POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

@Debzzzz2 - as well as providing the info asked for by @troublemaker22, could you confirm the name of the parking firm please?  I assume, as this is a Lidl PCN, that it's ParkingEye, but confirmation would be great, please. 

Debszzzz2

ParkingEye in St Neots above was POPLA case 6063403839.

As a matter of interest, f a case number is known, where/how can one get a copy of the assessors decision? I couldn't find anywhere on the POPLA website to do this.

Fruitcake

I don't believe you can nor have a right to access other people's PoPLA decisions. People who post them here have given their consent by conduct for other people to view their data.

Etccarmageddon

Updated it with the Popla Reference and location.  My win was based on the lack of text saying "pass to the driver" which they have from around December updated their PCNs to include so probably no longer relevant in the future.

What I am witness to is how Euro Car Parks stated in their evidence submission "Figure 3 confirms that the NTK is POFA compliant" which then leads to a page with a compliant NTK which isn't the one they sent me.  And they can't say this was a one-off error as other people have reported this.

after seeing that I gave Popla a strong defence regarding how ECP in my view were attempting to deny justice in my appeal by their fake "evidence" and then saw a thread on here with someone experiencing the same 'figure 3' in their evidence from ECP!

ECP also ignored my photos and evidence regarding the signs and the locations of the main one being impossible to see as you enter the car park.   

Popla also didn't mention any of this in their decision.  And specifically didn't mention or even comment on the 'evidence' submitted by ECP but if I'd submitted fake info as mine I'm pretty sure they would have mentioned that had my appeal failed as part of their justification for rejecting my appeal.

andy_petrol

Hi all, please see below another very disappointing outcome from POPLA which was kind of predictable, all backed with vague assumptions and sort of ignoring provided evidence (obviously not being biased, lol). Any comments are welcome on this matter

Premier Park Ltd - Leicester Meridian Leisure Park

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: xxx Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not parking wholly within a bay. Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.
• The signage was not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces. 

• The entrance sign is not visible from the border of public road / private land, and it is necessary to enter the site to be able to read the terms and conditions. 

• The signs are sporadically placed, obscured, and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. This reduces the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car. 

• There was insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself, as per POFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice. It is hidden in small print and does not feature at all on some of the signs. 

• The appellant has referred to other POPLA decisions and provided weblinks. 

• There was no contract nor agreement on the parking charge. The driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case, and they have provided weblinks. 

• A number of the signs around the site are not illuminated either through poor placement or faulty lighting. 

• They have referred to the Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' case about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, not deemed bound by them, and provided a weblink. 

• The period of parking was not displayed on the NTK as per POFA 2012 regulation. 

• There is no evidence of landowner authority as per the BPA Code of Practice, and witness statements are not sound evidence of this. They have mentioned Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice and all the details a landowner agreement should contain. 

• They have mentioned there are unfair terms in relation to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 and discusses the requirement for transparency. 

• The amount demanded is a penalty and punitive. 

• Parking within a bay has been unreasonable applied, as the white lines were not visible due to the lack of illumination. Therefore, the kerb was used as guidance to park in the space, using some dead space. They have said there was never any deliberate intention to park outside the lines but given the broken car park lighting it appears to be a normal practice. 

• No other spaces were taken or obscured, or other motorist hindered from parking. The kerb and green being on the left-hand side, makes the park within a bay invalid in this case. The appellant has provided images of the site taken in daylight and when dark, including where they parked. This has been considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said that to see the entrance sign when entering the site, a driver would need to turn their head away from the road. The appellant has said the operator claiming that the car headlights illuminate the site entrance sign is incorrect as the sign is mounted too high and too far to the right for this. 

They have said the landowner evidence appears to be expired and invalid. On the document it states an expiry after 36 months, and the contract was dated 20 August 2020 which would suggest it expired on the 21 August 2023. Quite a few points appear to be heavily redacted, making further agreements unclear and in general the document appears to be non-transparent. In addition, no signatures can be recognised, suggesting this could be a drafted document of some sort. 

The appellant has said the signage evidence provided is a generic collection of photos of signs, taken in sunny daylight conditions, which is the opposite conditions of the alleged incident. None of the photos show the area where the car was parked, and no evidence has been provided on the distance of the car to the closest sign. 

They have said that none of the photos show the perspective from the driver’s position. It is apparent that no sign could have been seen on the way from the car to the restaurant. 

They have said the last picture / map provided shows there is no sign behind Pizza Hut (the building with silver roof). The closest sign to Pizza Hut is the one to the right, but this being the defective car park light.

andy_petrol

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case I am not satisfied the driver has been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must 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 and by issuing the PCN to be received within the required timescale. 

In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and it was issued to be delivered within the relevant period and therefore the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. I acknowledge the appellant has referred to other motorists, courts cases, and POPLA cases in their appeal. This has no bearing on my decision as POPLA assesses appeals on a case-by-case basis and this assessment is regarding the PCN that this appeal is for, and any evidence included only. 

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions. 

The signage at this site states to park wholly within marked bays only. The parking operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle parked on site, not wholly within a marked bay. 

I acknowledge the appellant has said there was no intention to breach the terms and conditions of the site at the time in question, and I appreciate this. I note the appellant has said the NTK does not comply with the POFA 2012 regulation as the period of parking is not displayed. 

In this case, the PCN has not been issued due to no payment, an underpayment or an overstay, therefore the length of time the vehicle was on site is not required. Therefore, it is sufficient for the time the vehicle was observed by the parking attendant to be shown on the PCN. The length of time the vehicle was on site would not make a material difference to the validity of the PCN as they were not authorised to park on site, how they did, for any time at all. 

