POPLA Decisions

Sammy25uk

Can someone pls explain, in what terms,  the liability will be transferred to registered keeper if driver wasn't identified? What are the conditions? 
Thank you 

Fruitcake

Sammy25uk said:

Can someone pls explain, in what terms,  the liability will be transferred to registered keeper if driver wasn't identified? What are the conditions? 
Thank you 

This is not the place to be asking that question.

If you already have a thread about a parking issue then please ask your question there, but only after reading the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES that already answers this questions, and after reading Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The basics are that the PPC must issue a NTK that complies with the above Act (the law) in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

If the location is covered by a traffic order or byelaws, then it is not relevant land and the keeper can never be held liable.

If no NTK is given to the keeper, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

If the NTK is not given to the keeper within the timeline mandated by the Act, the keeper cannot be held liable.

If the NTK does not contain the mandatory wording required by the Act, liability cannot be held liable to the keeper.

If a NTD is left on the vehicle, but the information is not repeated on the NTK, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

This is a self help forum. You have to work out which of the above information is applicable to your case and work out if the keeper can be held liable.

The regulars here will help you in any way they can, but you have to do the legwork once pointed in the right direction, 

falkensmaze

Fruitcake said:

Sammy25uk said:

Can someone pls explain, in what terms,  the liability will be transferred to registered keeper if driver wasn't identified? What are the conditions? 
Thank you 

This is not the place to be asking that question.

If you already have a thread about a parking issue then please ask your question there, but only after reading the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES that already answers this questions, and after reading Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The basics are that the PPC must issue a NTK that complies with the above Act (the law) in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

If the location is covered by a traffic order or byelaws, then it is not relevant land and the keeper can never be held liable.

If no NTK is given to the keeper, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

If the NTK is not given to the keeper within the timeline mandated by the Act, the keeper cannot be held liable.

If the NTK does not contain the mandatory wording required by the Act, liability cannot be held liable to the keeper.

If a NTD is left on the vehicle, but the information is not repeated on the NTK, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

This is a self help forum. You have to work out which of the above information is applicable to your case and work out if the keeper can be held liable.

The regulars here will help you in any way they can, but you have to do the legwork once pointed in the right direction, 

One of the NTK requirements under the Act refers to 

"The notice must...specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"

This is probably a long shot but my question is what is specifically considered the period of parking.  

My PCN from Premier Park states the incident time and date of the alleged breach of their terms and conditions (not parking wholly within bay). Could I successfully argue, at POPLA appeal, that the specific time and date is not a 'period of parking', and therefore the NTK is invalid? 

For the avoidance of doubt, I would say that a period of parking is between two times, the time I entered and the time I left.  I appreciate the breach of the terms (not parking wholly within bay) doesn't strictly require a time period of parking.

Fruitcake

falkensmaze said:

Fruitcake said:

Sammy25uk said:

Can someone pls explain, in what terms,  the liability will be transferred to registered keeper if driver wasn't identified? What are the conditions? 
Thank you 

This is not the place to be asking that question.

If you already have a thread about a parking issue then please ask your question there, but only after reading the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES that already answers this questions, and after reading Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The basics are that the PPC must issue a NTK that complies with the above Act (the law) in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

If the location is covered by a traffic order or byelaws, then it is not relevant land and the keeper can never be held liable.

If no NTK is given to the keeper, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

If the NTK is not given to the keeper within the timeline mandated by the Act, the keeper cannot be held liable.

If the NTK does not contain the mandatory wording required by the Act, liability cannot be held liable to the keeper.

If a NTD is left on the vehicle, but the information is not repeated on the NTK, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

This is a self help forum. You have to work out which of the above information is applicable to your case and work out if the keeper can be held liable.

The regulars here will help you in any way they can, but you have to do the legwork once pointed in the right direction, 

One of the NTK requirements under the Act refers to 

"The notice must...specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"

This is probably a long shot but my question is what is specifically considered the period of parking.  

My PCN from Premier Park states the incident time and date of the alleged breach of their terms and conditions (not parking wholly within bay). Could I successfully argue, at POPLA appeal, that the specific time and date is not a 'period of parking', and therefore the NTK is invalid? 

For the avoidance of doubt, I would say that a period of parking is between two times, the time I entered and the time I left.  I appreciate the breach of the terms (not parking wholly within bay) doesn't strictly require a time period of parking.

As I said in my post that you have quoted, this is not the place to be asking that question. This thread is specifically for people to post their PoPLA decisions.

You need to start your own thread by clicking on the new thread button that will look like this,



or this, 



depending on your page layout.

As for the period of parking, this is not the time from when a vehicle enters to when it leaves. That is the time on site.

troublemaker22

Etccarmageddon said:

"I appreciate the parking operator has provided a copy of a sample NTK that does state this, however this has no bearing on my decision as the NTK that was sent to the registered keeper did not contain this information"

This is shows the bias and lack of independence of Popla as they allow "evidence" submitted by a parking operator which is a changed version of the notice to keeper and instead of castigating Euro Car Parks for their attempt at abusing the appeals system they refer to it as 'appreciated" implying the fake evidence from the parking operator is welcomed and a positive engagement within the appeals process.

Not following this. I’m no fan of POPLA (currently drafting a complaint for incompetence) but the passage quoted shows the opposite of bias and lack of independence. It shows the POPLA assessor throwing out the fake NTK provided by the PPC and ruling in favour of the motorist on the basis of the true NTK provided by the motorist. 

Obviously, POPLA can’t control what the parties send in. The parties can submit anything they like. The job of the POPLA assessor is to choose which side to believe and on this occasion (unlike the one I’m complaining about) the assessor made the right choice. 

Etccarmageddon

My point is they allowed it as evidence and 'appreciated' it when it should have been condemned for what it was which was an attempt to misdirect the process.

Etccarmageddon

Coupon-mad said:

Hmmm... this means we are going to have to tell appellants to show the NTK they received (both sides) to POPLA as evidence in the appeal, in cases where they are saying POFA wording is missing, because the PPC might chuck in another version.

Shocking.

correct which is what they did with mine.  I was waiting for the outcome of my appeal before elaborating why I am so angry about this.  So it wasn't just a one off error for the other person here as the very same tactic was used with me.

Etccarmageddon

I took huge offence at ECP for in their 'evidence pack' pointing to the appendix which was downright fraud as it showed a PCN that was POFA compliant and made sure POPLA were well aware of so contemptable that was.  I also pointed out the signs in the car park and at the entrance were positioned so you were not able to see it due to height or bushes.

Popla Reference  2413263585

Location Matalan Warrington

Operator Name

Euro Car Parks - EW

Operator Case Summary

Please find attached POPLA pack.

POPLA assessment and decision

29/01/2024

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Gregory xxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 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 instruct that it needs to be passed to the driver so it is not PoFA compliant. • They have raised other grounds and comments, but I have not summarised these as they are not crucial to my decision. 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.

Assessor supporting rational for 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 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. As no driver has been identified the registered keeper cannot be held liable. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

Debszzzz2

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining at the site for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• They say the operator has failed to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
• They say it has not shown that the individual is in fact the driver.
• They say the site name is listed as Lidl St Neots and there is no postcode listed.
• They say there is 2 Lidl stores in that area, and this leaves ambiguity as to what location it is referring to.
• They say Schedule 4 paragraph 9, 8 (a) has not been met as it does not confirm the relevant land.
• They say they have not named the driver and as such there can be no assumptions as to who was driving.
• They say PoFA 2012 has not been met.
• They say the signs are inadequate which means it has failed to adhere to PoFA 2012 requirements and breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requirements.
• They say the signs do not confirm which store it is referring to.
• They say the store at 29 Great N Rd, PE19 8EN confirms that parking is free, yet the signs at Lidl store at Cedar House PE19 1JL do not meet the Code of Practice requirements in section 19.3 and 19.4 as they do not give adequate notice of the charge.
• They say there is no evidence of landowner authority. They ask for strict proof from the operator of a chain of authority confirming the relevant land and states the operator is required to meet all requirements of proof of landowner including what it is entitled to do. They say a witness statement is not sound evidence, however they say it can be accepted by POPLA, but is unlikely to confirm the definition of services.
• They say it must meet section 7 of the Code of Practice.
• They say the operator has failed to comply with the Code of Practice principles for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).
• They say the operator must meet section 22.1 of the Code of Practice.
• They say the signs do not confirm this and do not meet section 22.2 and 22.3.
• The operator has failed the Code of Practice principles for failing to display the Approved Operator Scheme logo on the signs.
• They say the BPA AOS scheme logo must be displayed at all times and there is no BPA logo on any signs which fails the Code of Practice requirements.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided evidence of the signs at both sites and the PCN as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN. 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 meet schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) which states: “(2) The notice must—(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

In this case the PCN states Lidl St Neots, however the appellant has told us there is 2 Lidls in St Neots and the PCN does not confirm the Post Code. Whilst the operator has confirmed it has a contract in place for enforcement for Lidl St Neots, there is no evidence of which store this is.

Therefore, due to the lack of rebuttal from the operator I cannot categorically advise the appellant which store the PCN was issued at. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

As the PCN does not state the relevant land 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.

troublemaker22

@Debszzzz2 and @Etccarmageddon

Thanks for sharing these success stories. So that others can cite these decisions in their own POPLA appeals please tell us the POPLA reference numbers.