have been removed by admin, let me know if you would like me to PM you with them 

Fruitcake

h8prkingcowbois said:

Fruitcake said:

Very well done. Including the PoPLA number is extremely useful to us, so thank you for that.

They have been removed by admin, let me know if you would like me to PM you with them 

Yes please. That way I can PM other posters who have suffered the same fate. The unlit signs one will be especially helpful. Thanks.

KeithP

h8prkingcowbois said:

Fruitcake said:

Very well done. Including the PoPLA number is extremely useful to us, so thank you for that.

They have been removed by admin...

I wonder who asked for them to be removed?

Coupon-mad

Wow, editing out POPLA numbers AFTER CONCLUSION OF AN APPEAL has NEVER been done before on MSE!

The case is over, so of course we should be able to quote key case decisions! A POPLA Code is incapable of identifying an individual.

I suspect it's an error and misunderstanding at MSE Towers.  Of course POPLA Codes should not be put up when the appeal hasn't concluded but after the event is absolutely fine.

h8prkingcowbois

Another one against Parking Eye in cambridge. I will PM the case number to Fruitcake as I do not want to risk my post being removed:

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 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.

hap397

Decision  Unsuccessful

Assessor Name  []
Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without a valid disabled badge displayed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and 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 signage is forbidding according to PCM-UK v Bull et all, Horizon Parking v Mr J, UKPC v Masterson. • For a contract to exist there has to be offer and acceptance. • The operator must provide a contract with the landowner. • There are multiple other POPLA decisions that have been allowed for raising the same thing. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant has commented on the operator’s evidence reiterating the grounds made in their initial statement. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • Five images of the signage on site. • An image of a Supreme Court post and Beavis sign.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. In order for the operator to hold the keeper liable for the PCN, it must meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4, paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, it appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached and, the name and current address for the driver has not been provided. Furthermore, the notice sent meets the relevant requirements of POFA. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability to the keeper. As the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN there is no requirement for them to prove who the driver was on the date in question. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out and read and understand the terms of parking, prior to leaving their vehicle. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice says operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case, the operator has provided images of the signage at the site within the car park. Section 19.2 states that there are cases when having an entrance signs would be impractical, like when the car park is very small. As this car park is very small according to the evidence, entrance signage is not required. As it is not required I cannot consider entrance signage any further. I acknowledge the images of the images of the signage the appellant has attached and I am satisfied these would have been visible to the driver. They clearly outline the terms that if you are parked in a disabled bay you must display a valid disabled badge. This was not done in this instance and therefore a PCN was issued. I am satisfied therefore, from the evidence provided by the operator that the signage is indeed legible and conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. I am satisfied the motorist was afforded ample opportunity to review the terms, as the signage was placed across the site in various locations. I am also satisfied that from this signage a contract would have been formed. The 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. In this case the driver was parked during daylight and as such, this part of the code is not relevant. I acknowledge the images that reference Parking Eye v Beavis. Section 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states that operators must give adequate notice of any charges on the signage at the site. I note the appellant states the charge is not adequately brought to the attention of the motorist. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorists attention within the signage. Having reviewed the signs, I am of the view that the charge is prominent and brought to the attention of motorists. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. I acknowledge all the cases that the appellant has referenced stating the signage is forbidding however, these are all County Court rulings which are not binding. As mentioned above I consider the signage to be legible. POPLAs remit is to determine whether a PCN was issued correctly according to the terms and conditions of the site. We cannot allow an appeal if a contract is formed, and a breach of the terms has occurred. If the appellant wishes to dispute the PCN further, they may wish to seek legal advice. The parking contract undertaken at the site is between the operator and the motorist, and the motorist does not need to sign any contract to be bound by the terms and conditions. By leaving their vehicle parked or waiting on the site the driver has indicated by conduct that they have accepted the contract offered by the operator. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. Section 7.3 outlines what the written authorisation must set out. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case, the operator has provided POPLA with a contract and therefore its authority from the landowner to manage parking at this site. It states that the University of Reading has an agreement with Total Parking Solutions and was signed on 27th March 2018 and will continue to run until either parties have terminated it. I am therefore satisfied that a valid contract is in place in accordance with Section 7 of the Code. I recognise that other POPLA decisions may have been allowed when raising the same grounds however, POPLA must review each case separately on its own individual merits. We must consider whether a contract was formed and whether that contract was breached. We cannot take into account decisions made about a different parking event as it would be a separate contract and therefore have no bearing on this case. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.