I also acknowledge the appellant has said the signage on site is not adequate. They have said the entrance sign is not visible when entering and the signage is not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces, especially as they must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car. 

They have said the signs are sporadically placed, obscured, hidden in some areas, they are unremarkable, and not immediately obvious. Therefore, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms, and there was no contract nor agreement formed. 

The appellant has said the operator's photos do not show the area where the car was parked, and no evidence has been provided on the distance of the car to the closest sign, nor have photos been provided that show the perspective from the driver’s position. As mentioned above, when parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. Regardless of where or when they park, motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. 

I note the appellant has mentioned the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62 discussing the requirement for transparency. When completing my assessment, I will be referring to The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 site map which shows there are signs situated throughout the site, including 1 at the site entrance. 

The operator has also provided images and photographs of these signs. The terms on the signs clearly state to park wholly within marked bays only. As such, I am satisfied the terms were clearly demonstrated throughout the site. The signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where parked, they simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them. Therefore, the parking operator is not obliged to provide evidence of the position of the signage in relation to where the vehicle was parked. Furthermore, the signs are not meant to be read before the action of parking and leaving the car, therefore evidence of how the signage appears from the drivers perspective when driving is also not required. 

The entrance sign is on site to make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. The terms and conditions are not meant to be displayed on an entrance sign or read when a driver is driving into the site. I appreciate the appellant has commented on the position of the entrance sign, however I am satisfied that the large P symbol would have been visible when the driver passed the sign, indicating parking restrictions applied on site. It was then their responsibility to ensure they sought these out. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. 

I acknowledge the appellant has said it was dark when they were on site and there was insufficient illumination for the signs and the bay markings. The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. In this case I am satisfied the images the appellant has provided of the site show there is sufficient indirect lighting on site and that the signs are made of a retroreflective material as the images show they have reflected the light from the appellants camera flash. Therefore, I am satisfied the vehicle headlights would also have rendered the signs visible. 

I appreciate a lot of the parking operators’ evidence of the signage on site is images taken during daylight. However, these images show a lot of the signs are attached to lighting poles, and there are a lot of lighting poles situated throughout the site. Furthermore, the operator’s images of the appellants vehicle on site at the time in question show there is indirect lighting on site, and also indicate the signs are made of retroreflective material, therefore from the evidence provide by both the appellant and the operator I am satisfied the signage on site complied with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. 

If the driver had referred to the signage on site and saw they were required to park within marked bays and they were unable to see the marked bays, they could have left the site to seek alternative parking arrangements. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a period of 5 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 driver could have left the site within the consideration period. Remaining parked on site, how they did, risked the incurrence of this PCN. I appreciate the appellant has also said in relation to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 62, that the terms are unfair. POPLAs role is only to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator in line with the terms and conditions on site. We have no influence on how they operate, including the terms and conditions they have on site. This is the parking operators decision and ultimately the motorists decision whether they choose to park there. I acknowledge the appellant has said there was insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself, as per POFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice, as it is hidden in small print and does not feature at all on some of the signs. 

The appellant has also said the charge is huge, a penalty, and out of all proportion, not saved by the dissimilar Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case. Section 19.4 of the BPA Code states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s attention within the signage. I am satisfied that the signage on site complies with both the BPA Code Section 19.4 and Parking Eye v Beavis, as the charge is brought to the attention of motorists by being displayed in, bold, blue text on a white background and white digits on a blue background. 

I accept the charge might not reflect any loss, but this has no bearing on my decision. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to reflect any actual loss incurred by a parking operator or landowner. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable framework for any challenge to proportionality. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. 

I acknowledge the appellant has said there is no evidence of landowner authority. 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, and this can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. 

I appreciate the appellant has said the agreement provided by the operator is redacted in parts, the signatures cannot be seen, and the date it was started and the initial period indicate the agreement may have expired. The document states the initial period is 36 months beginning on the start date. I am satisfied that in staying this, it is not an expiry date, and the initial period can be ongoing. If authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage and equipment at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In this case the evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. 

I acknowledge the appellant has said no other spaces were taken or obscured, or other motorist hindered from parking. The kerb and green being on the left-hand side, makes the park within a bay invalid in this case. This does not make a material difference to the validity of the PCN, as mentioned above, POPLAs role is only to determine if the terms and conditions of the site have been breached and we would consider a marked bay to be an area with white lines either side. 

Therefore, from the evidence provided I am satisfied that the appellant’s vehicle was not parked in line with the terms and conditions of the site at the time in question. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver did not park wholly within a bay, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. 

As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Fruitcake

Another PoPLA assessor choosing to ignore inconvenient parts of the PoFA, and the BPA CoP that states when a PPC wants to invoke the PoFA, they must comply with it. They have assumed the alleged landowner contract has rolled over, yet there is no proof this is the case.
The assessor is making stuff up.

Obviously you ignore the result because it is not binding on the motorist.

dadsma

Where an assessor chooses to ignore “inconvenient” parts of the PoFA to the fatal detriment of the appellant’s case, could this reasonably be regarded as them having made an error in law. If so, would it be appropriate for the chief assessor to review the case?

splinter64

I had a good outcome here. Had many reasons for my appeal and as I found the first time I went through POPLA it was one of the points which I didn't expect to work which actually won it. So it is definitely worth including everything!

This is after an NTK from Euro Car Parks, alleging an overstay of 13 minutes (I think....their evidence was cr*p). The NTK was the newer style which is (maybe) PoFA compliant although unfortunately the assessor did not comment on my other points criticising it.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

***** Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: The signage is inadequate • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements. • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver. • No landowner authority • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA). • No evidence of the period parked. • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: 

The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments that although the operator has provided full date stamped photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not compliant. I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered. I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK. The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

splinter64

This is POPLA code 2413353469