POPLA Decisions

norm_

Anybody else been waiting over 4 weeks for POPLA to make a decision on their appeal?

Umkomaas

norm_ said:

Anybody else been waiting over 4 weeks for POPLA to make a decision on their appeal?

They ask for comments on your appeal from the PPC. They give them 21 days to respond. More than 4 weeks awaiting a decision would not be unusual. 

bergkamp

Euro Car Parks
 M&S car park

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Gregory McGlynn

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that:

• The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and liability can not be transferred to the keeper.

• The appellant has raised other grounds of appeals; however, I am focusing on the one listed as the other grounds will not have an effect on the outcome of this appeal after considering this ground.

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 regarding PoFA.

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 for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

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 Section 9 requires specific wording to be included on the PCN.

In this case the notice requests the drivers details but does not ask the notice to be passed to the driver which it must.

As such the notice fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.

As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

Coupon-mad

Nice - yet again!  Daft from ECP.

bergkamp

Coupon-mad said:

Nice - yet again!  Daft from ECP.

I shall be looking to test ECP's newly worded NTK at POPLA in the near future, if the opportunity arises...

Fonz1987

Success for Keeper vs Parking Eye as failed to correctly utilise POFA.

Hotel Car Park

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Taylor-Jade Ryan

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit • The signs are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and the sum of the charge is not brought to a motorists attention • The driver assumed that no charge was necessary for hotel visitors due to the lack of visibility of any signs • No evidence of where the vehicle was parked and how the signs appeared on this date • They have raised previous appeal decisions, the Parking Eye vs Beavis Court Case, a ruling by Lord Denning, along with other court cases After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. They raise new grounds regarding keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They reference and provide several links. The appellant has provided 1. Several images of the car park itself from different angles 2. A word document containing the appeal grounds The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: 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. PoFA 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. As no driver has been identified in this case, and the provisions of PoFA have not been followed to hold the hirer liable, I cannot deem they are liable for this parking charge on this occasion. I note that other grounds have been raised, but they did not need to be considered.

norm_

Operator Name

Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

Operator Case Summary

OP Case Summary

POPLA assessment and decision

15/12/2023

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) as the appellant did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The government Code of Practice states that a compulsory five-minute cooling off period, in which motorists can consider the terms and conditions and change their mind about parking. • They were only in the car park for five minutes, as they decided to not park and left. • To issue a PCN is against the Code of Practice. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a screenshot of the Code of Practice as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions and the PCN has been issued correctly. Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association (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. When parking on a private land, a motorist must be given reasonable time to decide whether they choose to accept the terms offered and remain at the site or reject the terms offered and leave the site. In this case the appellant has entered the site but decided not to park, and therefore left the car park. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the appellant has not entered into a contract with the parking operator. Therefore, the appellant was not required to make a payment for the time they spent on the site. The parking operator has failed to demonstrate in its evidence that the motorist did enter a contract and did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I have to allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

@norm_ well done. I'd be inclined to fire off a complaint to the DVLA that as the driver had not exceeded the 5 minutes (minimum) consideration period, PE/Care Parking should never have accessed the registered keeper's data, (and DVLA should never have released it), contravening GDPR/DPA regulations.  The PPC must comply with the law and the BPA's Code of Practice, otherwise, what's the purpose of it, and how does it provide protection for the motorist. 

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (and) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 

Send the same complaint to each email. 

norm_

Umkomaas said:

@norm_ well done. I'd be inclined to fire off a complaint to the DVLA that as the driver had not exceeded the 5 minutes (minimum) consideration period, PE/Care Parking should never have accessed the registered keeper's data, (and DVLA should never have released it), contravening GDPR/DPA regulations.  The PPC must comply with the law and the BPA's Code of Practice, otherwise, what's the purpose of it, and how does it provide protection for the motorist. 

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (and) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 

Send the same complaint to each email. 

I would but the time between entering and leaving on the ANPR cameras was 5 minutes and 4 seconds, so they would likely say I had exceeded 5 minutes and were justified.

LKPD

Hello everyone!

Sorry this is my first post so don't judge me too harsh if I didn't post this where I should.

So after reading tons of comments I've decided to challenge a PCN for overstaying 21 minutes at Morrisons supermarket. The allowed time was 2 hours, I've stayed 2:21 mins. 


I wrote this:

"I am writing to formally dispute the issued 'parking charge' as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I hereby reject any assumption of liability or contractual agreement, and I intend to file a complaint regarding what I perceive as predatory conduct on your part, directed towards the landowner, who is your client. I clarify that no admissions will be made regarding the identity of the driver, and no conclusions should be drawn in this regard. Given the generic nature of your PCN, I request a detailed explanation of the specific allegation along with the supporting evidence. It is imperative that you provide a high-resolution photograph of the sign that is alleged to have been present at the location on the date in question, in addition to the images of the vehicle.
Should the allegation involve an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. I anticipate a thorough and prompt response to this matter."


Euro car parks gave a generic response and wasn't having none of it. They forwarded my appeal to POPLA. I wrote to POPLA this:

Dear [POPLA Representative],
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my disappointment regarding the recent decision to reject my appeal for the parking charge notice (PCN) related to vehicle registration XXX.
While I appreciate the consideration given to my appeal, I would like to reiterate the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. The parking duration, as captured by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, indicates that my vehicle entered the site at 09:55:06 and exited at 12:16:09, resulting in a parking duration slightly exceeding the permitted 120 minutes.
I am a regular customer of Wood Green Morrisons and have been for the past 10 years. I wish to emphasize that, in my decade-long patronage, I have never received a parking ticket before. I have always made a conscious effort to adhere to the parking regulations to ensure a positive and harmonious relationship with the store.
In light of my history as a loyal and responsible customer, I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision, taking into account the brevity of the exceeded parking duration. The overstay, in this case, amounts to a mere 20 minutes beyond the stipulated limit.
Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to the legal provision of a grace period for parking violations, as mandated by the UK government on gov.uk. According to these guidelines, motorists are typically afforded a grace period of around 10 minutes before a penalty is enforced. I kindly request that this grace period be taken into consideration when reviewing my case. Given that the overstaying duration in my situation is minimal and well within the generally accepted grace period, I believe it is only fair to reassess the severity of the imposed penalty.
Considering the short duration of the infringement, my long-standing loyalty as a customer, and the fact that my vehicle overstayed by only a minor margin, I would like to appeal for leniency and understanding in this matter. Imposing a £60 charge for a 20-minute overstay seems disproportionate, and I believe it would be fair and reasonable to reconsider the penalty in light of the minimal impact on the site's parking availability.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that you will take into consideration both the minimal nature of the violation and the legally mandated grace period when reviewing my appeal. I believe that a more reasonable resolution can be reached, and I am hopeful that we can find an amicable resolution to this issue.

Their comments:

"This location is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, these pictures are timed and therefore the duration of the stay can be calculated. All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced. After requesting vehicle keeper details from the DVLA, a Notice to keeper is sent to the keepers of the vehicles on this list. As a consequence at ANPR locations
there will be no PCN issued to the windscreen neither will there be photographic evidence of the windscreen supplied in operator evidence packs."

Parking Charge Notice XXX was issued to vehicle XXX for breach of terms and conditions:
Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed at Morrisons - Wood Green. This car park operates a maximum stay ANPR operation. Statement: Considering the short duration of the infringement, his long-standing loyalty as a customer, and the fact that the vehicle overstayed by only a minor margin, he would like to appeal for leniency and understanding in this matter.

- Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) code of practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
- Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver’s responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as stated. Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant
remained at the site for 2 hours 21 minutes (Figure 1)
- The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required to adhere to the maximum stay on site.
- Signage is visble when entering and inside of the car park and when entering private land it would be the driver’s responsibilty to read the terms and conditions and adhere to them. (Figure 2 – See Section 7). Also, please note the time and date stamped images
of the signage on site.
- Any form of parking ticket or ‘notice’ is issued under the law ‘of trespass and Contract Law’. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.
- Figure 3 confirms that the NTK is POFA compliant.
- Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are effectively image processing and microprocessor devices with an internal reference clock based around a set of components referred to as the ‘Real Time Clock chipset’ or RTC. The chipset uses a quartz crystal reference source and will provide a reliable time reference dependant on a drift characteristic determined by variations in local camera temperature. High fluctuations in local ambient can cause the RTC to drift as much as 30 seconds a month and to counteract this an NTP server is utilised. The NTP server is effectively a computer situated in a control room and takes a reference time source from a GPS satellite and provides a hyper accurate time reference. All camera systems operated by ECP are configured to request a time synchronisation from the NTP on a sixty second basis. This ensures that all cameras have a universal time reference which is accurate
to a few thousandths of a second. Cameras also report a ‘heartbeat’ to our back office environment, again on a sixty second basis, and this is used to establish camera operation; logs of these transactions from all cameras are retained for approximately six months. On
capture of an ANPR read this is transmitted to a similar back office environment where the time difference between that tagged on the raw capture and the ‘real time’ of the servers is again tested.
- All ANPR cameras used by ECP are compliant under the home office approval framework as stated under NAAS/NASP.
- According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before enforcement action is taken. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted; the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
- I can confirm that Euro Car Parks have given Mr XXX the suitable grace period of 10 minutes and was issued a Parking Charge Notice.
- We are in receipt of your communication that you were using the facilities on site on the day in question, however, no supporting documentation has been provided.

They attached photos etc...



What should I do kind sirs?
I'm broke! 🥲

With respect,
Leon