POPLA Decisions

hap397

Highview Parking Limited

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay period.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They state they are the registered keeper of the vehicle. • They state the entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • They refer to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and that the signs should give “adequate notice” of the PCN. They also refer to section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to this. • They refer to the standards set in the ParkingEye v Beavis case and note that the signage in this case does not demonstrate the large lettering that the supreme court rules was necessary. • They refer to section 22.1 of the BPA and note that the entrance signs do not refer to the use of ANPR. • They state the parking operator has not demonstrated that they are pursuing the driver and they have referred to PoFA and its regulations. • They note the parking operator is put to strict proof that to confirm they have a contract with the landowner and what the contract stipulates they can do. They refer to section 7 of the BPA in regard to this. • They state there is no evidence of the period parked and this is a requirement of PoFA. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: 1. Photographic evidence of the site. The above evidence 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. Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: [] which was issued to PCN number []. The appellant has put the parking operator to proof of the contract they have with the landowner to show they have they have the authority to issue PCNs on this site. 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 not provided evidence of the contract they have with the landowner. The parking operator could have provided evidence of the contract or a witness statement. Without this, I cannot determine if the parking operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on this land. 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.

hap397

I will be taking the above further as the PPC did not provide any evidence of a contract in their pack to my POPLA appeal.  

UncleThomasCobley

hap397 said:

I will be taking the above further as the PPC did not provide any evidence of a contract in their pack to my POPLA appeal.  

Why on earth would you do that? You have won your appeal and the matter is over. How do you imagine that you can "take this further"?

Umkomaas

hap397 said:

I will be taking the above further as the PPC did not provide any evidence of a contract in their pack to my POPLA appeal.  

UncleThomasCobley said:

hap397 said:

I will be taking the above further as the PPC did not provide any evidence of a contract in their pack to my POPLA appeal.  

Why on earth would you do that? You have won your appeal and the matter is over. How do you imagine that you can "take this further"?

He can stir up the DVLA and the BPA to investigate the case. Costs nothing, just an email to the DVLA who will require the BPA to rattle Highview's cage. This is a standard reply I give when POPLA/the Court cast doubt on the PPCs position vis a vis landowner contract. 

In view of this quite clear statement from POPLA, why not give the PPC a dose of their own medicine by making life uncomfortable for them?  

Write to the DVLA and complain that POPLA has grave doubts that the PPC has authority to operate at this site. Ask that the DVLA investigates and reports back to you. In particular they should calculate how many charges have been issued, and should there be no valid landowner authority, the PPC should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid. Email in the first instance:

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (and) 

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 

Send to both. 

If you get a fob off from that approach, follow it up with a full blown Freedom of Information request. It will be more difficult for them to hide under FOI. 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

You might also consider issuing the PPC a Letter of Claim prior to a possible county court claim for breach of the DPA/GDPR. Read these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017...0-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...orist-wins.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

There has to be some backlash against PPCs to make them think twice before issuing tickets on a scattergun basis and their unchecked harvesting of personal data from the DVLA on an industrial scale. 

drbayleaf

This pains me to read @hap397's success on the grounds of landowner authority when, for my POPLA appeal, PE only provided a contract from 2017 which states "this expires after 36 months". I made particular note of that in my appeal, but my assessor didn't give it a thought.

I also pointed out PE lapse in GDPR for sharing with me the numberplate of other cars parked in the offending carpark in their "evidence" pack.

Gah!, they are a bunch of charlatans.

Perhaps I should also write to the DVLA...

thecoat

Lido2 Car Park off Ethelbert Terrace, Margate, CT9 1RX.

PPC : ParkingEye

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They state the driver decided not to park at this location due to confusing signage and the general state of disrepair. • They raise 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice and say that six minutes is a reasonable consideration period. • They state there is a lack of sufficient entrance signs and terms and conditions throughout the car park. • They refer to a previous POPLA appeal decision. • They claim that the PCN does not specify the period of parking. • They state there is no evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted the following evidence: 1. A photo of the car park’s entrance sign and a sign containing the terms and conditions. 2. A photo of the car park, showing the back of several signs. 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: The appellant explains that the driver decided not to park at this location due to confusing signage and the general state of disrepair. They claim that six minutes is a reasonable time for the driver to find a suitable parking space, park the car, locate the signs, and understand them, check the payment methods that can be used, and ensure they have the correct coins to obtain a ticket. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of five minutes to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. The appellant explains that when the driver did not agree to the terms and conditions, they left the site as expected. There is nothing to suggest that the driver gained any utility from the site. I am satisfied that a six-minute consideration period is reasonable. 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 adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds of appeal. 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.

1505grandad

Well done.
Assessor missed the word "minimum" out:-
"The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

Umkomaas

Another decision lacking the important contextual detail of the name of the PPC and some brief description of the car park location (no corresponding seminal thread on the forum, from what I can see). Hopefully @thecoat can fill us in, please?

thecoat

Sorry @Umkomaas - Lido2 Car Park off Ethelbert Terrace in  Margate, CT9 1RX. And Parking Eye was the PPC.

I will add this info to my post above in just a moment.

No, there was no thread on this specific case, although I did also add a comment to the following, which was one of a few that I found to be helpful in making my case : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6302577/popla-appeal-parkingeye-100-fine-for-spending-10-minutes-in-a-car-park-without-parking#latest

Umkomaas

thecoat said:

Sorry @Umkomaas - Lido2 Car Park off Ethelbert Terrace in  Margate, CT9 1RX. And Parking Eye was the PPC.

I will add this info to my post above in just a moment.

No, there was no thread on this specific case, although I did also add a comment to the following, which was one of a few that I found to be helpful in making my case : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6302577/popla-appeal-parkingeye-100-fine-for-spending-10-minutes-in-a-car-park-without-parking#latest

Thanks for updating. ParkingEye do seem to be hair-trigger sharp in issuing a PCN right on the 5 minute consideration period mark, which is hardly enough time to get your breath let alone park up. I guess there'll be plenty who don't know that it's a minimum of 5 minutes, and pay up out of fear.  With a well reasoned POPLA appeal, covering a few minutes more before deciding to leave the car park, should work, as in this case. Well done @thecoat.