POPLA Decisions

Fruitcake

LKPD, what happened when you complained to the landowner/store manager/CEO, and your MP? That is Plan A, and it is never too late to do so.

Since you have already done Plan B (initial appeal) and Plan C (PoPLA appeal), you are now back to Plan A, and ignore everything else except a letter before/of claim or a court claim.

If you need further help, then please start a new thread.


In answer to this question, "What should I do kind sirs?" you should remember that other genders are available.

LKPD

Thank you @Fruitcake
Sorry no disrespect to other genders was intended!

Matt_Cardiff

Operator Name
UK Parking Control Limited - EWOperator Case Summary

Decision Unsuccessful 

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was not parked correctly within bay markings.
Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a 9-page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal, and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. 

The appellant states that: • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. • The signs in this 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. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a document containing evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision


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. 

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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. This is a 3 Hours Maximum Stay Customer car park with a requirement that all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays. The operator has provided images of the appellant's vehicle parked at the site, which clearly show that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the marked bay and consequently the driver has breached the parking contract. 

I note the appellant says the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. I have already established that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper and therefore this needs no further consideration, as the identity of the driver is irrelevant. The appellant has questioned whether the operator has authority from the landowner to manage the land and says it is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 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 Code 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 a witness statement, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. I have reviewed the Witness Statement and can see that it makes it clear that the authority is contained in an agreement dated 1 September 2021, running in perpetuity until terminated. 

I have also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ and there is no evidence to suggest that the contract is no longer in place. Further, not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. 

The appellant says the signs in this 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. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator has provided a signage location map and evidence of the signage at the site to show there is an entrance sign and multiple signs throughout the parking area. This should have put drivers on notice that terms applied.

The signage itself meets these requirements, and there is enough of it at the entrance and around the site for motorists to understand the terms that apply. While the text may be illegible on some of the images provided in the case file as they were taken at a distance, the operator has provided close up images of the signs to show that the terms are clear and easy to see, read and understand. I have also viewed the images provided of the signage on location and I am satisfied that the signage meets the BPA Code of Practice. 

I acknowledge that the appellant has referenced the high-profile Supreme Court case Parking Eye V Beavis. The information relating to the charge is in a larger size than the majority of information on the sign and is positioned in a prominent place and is not hidden in the small print at the bottom of the sign. I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. 

While I note that the appellant has questioned the legitimacy of the evidence provided by the operator and points out that the site plan and signage approval document is undated and has no signature or name of company. There is no requirement for individual documents relating to the signage to contain this information. 

Further, at POPLA we accept all evidence in good faith unless proven otherwise. When entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms on the signage, and comply with them, when deciding to park. 

While I note that the appellant says that the lines of the parking space are not sufficiently clear. I have viewed the images taken by the warden at the time of the event and while I can see that the lines may be faded in parts, they are sufficiently clear to identify the parking area within the bay. It is clear from the images provided that the driver had not parked correctly within the bay. The images are date and time stamped and clearly show the appellant’s vehicle registration and are sufficient to identify the vehicle and confirm the breach, I am satisfied that they fully comply with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. 

I acknowledge the appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the operator’s appeal response and says it has provided a quickly rehashed template in response to their appeal. POPLA’s role is to determine whether the appellant complied with the terms and conditions and whether the PCN was issued correctly. The customer service of the operator is outside of our remit. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the vehicle was not parked correctly within bay markings, these terms and conditions were not met. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Matt_Cardiff said:

Operator Name
UK Parking Control Limited

Decision Unsuccessful 



The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was not parked correctly within bay markings.
Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a 9-page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal, and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. 

The appellant states that: • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. • The signs in this 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. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a document containing evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision


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. 

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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. This is a 3 Hours Maximum Stay Customer car park with a requirement that all vehicles must be parked only within marked bays. The operator has provided images of the appellant's vehicle parked at the site, which clearly show that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the marked bay and consequently the driver has breached the parking contract. 

I note the appellant says the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. I have already established that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper and therefore this needs no further consideration, as the identity of the driver is irrelevant. The appellant has questioned whether the operator has authority from the landowner to manage the land and says it is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 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 Code 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 a witness statement, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. I have reviewed the Witness Statement and can see that it makes it clear that the authority is contained in an agreement dated 1 September 2021, running in perpetuity until terminated. 

