POPLA Decisions

Jacknife

Successful appeal due to operator (BaySentry) incompetence.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking with no valid parking session/electronic permit. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal, which have been summarised: • The signage is inadequate, it is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces • The signs were positioned in a manner to make them difficult to read and understand. Some were placed too high • The signs do not display the proposed tariff • They are the registered keeper and the operator fails to demonstrate that the individual they are pursuing is the driver, who may have been liable • The operator has no authority to issue PCN’s • The PCN is a penalty and grossly disproportionate to any legitimate interest. The operator has not provided any breakdown of costs or demonstrated a genuine pre-estimate of loss After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds in further detail. The appellant has provided images of the exit, entrance and car park. They have also provided the payment 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 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 must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. PoFA requires the PCN to state that the notice is passed to the driver, once the details have been provided to the operator. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. 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.

themurk

South West Rail Appeal -

They removed the option to paylater in the ringgo app before the 1st of december as said on their website.

POPLA

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

granada_bound

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Naomi Littler

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to payment not made in accordance with notified terms

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 (PoFA) 2012. • It was issued late. • The operator does not no the the name of the driver. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. The evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with evidence to prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. In this instance, the reason the PCN was issued was due to the vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction 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 must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. 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.

Umkomaas

👆 Civil Enforcement Ltd 👆

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6509749/civil-enforcement-evidence-rebuttal-non-pofa#latest

granada_bound

Civil Enforcement appeal. NTK arrived late due to public holidays.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Naomi Littler

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to payment not made in accordance with notified terms

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed document containing their grounds of appeal. For the purpose of this report I have summarised the appellants grounds into the following points. • The Notice to Keeper is not complient. • The operator has failed to show that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge. • The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. • The signage is inadequate. • Lack of evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with evidence to prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. In this instance, the reason the PCN was issued was due to payment not made in accordance with notified terms. 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 must follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. In this case, the parking operator has issued the PCN 2 days outside of the timeframe. Therefore, the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. 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.

34LH89

Operator Name

Anchor Security Services Ltd (t/as Care Parking & t/as Ocean Parking) - EW

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver was parked outside of tram operating hours.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that no notice to keeper has been issued. They question that the operator has the authority to manage the land. They believe that the land is subject to statutory control so the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 cannot be used. They question the adequacy of the signs on site. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal, A photo of a sign and a title register document for the land.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. I am allowing this appeal, I will explain my reasons below. In this case the diver of the vehicle has not been identified as such the operator must use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the keeper liable for the PCN. No copy of a notice to keeper has been provided so I cannot confirm if one has been issued or if it complies with the relevant requirements. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

nsimmons10

Appeal against Eurocar Parks for an overstay in a hire vehicle 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The parking operator failed to deliver a notice to hirer compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The parking operator has not shown they are pursuing the driver. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • There were insufficient and unclear signs in the area. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal stating the relevant documents were not provided at the time to notice to hirer was sent. They maintain that they were not the driver. The appellant has raised new grounds regarding the images on the PCN.

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 states that the parking operator failed to deliver a notice to hirer compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They state that the parking operator did not send any of the required documents. PoFA 2012 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. I accept the parking operator has evidence that they obtained these documents. However, it has stated: “[the notice to hirer] has been issued taking into account the “memorandum of understanding with lease companies” as all are aware of the implications and paperwork involved”. I am satisfied this confirms that only the notice to hirer was issued to the appellant, without the required documents. Whilst I appreciate the parking operator has used the “memorandum of understanding with lease companies” as this makes their overall processing more efficient, this does not supersede PoFA 2012. In order to hold the hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge the parking operator must demonstrate that it has complied with the legal requirements of the PoFA 2012 and it is a requirement that the documents are delivered with the notice. 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.

Umkomaas

Once again, another PPC failing to meet the PoFA requirements in a hire/lease case. They all just seem quite incapable of (or CBA to) dealing with such cases.  

Nice one @nsimmons10. 👍

hirersezn

Appeal against ParkingEye for an alleged hotel parking

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natasha Rhodes

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice 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 were the hirer of the vehicle, and the operator has failed to deliver a notice that was fully compliant with the requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom’s Act 2012. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. • The signage was insufficient and unclear After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a PDF document outlining their appeal as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has confirmed in their appeal that they are the hirer of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement. (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Gmonkey

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • They only parked for 21 minutes and believed they had paid. • The machine was out of order and they were directed to pay using RingGo. • There wasn’t a web address or anyone to help them pay, so they Googled it and paid through a web address. • They were scammed by a website pretending to be RingGo. • They have used the car park before and the machine has ever been out of order. • They would have paid the £4 and do not avoid paying for parking. • The operator is not concerned that one of its customers was scammed online due to the lack of information on how to pay online. • the operator should them for £4 instead of the parking charge. • The parking charge jumps from £60 to £100 if a person chooses to appeal. • The operator has not properly considered their appeal. • They paid £1.45 to Manchester City Council the same day. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided a copy of their bank statement. This evidence has been considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has re-iterated their grounds of appeal and provided comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking 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. The terms and conditions of the car park specify that motorists must pay for their parking. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the appellant remained at the site for 21 minutes without having made a valid payment. Within their appeal, the appellant has told POPLA that the payment machine wasn’t working and they were directed to pay using RingGo. They have explained that wasn’t a web address or anyone to help them pay, so they Googled it and paid through a web address. They have explained that they were scammed, and have provided a copy of their bank statement. I am sorry to hear that the appellant was the victim of a scam and the stress that the issue has caused. Although I empathise with the circumstances and do not dispute that they would have made a valid payment, these are not grounds in which I can allow this appeal alone. POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs; it is not within our remit to allow an appeal if a parking event occurred and the terms were breached. In this case, the operator has acknowledged that the payment machines were not working, but has shown that motorists were able to pay using ECPparkbuddy, RingGo and paybyphone. While the signage does not give instructions on how to use them, it does indicate that these services must be accessed by downloading the apps. I understand that the appellant has made reference to an alleged fake photograph in the operator’s evidence, but the operator has stated that this sign had changed, but was included as the information remains the same. If the appellant was unable to make a valid payment for any reason, then they would need to have left the car park and made alternative parking arrangements to avoid incurring a PCN. I appreciate that the appellant may have used the car park before and the machine has never been out of order, but POPLA assesses appeals on an individual basis; any external factors, such as previous similar parking events, cannot have any bearing on our decision making. While I acknowledge that the appellant only remained at the site for 21 minutes and their bank statement shows that they regularly purchase parking time, this does not affect the validity of the PCN; the fact remains that a parking event occurred and was not paid for. I acknowledge that the appellant has told POPLA that the operator should have allowed them to pay the £4, but I must advise that it is not within POPLA’s remit to become involved in the payment side of appeals. With regards to the discounted charge, parking operators are obligated to discount the charge for 14 days to allow for a quick settlement. By choosing to appeal further, it is no longer a quick settlement and further costs are incurred. Furthermore, I note that the appellant is unhappy with the way their appeal has been handled and the fact that they have not been able to contact the operator by phone. They have stated that the operator is not concerned about its customers and they are unhappy with the generic response issued to their appeal. Although I empathise with the appellant’s grievances, I must re-iterate that my role is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly in the first instance; it is not POPLA’s role to investigate any shortfalls in the operator’s procedures. After considering the evidence from both parties, I can only be satisfied that the appellant did not make a valid payment and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.