IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

POPLA Decisions

1438439441443444455

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,100
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 4 July 2023 at 11:14AM

    hap397 said:
    Decision  Unsuccessful

    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

     BLAH BLAH BLAH


    I see they - Total Parking Solutions - previously withdrew from another POPLA appeal you did - below - (and you've done several?).

    If you had a Blue Badge that slipped, I'd have shown it to TPS at first appeal and not used a template appeal.  Usually operators will cancel. But there is no thread to discuss your case on so I guess you will now ignore TPS unless you move house or a court claim arrives.


    hap397 said: (previous cases) 
    I threw the kitchen sink at my appeal and did a 30+ page appeal using all the resources from this forum and quoted loads of paras from the BPA which looked like it worked. My main one which wasn't considered was that the contract did not have a start date on it so was highly expecting that to be my winning point but surprised with this one.  I'll take it though.  

    Also did a 30 page appeal for a university TPS ticket which the operator withdrew at POPLA.    
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • drbayleaf
    drbayleaf Posts: 53
    First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 6 July 2023 at 2:38PM
    Wye Valley Visitor Centre (aka Wye Valley Butterfly Zoo or Mazing Hedge Puzzle) ParkingEye Scam

    Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    Richard Beaden

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant disputes that the operator has allowed a sufficient grace period. They question if the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue PCN. They dispute that the signs at the site are adequate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal they have also provided a copy of a receipt. They have commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention as they have confirmed this to the operator. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle.

    The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs require drivers to make a payment using either the machines on site or the paybyphone app. They warn that if sufficient parking is not purchased a parking charge of £100 will apply. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images the operator has provided show that the vehicle was on the car park for four hours and 16 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of a system printout, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park on the day in question, along with any payments made. The printout shows that the vehicle was registered with a payment allowing four hours parking. Based on this evidence the operator considers that a valid contract was formed.

    I will now consider if the appellants grounds of appeal impact upon this.

    The appellant disputes that the operator has allowed a sufficient grace period. A drivers parking starts when they enter the car park. This is allowable as section 13.1 of the British Parking Association code of practice requires the operator to provide the driver with a minimum of five minutes to decide if they are going to stay or go. The drive decided to remain parked so in accordance with Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association code of practice the consideration period does not apply. The time it took the driver to make their payment forms part of the drivers parking time and needs to be paid for. The payment app cannot tell when the driver entered the site so the driver is responsible for taking the time this into account. The court cases quoted by the appellant in their appeal are county court cases and therefore are not relevant to the outcome of this appeal.

    The driver was able to make a payment using the paybyphone app which proves that this payment system was working. If no payment methods were available the driver would be required to leave the site so I cannot conclude that any breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has occurred. The appellant would have to raise any further concerns regarding this with the relevant authority.

    [Landowner Authority]
    They question if the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue PCN. The operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract it holds with the landowner. It has also provided photos showing the signs at the site. Section 7 of the British Parking Association code of practice requires the operator to hold a valid contract for a site it does not own. While the contract was signed in 2017 the photos of the signs are dated 2022. On the balance of probability having consider both sets of evidence I am satisfied that a valid contract does exist for the management of this site.

    [Signage]
    They dispute that the signs at the site are adequate. As I have stated above the operator has provided date and time stamped photos of the signs at the site and a site map. Section 19 of the British Parking Association code of practice sets the requirements for signs. The evidence shows that there are prominent white signs throughout the car park. The signs have the amount of the PCN in bold text providing adequate notice of the sum of the charge as was established in Parking Eye Ltd V Beavis. There is no requirement for the operator to have placed signs so it can be seen from every space within the car park only that there are enough signs that the terms and conditions were brought to the attention of the driver. As the driver has made a payment I am satisfied that they could see the signs proving that they were adequate on the date in question.

    The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal they have also provided a copy of a receipt. I have considered the document above. The receipt does not casts doubt on the operator’s list of payments. I have explained why time would show as remaining above.

    They have commented on the parking operator’s evidence. In response to the appellants comments, there is no requirement for the operator to provide an unredacted contract. The signs do warn drivers regarding the use of ANPR cameras and this is included on the entrance sign.

    The appellant did not present any evidence to cast doubt on the evidence of the signs provided by the operator(*).

    The driver was able to make payment showing that there was at least one working payment method on the date in question. By parking on site for longer than they had paid for the driver has breached the terms and conditions for the use of the site. 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, the appeal is refused.

    * I totally did cast doubt on the evidence of the signs as the photos they submitted of the carpark where penitently not the same as the "copy" of the signs - and both of which were of such low resolution that it made the text unreadable.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,100
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Please break up the wall of words so we can read it.

    Of course no paying it.  This is only POPLA!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • drbayleaf
    drbayleaf Posts: 53
    First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    @Coupon-mad - decision text edited for readability.
  • ampersand
    ampersand Posts: 9,548
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Drbayleaf -
    Proofreading is a vital habit to acquire against ridiculous autocorrect nonsense, so 'were patently', not 'where penitently'.

    CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
    01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006
    'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
    Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
    ***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
    'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET


  • drbayleaf
    drbayleaf Posts: 53
    First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 11 July 2023 at 4:42PM
    Thanks for spotting that autocorrect @ampersand. I'll note again dyslexia makes reading/noticing such errors particularly difficult.

    EDIT - I moved my further questions this thread:
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6445254/wye-valley-visitor-centre-parkingeye-popla-appeal/p5

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,100
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    I'll answer on your own thread!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,100
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Nicely done!  Good POPLA appeal & decision.
    They never serve NTHs properly!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • ivysaur
    ivysaur Posts: 11
    First Post
    Forumite
    edited 20 July 2023 at 9:50AM
    Operator Name
    Civil Enforcement - EW
    Operator Case Summary

    POPLA assessment and decision

    21/06/23

    Decision - Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name - (Removed by Forum Team)

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for parking without a valid permit.

    Assessor summary of your case

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

     • They say the entrance signs are adequately positioned and the signs are not prominent, clear, or legible. 

    • They explain there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. 

    • They say that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

     • They explain that the parking operator has failed to comply with data protection ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR.

     • They say that the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

     • They explain that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

     • They say that the vehicle was not parked due to it being broken down. 

    After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: 1. Google images of the car park. 2. Photo of the vehicle’s tyre puncture. 3. Invoice for the vehicle repair. 4. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper, and I am not satisfied they have been identified as the driver. 

    As such, I will be considering the appellant’s liability of the parking charge as the registered keeper. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs in place in the car park, which state: “LENLEYS HOME CUSTOMER PARKING ONLY…CUSTOMERS MUST OBTAIN A PARKING PERMIT INSIDE THE STORE…IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100” 

    The parking operator has provided photos of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 17:22, and exiting at 18:11, a total duration of 49 minutes. The parking operator has provided a system generated report which demonstrates the vehicle was not registered with a parking permit on the date in question and therefore was not authorised to park in the car park for 49 minutes.

     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. 

    • They say the entrance signs are adequately positioned and the signs are not prominent, clear or legible.

     • They explain there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how parking operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet and comply with. In its Code of Practice section 19.3 it states: "Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand." The parking operator has provided photos of the signs on the site and a site map, this shows that there are 12 signs situated around the car park which include the entrance sign. The site map shows that there is a sign at the entrance, on the balance of probabilities I am confident that there are enough signs that are visible to motorists when entering and remaining in the car park. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the vehicle leaving in darkness. However, the vehicle entered during daylight, and I consider the driver had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the signs. I note the appellant states there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. 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 motorist’s attention within the signage. Having reviewed the signs, I am of the view that the amount of the PCN is clearly visible on the signs, The amount is placed on a white background with dark, bold uppercase writing. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it.

     • They say that there is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” Although the BPA Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Whilst the appellant has referred to the contract mentioning Clarkes Furnishers. However, the driver parked at Lenleys Homes. After researching this it would appear the company name has changed but I am satisfied the address of the site remains the same. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. 

    • They explain that the parking operator has failed to comply with data protection ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR. Section 22.1 of the Code of Practice states “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” I can see the signs advise “Data Protection Information is displayed at the entrance to this car park. View our full privacy policy at www.ce-services.org.co.uk/privacypolicy or email [email protected]. I am therefore satisfied the driver had the opportunity to determine how their data is used by contacting the provided details or reviewing the information from the entrance. If the appellant has concerns regarding the sign information on data protection, the appellant can raise this with the Information Commissioners Office directly. 

    • They say that the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. We consider the 'parking period' should be a statement of information that allows the keeper, to identify when the contravention happened. Many contraventions are time dependent and will require the statement of a period from one starting time to another. The PCN states the vehicle entered the car park at 17:22 and left at 18:11, I am satisfied this identifies the period parked. The appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was not in the car park for the times captured by the cameras. 

    • They explain that the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. I have reviewed the signs at the site which state “We use manual patrols and ANPR cameras to monitor this private property and may contact the DVLA to request the Registered Keeper’s detail’s in order to send a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Therefore, I do consider the signs comply with the Code of Practice. 

    • They say that the vehicle was not parked due to it being broken down. I acknowledge the evidence provided by the appellant to show the vehicle had a puncture and this was the reason the vehicle was on site. However, I must note it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The driver could have contacted the parking operator using the helpline number on the signs to make the parking operator aware of the circumstances which led them to be in the car park for 49 minutes. Additionally, I can see the signs advise motorists can register their vehicle to obtain a permit, which would authorise the vehicle to remain on site. 

    After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that thee driver broke them by parking without a valid permit. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 605.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.4K Life & Family
  • 246.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards