POPLA Decisions

DE_612183

rms22 said:

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.

who was the assessor?

amanwithaplan

Original advice thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6455127/sainsburys-euro-car-parks-pcn-help

Operator Name: Euro Car Parks - EW

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They state the parking operator failed to issue a notice to hirer that was compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). • They refer to sections 13 and 14 in PoFA 2012 and state they were not provided with any documents. • They say the parking operator has not shown that they were the driver. • They quote the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator from 2015 and an assessor’s decision on a previous case. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and maintain that they were not the driver of the vehicle. In support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted the following evidence: 1. Several photos of the notice to hirer that was received. 2. Highlighted statements from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I have found in favour of the appellant and allowed this appeal. I will explain my reasoning below: I am satisfied there is no admission of driver liability and therefore will assess the appellant’s liability for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012 lets parking operators transfer liability for a parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle if certain rules are followed. The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but there is no evidence that the required documents were ever obtained. Whilst I appreciate the parking operator has used the “memorandum of understanding with lease companies” as this makes their overall processing more efficient, this does not supersede PoFA 2012. In order to hold the hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge the parking operator must demonstrate that it has complied with the legal requirements of the PoFA 2012. It is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence to demonstrate that it issued the parking charge notice correctly. However, in this case whilst I acknowledge the reason why the parking charge notice was issued, I am not satisfied that the parking operator has issued the charge correctly. The appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that it is necessary to address them based on the outcome reached.

hap397

Operator Name

Total Parking Solutions - EW

Operator Case Summary

POPLA VERFICATION CODE: [] 

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE NUMBER: [] 

The vehicle did not display a valid permit The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site. The onus is with the driver to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions. The vehicle was logged by Patrol officer as the vehicle did not display a valid permit which breaches the Terms and Conditions of this site. This location requires a permit to be displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. The charge was issued and affixed to the vehicle on the [] and was observed between [] and []. 

Please see attendant images which do not show any proof of permit displayed. The charge was affixed to the vehicle on the date of the contravention; therefore, the charge is POFA 2012 compliant. Please see attendant images attached. Where a driver is not named in this situation, the keeper may be held liable for the charge. The signage at this location is ample and approved by the BPA. Please see examples attached. Please also find redacted authority to act for the entire University of Reading Campus attached.

  

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They say they are the keeper and not liable for the charge. • They say there is no clear entrance signs, and all other sites are inadequately positioned, not prominent or clear. • They say the operator has not shown they are pursing the driver. • They say there is no evidence of landowner authority. • They add there is no evidence of period parked. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • Images of signs taken from 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 evidence provided of signs taken from site. I note the appellant has raised many points in their appeal but for the purposes of this decision, I shall focus on landowner authority. The appellant is correct, and the parking operator must have written authority from the landowner in order to pursue motorists for breaches of the parking contract. The operator has provided a witness statement which outlines the contract and is signed on behalf of the landowner. I must note however that this was signed in February 2020, the witness statement does not detail the length of the contract, if it rollovers or the boundaries of the site in question. Without this information I cannot confirm if the contract was in place at the time of the breach. As the operator has failed to provide a full agreement and the witness statement doesn’t stipulate it’s length or contract conditions, I cannot verify if the parking operator had authority to issue the PCN. 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.

 

Umkomaas

Without this information I cannot confirm if the contract was in place at the time of the breach. As the operator has failed to provide a full agreement and the witness statement doesn’t stipulate its length or contract conditions, I cannot verify if the parking operator had authority to issue the PCN. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly

If this is the case, I'd write to the DVLA and ask them to carry out an investigation, because if the PPC doesn't have that contract, then the DVLA are releasing registered keeper data for that site without just cause, breaching DPA/GDPR legislation, exposing themselves to litigation. Let them give the PPC some hassle to deal with as a 'reward' for the hassle they've given you. There has to be a consequence for them in trying to steamroller money from people at will.

[email protected] (and) [email protected] - send same demand to each. 

Coupon-mad

The latest POPLA Annual Report for 2022 is interesting:

https://www.popla.co.uk/reports

It mentions in the report how bad the set up and signage is at Heathrow Airport and APCOA certainly lost a high % of appeals, going by the stats in the Appendix.

1505grandad

Umkomaas said:

Without this information I cannot confirm if the contract was in place at the time of the breach. As the operator has failed to provide a full agreement and the witness statement doesn’t stipulate its length or contract conditions, I cannot verify if the parking operator had authority to issue the PCN. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly

If this is the case, I'd write to the DVLA and ask them to carry out an investigation, because if the PPC doesn't have that contract, then the DVLA are releasing registered keeper data for that site without just cause, breaching DPA/GDPR legislation, exposing themselves to litigation. Let them give the PPC some hassle to deal with as a 'reward' for the hassle they've given you. There has to be a consequence for them in trying to steamroller money from people at will.

[email protected] (and) [email protected] - send same demand to each. 

Back in 2015 I received the following post on one of my threads:-


I did as instructed and received the following from DVLA:-

The same template response received again over the years and would not expand when pushed save to reiterate:-

"Safeguards

At DVLA we have tough safeguards in place to protect the privacy of information held on our records. One of those safeguards is that all unregulated organisations, such as private car parking management companies, requesting information from us must be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (ATA).

All ATAs must have an enforceable code of practice governing the conduct and operations of their members."

I think it is safe to say your reply will not be much different (except of course reference to ppc ban).

Umkomaas

That photo from 2015 brings back memories of a much-missed forum layout, simple to use, easy on the eye, few bells and whistles, but just right for the job in hand. Getting all dewy-eyed now!  

Thanks for the trip down Memory Lane @1505grandad. 👍

1505grandad

You're very welcome  -  I also like the difference in your post numbers between then and now!!

Umkomaas

1505grandad said:

You're very welcome  -  I also like the difference in your post numbers between then and now!!

Just serving my apprenticeship then! 😄

bigkenny1975

Operator Name - Euro Car Parks - EW

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• The operators' appeal response failed to address their concern regarding the lack of documentation as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. 

• As outlined in paragraph 13(2) of the POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper must contain specific details of the alleged contravention, the duration of the parking, and the relevant signage at the time of the alleged contravention. 

• They have yet to receive this mandatory information from the operator. 

• The failure to provide essential documentation mandated by the POFA 2012 has hindered their ability to make a well-informed and valid appeal. 

• The rejection letter from the operator focused on a different reason for the parking charge, thereby avoiding the primary concern of missing documentation. 

• The absence of necessary documentation contradicts the principles of transparency and fairness that the POFA 2012 aims to uphold. 

• They are committed to resolving this matter in a just and equitable manner, and I am open to considering any additional information provided by the operator. 

• They can provide further information or clarification if required. 

• They have provided evidence which showed they had purchased a ticket and did not overstay based on the email they sent me. This was not the grounds for my appeal but was simply to highlight additional information. 

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and provides further detailed comments.

Assessor supporting rational 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. The operator has issued the PCN to the appellant because no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. While I agree that the appellant has confirmed that they were the hirer/lease of the vehicle, having viewed the available evidence I do not consider the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the hirer of the vehicle. In this case, the appellant says the requirements of Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 have not been met for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a PCN. POFA 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper or hirer in the event that the driver is not identified. POFA 2012 lets parking operators transfer liability for a parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle if certain rules are followed. The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but there is no evidence that the required documents were ever obtained. While I acknowledge that the operator refers to the Memorandum of Understanding between BPA and British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, this does not override the requirements to provide the necessary documentation under PoFA 2012 when pursuing the hirer of the vehicle. 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.