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 number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

POPLA Decisions

Options
1…440441443445446…482

Comments

  • SusanJP
    SusanJP Posts: 22 Forumite
    Fourth Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    Decision: Successful
    Location: Stansted airport
    Operator: NSL Limited - EW
    Assessor: Richard Beaden

    Summary of operator case: The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver was parked in a restricted location during the prescribed hours.

    My case: The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and a copy of the PCN. The appellant believes that the operator’s images have been altered. They advise that there was no option but to select vehicle driver when appealing to the operator. The appellant disputes that the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant disputes that the states terms and conditions were breached. They believe that the amount of the PCN contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The appellants questions the adequacy of the signs at the site. The appellant disputes that the operator has the relevant authority to issue PCN. The appellant advise that the operator has not allowed a grace period. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

    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 allowing this appeal, I will explain my reasons below. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 advises that the provisions contained within it can only be used on relevant land and that this is land which is not subject to statutory control. In this case the PCN was issued on an airport. While the operator has shown that it has a contract for the management of the site it has not show that the land is not subject to statutory control under airport byelaws and as such I cannot consider that it is relevant land. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.






  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,940 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Brilliant to hopefully see this ongoing error by POPLA finally resolved for NSL Stansted cases.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
     Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Empathic2023
    Empathic2023 Posts: 3 Newbie
    First Post
    Operator Name: MET Parking Services - EW

    Original thread with all the redacted details: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80216058

    Decision: Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name: Gregory McGlynn

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the stay authorised.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:
    • They were not the driver; the parking operator can’t pursue the keeper unless the Notice to Keeper is The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Compliant.
    • No evidence of Landowner authority.
    • No evidence of the period parked.
    • The grace period has not been applied correctly. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments and raised new grounds of appeal regrading signage. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. 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 parking operator has provided a valid redacted contract showing they have authority to issue PCNs on the land. The signage on the site states that there is a 1 hour max stay time. The operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays on the site for. As the ANPR images provided by the operator shows the appellants vehicle remained on the site for 1 hour 11 minutes, the parking operator issued a PCN as an overstay of 11 minutes has occurred. The images contained with the PCN are images taken by the ANPR cameras of the appellant vehicle entering and exiting the site. These are then used to calculate the length of time the vehicle has been within the boundaries of the car park. Whilst I acknowledge there are no images of the appellants vehicle parked on the car park, there is no requirement for an operator to provide these, as the ANPR images clearly show the vehicle was on site for 1 hour and 11 minutes 19 seconds. It is important to note that a parking event starts from the moment a driver’s vehicle enters the car park to the moment they leave. Even if the driver is still in the vehicle with the engine switched on, or not parked within a bay this is considered to be gaining utility from the site. 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. If a 10 minute grace period is applied the appellant has still overstayed by 1 minute 19 seconds. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these as part of my decision. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver overstayed the max stay time by 11 minutes 19 seconds and therefore they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

    I didn't believe I brought new grounds of appeal at comment stage, but whatever they say.
  • Bob50000
    Bob50000 Posts: 4 Newbie
    Name Dropper First Post
    Successful POPLA appeal against Private Parking Solution (London) Ltd.  Matisse Road / Holloway Street Hounslow.

    Decision                Successful
    Assessor Name     Stuart Lumsden

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

    Assessor summary of your case

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

    • They say they were dropping their daughter off at a party on the day of the breach. 

    • They say their daughter has a disability which limits their mobility and as such, they parked as close to ‘Flip Out’ as possible. 

    • They say they stopped on Matisse Road to drop off their daughter and wife and waited for less than 5 minutes for their wife to return before leaving. 

    • They say they didn’t realise they were on private land and saw no signs.

     • They say no contract can be formed as no parking or waiting is permitted. 

    • They say the parking operator has not complied with 13.1 of the BPA Code of Pracitce. 

    • They say they did not stop on Holloway Road, but Matisse Road, which is not private land. 

    • They say they stopped forwards of the sign and could not see it as it was too small. 

    • They add that Matisse Road is a public highway and they did not stop on the operators land. 

    • They say the signs are too small to be read whilst driving and do not make the boundaries clear as it’s assumed they refer to the parking bays which they did not use. 

    The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: 

    • Images of the site, the route to the sign and signs on site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning.

    I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate they only stopped to drop off their daughter at a party. I acknowledge the images provided to demonstrate their route to the site, the area they stopped and the land in question. I note the appellant parked largely on the road, but partially on the white lines. 

    I also note the appellant parked next to signs but was unaware of any terms as they claim they didn’t see any, but has commented to advise that the signs are too small upon review of the evidence, the boundaries aren’t clear and what area the signs relate too. 

    As such, I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signs throughout the site, a site map showing the controlled areas and also the location of the signs. According to the site map the appellant stopped on Holloway Road, not Matisse Road. The appellants evidence shows the entrance to Matisse Road, but I must conclude that they stopped on Holloway Road. 

    Whilst the road is public land, the land to the side of it is not. The operators site map shows the area they control which includes the white lines, but only part of the white lines. I must agree with the appellant that the signs do not make the boundaries clear. One would assume that the signs refer to the parking bays and not the road or white lines. I accept that there are signs in place which should have been reviewed by the appellant, but the operators site map does not show the area they parked is monitored by them. 