I have also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ and there is no evidence to suggest that the contract is no longer in place. Further, not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. 

The appellant says the signs in this 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. Section 19 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator has provided a signage location map and evidence of the signage at the site to show there is an entrance sign and multiple signs throughout the parking area. This should have put drivers on notice that terms applied.

The signage itself meets these requirements, and there is enough of it at the entrance and around the site for motorists to understand the terms that apply. While the text may be illegible on some of the images provided in the case file as they were taken at a distance, the operator has provided close up images of the signs to show that the terms are clear and easy to see, read and understand. I have also viewed the images provided of the signage on location and I am satisfied that the signage meets the BPA Code of Practice. 

I acknowledge that the appellant has referenced the high-profile Supreme Court case Parking Eye V Beavis. The information relating to the charge is in a larger size than the majority of information on the sign and is positioned in a prominent place and is not hidden in the small print at the bottom of the sign. I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. 

While I note that the appellant has questioned the legitimacy of the evidence provided by the operator and points out that the site plan and signage approval document is undated and has no signature or name of company. There is no requirement for individual documents relating to the signage to contain this information. 

Further, at POPLA we accept all evidence in good faith unless proven otherwise. When entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms on the signage, and comply with them, when deciding to park. 

While I note that the appellant says that the lines of the parking space are not sufficiently clear. I have viewed the images taken by the warden at the time of the event and while I can see that the lines may be faded in parts, they are sufficiently clear to identify the parking area within the bay. It is clear from the images provided that the driver had not parked correctly within the bay. The images are date and time stamped and clearly show the appellant’s vehicle registration and are sufficient to identify the vehicle and confirm the breach, I am satisfied that they fully comply with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.

... I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.

Matt_Cardiff

Apologies, done.

Etccarmageddon

bergkamp said:

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.

Exactly the same basis for my appeal which ECP have provided their own evidence which when i looked at it is borderline perverting the course of justice as it is so falsified.
I am a bit angry!

Edd12

Coupon-mad said:

Edd12 said:

Rob_Bee said:

Thanks Coupon-Mad. I still maintain I paid for the correct amount of parking so no plans to pay on the basis of the POLPA. Is my next step to wait for the PPCs to act?

You will get bombarded with letters all saying "it's your last chance!!! Be careful otherwise lawyers will get in involved !!" I've now started being spammed with emails from their 'escalations department' by the company they've outsourced to collect. Just wish they'd take me to court already - can't believe they can hold this over you for 6 years.

We agree: please tell that to this Committee:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/198166/new-inquiry-justice-committee-launches-new-inquiry-on-the-work-of-the-county-court-amid-capacity-and-resource-concerns/

Inquiry here. Closes in a fortnight!
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Please do answer it attaching your threatograms and telling the Committee that parking firms need controlling by a new 'parking pre-action protocol' and an ADR, to stop them stringing cases out with threats then cashing in with CCJs years later, due to not bothering to check for new addresses.

Parking Cases should be kept out of court. Needs an ADR to resolve them fairly.

Needs its own pre-action protocol.

And six years is too long.

SAY THAT. Pleeease! 

You don't have to answer all the questions.  Some are not relevant to a person submitting evidence of pre-action aggressive letters only.

Ah crap I missed this as I went on holiday! Been dealing with a Council PCN over on ftla - submitting the token formal rep then on to the adjudicator.

Coupon-mad

Edd12 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Edd12 said:

Rob_Bee said:

Thanks Coupon-Mad. I still maintain I paid for the correct amount of parking so no plans to pay on the basis of the POLPA. Is my next step to wait for the PPCs to act?

You will get bombarded with letters all saying "it's your last chance!!! Be careful otherwise lawyers will get in involved !!" I've now started being spammed with emails from their 'escalations department' by the company they've outsourced to collect. Just wish they'd take me to court already - can't believe they can hold this over you for 6 years.

We agree: please tell that to this Committee:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/198166/new-inquiry-justice-committee-launches-new-inquiry-on-the-work-of-the-county-court-amid-capacity-and-resource-concerns/

Inquiry here. Closes in a fortnight!
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Please do answer it attaching your threatograms and telling the Committee that parking firms need controlling by a new 'parking pre-action protocol' and an ADR, to stop them stringing cases out with threats then cashing in with CCJs years later, due to not bothering to check for new addresses.

Parking Cases should be kept out of court. Needs an ADR to resolve them fairly.

Needs its own pre-action protocol.

And six years is too long.

SAY THAT. Pleeease! 

You don't have to answer all the questions.  Some are not relevant to a person submitting evidence of pre-action aggressive letters only.

Ah crap I missed this as I went on holiday! Been dealing with a Council PCN over on ftla - submitting the token formal rep then on to the adjudicator.

No you didn't miss it. Still open.

They extended it:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

This inquiry is currently accepting evidence

The committee wants to hear your views. We welcome submissions from anyone with answers to the questions in the call for evidence. You can submit evidence until Friday 22 December 2023.

bergkamp

APCOA Parking - EW

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the penalty notice (PN) due to the use of a private car park without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• They are the registered keeper of the vehicle but not the owner nor were they the driver at the time in question.

• Email communication from the parking operator says that this PN was issued on Railway Land and as a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred and the appellant has confirmed they are the registered keeper, they are liable for this notice.

• The only law that allows keeper liability for the driver’s actions is Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and this cannot be used as the land is covered by Railway Byelaws and as such, is not relevant land. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. 

They have said the operator states the legislation they are using is POFA, then they state they are not using POFA.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I acknowledge the appellant has said the operator has said they are using POFA, and then said they are not.

They have also said that the operator said a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred and the appellant has confirmed they are the registered keeper.

POPLAs role is only to determine if the PN has been issued correctly by the parking operator in line with the rules on site. We have no influence on how the operator operates including how they handle their appeals or the wording they use in their correspondence or case file.

This is something the appellant would need to raise with the operator directly.

The appellant is correct in saying POFA cannot be used to transfer the liability of the charge to the registered keeper in this case.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

Appendix G Section 1.3 14(1) states that the specific Byelaws of the Railway Byelaws that apply to parking are, “No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign”, and

Section 1.3 14(3) states, “No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place”.

Section 4 (i) goes on to state that, “The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area”.

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the penalty correctly and if the driver has complied with the rules of the car park.

This penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper.

I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws.

The signage at this site states that parking is subject to the payment of the correct parking fee as displayed. The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 5 hours and 34 minutes and did not pay for their stay. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the penalty notice in accordance with the rules of the privately operated car park.

As they have not been met on this occasion, I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the penalty charge, and the appeal is refused.

No surprise, but  it is staggering how  the assessors/POPLA  keep a straight face when dealing with Penalty Charge Notices on railway land!

Kazaa

Operator Name

Euro Car Parks - EW

Operator Case Summary

Please find attached POPLA evidence pack.

POPLA assessment and decision

08/12/2023

Verification Code

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• The notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act. They say they are not the driver, and the operator must comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when pursuing the registered keeper. They say the notice does not mention the requirement to be passed to the driver.

 • They say the operator has failed to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding permission to park. They say that the operator claims a disabled badge was not displayed, however the vehicle dashboard cannot be seen due to a reflection of the sky on the windscreen. They say there is no proof a blue badge was not displayed.

 • They say the operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority. They say that they require strict proof of full compliance to prove the operator has a proprietary interest in the land. They say that they require a contract between the operator and landowner to show a genuine customer clause. They say witness statements are not sound evidence and the agreement must comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 7.

 • They say the signs do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They mention the requirements of section 18.2 and 3 of the Code of Practice in regards to signs and have evidenced this with images. 

• They say there is no planning permission from Essex County Council for pole-mounted Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras or sign advertising consent. They ask for evidence to confirm the correct planning applications were submitted and accepted.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN was issued correctly. I understand the reason for issue. In this case the driver of the vehicle has not been identified to either POPLA or the operator. 

The appellant told us they are the registered keeper, and there is no admission of who was driving. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN. As such, I need to consult with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in order to ensure the PCN has been issued correctly. 

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator must specifically meet schedule 4 paragraph 8 (2) (e) (ii) which is the requirements for issuing a notice to keeper following a notice to driver and it states as follows: “The notice must— (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.” 

In this case the notice to keeper does not indicate that the keeper must pass the notice on to the driver. Therefore, it has not met the requirements laid out in order to transfer liability correctly to the driver.

Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN correctly. As the operator has not met PoFA 2012 requirements I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Thread can be seen here :-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6476134/eurocarpark-disabled-badge-popla-appeal#latest