    As stated above, the operator monitors the side of the road including the white lines, but not all the white lines. It’s down to the operator to demonstrate that the appellant breached the terms and conditions and whilst I accept they stopped partially on the white lines, I cannot conclude that the signs are clear enough to make motorists aware that the white lines are part of the relevant land or that the white lined area the appellant stopped is monitored by the parking operator. 

    As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

  • mmmatt
    mmmatt Posts: 36 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Assessor Name
    Naomi Littler
    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked in a location for registered only.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant has provided a detailed document containing their grounds of appeal. For the purpose of this report, I have summarised the appellants grounds into the following points. • As the keeper of the vehicle they are not liable for the charge. • The PCN has been incorrectly issued as the location shown on it is incorrect. • There are no entrance signs. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from each parking bay. • There is insufficient notice of the charge itself. • There are no marked parking bays at the location. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • The signs do not warn drivers what the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. • There is no planning permission from the council for the ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates and expands their grounds of appeal and they raise some new points. The appellant has provided images contained I their document showing signage at the site, screenshots from the post office website & googlemaps and links to land registry documents. as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Non-compliance with the terms and conditions may result in a parking charge of up to £100…Registered users only”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 08:38, and exiting at 13:15, totalling a stay of 4 hours and 37 minutes. The operator has provided a search of it’s system which shows that the vehicle is not listed as a registered user. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the 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 appellant explains as the keeper of the vehicle they are not liable for the charge. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant states the PCN has been incorrectly issued as the location shown on it is incorrect. I note the appellants comments and I acknowledge that the PCN contains the postcode SO15 2SJ whereas the vehicle entered the site via the postcode SO17 1XJ. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and I am satisfied that based on the size of the site, it covers multiple postcode areas. I appreciate that the appellant has provide screen shots from the royal mail; however, this relates to buildings rather than land, therefore has no bearing on this decision. I appreciate the appellant has provided evidence taken from google maps; however, this does not show that the land is not part of the site and as such, it does not invalidate the PCN. I acknowledge the appellant has provided links to the land registry; however, POPLA is unable to access external links due to IT security reasons, if the appellant wished us to consider this they would have needed to provide a hard copy of the information. Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the information contained on the PCN is sufficient to identify the site and is compliant with PoFA as the operator’s site map shows the boundaries of the relevant land it controls and has the authority to issue PCNs for. If the appellant is unhappy with the way the operator has chosen to identify the site on the PCN, they can raise this directly with the operator. The appellant advises there are no entrance signs and the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from each parking bay. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is entrance signage present which is compliant with the code of practice 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 there was sufficient signage placed throughout the car park in such a way that satisfies me they would have been visible to the appellant. There is no requirement for signs to be placed so they are visible from every parking bay. 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. I acknowledge that the appellant has provided images taken at the site which they say shows non-compliant signage, this sign is not an operator’s sign and therefore it is not the operator’s responsibility to ensure signs installed by third parties are compliant with the code. I appreciate the appellants evidence shows areas without signs; however’ the appellant has also provided evidence of an entrance sign which satisfies me that it is sufficient to make a motorist aware that terms apply at the site, if the driver was unsure of where this sign applied to they could have left the site to park elsewhere or call the operator to seek further advice. The appellant states that there is insufficient notice of the charge itself. 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. I have reviewed the signage provided by the operator and on this occasion I am satisfied that adequate notice is provided and the signage is compliant with section 19.4. The appellant says there are no marked parking bays at the location. I appreciate that this may be the case; however, the PCN was issued as the vehicle was not a registered user, as such this has no material difference on the outcome of this appeal. There is no evidence of landowner authority. 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. 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 sufficient evidence demonstrating that they hold the required landowner authority in line with the code. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The signs do not warn drivers what the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. 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. I can see from the evidence provided by the operator that the signage confirms that ANPR is in operation on the site and the reason for this.. I am satisfied that this is compliant with the BPA code of practice. There is no planning permission from the council for the ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. I note that the appellant’s on ground for appeal is whether the operator has the appropriate planning permission for the location. Please note, that POPLA’s role is to assess if the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning application or lack thereof. On this basis, my decision has focused on the other aspects of the appeal in order to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. I am aware that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider this as part of my decision. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver was not a registered user, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

  • PlayerZero
    PlayerZero Posts: 2 Newbie
    First Anniversary First Post
    Location
    Car park at 299-303 Coventry Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, B10 0RA

    Date of Incident
    29/05/2023

    Operator Name
    Civil Enforcement - EW

    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Gregory McGlynn

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that: • Signs in the 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 parking operator has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. • No evidence of landowner authority. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments. The appellant has provided an appeal document as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

    Assessor supporting rational(sic - should be rationale?) for decision

    I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage. The appellant has said the insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN amount. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. BPA code 19.3 states “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.” From reviewing the images, the operator has provided of the signage the PCN amount does not stand out on the signs, it is in small text and blends in with the rest of the sign. The PCN amount could be in a larger text, so it stands out and informs motorist clearly what the PCN amount is. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

  • rms22
    rms22 Posts: 147 Forumite
    100 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Spring Parking.

    Appeal successful 😁

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to not displaying a valid pay and display ticket.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • Noncompliance of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in regards to grace periods. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • There is no evidence of the period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing is the driver who maybe liable for the parking charge. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. 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 has challenged landowner authority. Having reviewed the operator’s evidence pack, I have seen no evidence that it has the authority. As a result of this, I am therefore unable to determine that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. While I acknowledge the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture