POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

No worries.

No-one pays after losing at POPLA.

poolbright

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Gregory McGlynn

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • No grace period was provided by the parking operator. • The signs are inadequately positioned and lit; they are not prominent. • No evidence of landowner authority. • No evidence of period parked. • Vehicle images contained in PCN do not comply with BPA code. • The signs do no warn drivers what the ANRR data is being used for. • The PCN charge is not prominent. • The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. 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 original grounds within their comments and the parking operators evidence pack. 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: The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows there are only 2 signs installed at the site displaying the terms and conditions of parking. The appellant has provided images of the site that shows one of the signs is installed low on a wall and would be easily missed by a motorist. Based on the size of the car park and the lay out I am not satisfied that there is adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the terms and conditions of parking at the site. The appellant has provided images of the site that shows one of the signs is installed low on a wall and would be easily missed by a motorist. 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.

RufioRufioRufiooo

PCN for accidentally paying for very similarly named car park (8 Dantzic St vs Dantzic St).

Unfortunately only found this forum after keeper identified driver (me) and me subsequently appealing to PPC (Total Car Parks Ltd). Notice of Debt Recovery now also received from Direct Collections Bailiffs Ltd

Note: received PCN during visit back to the UK and returning next week. Can I just contact the PPC (and DCBL?) to re-direct all correspondence?

Any other advice welcome and thanks in advance!

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver never paid for parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • They have never encountered such a situation as a responsible driver of 15 years. • They paid for parking and didn’t realise they paid for the wrong car park. • They paid for Dantzic Street when they were parked on 8 Dantzic Street car park. • The location codes are similar 8026 and 8 Dantzic Street car park code was 8065 and feel from a distance they could be interpreted as the same particularly with the small fonts on the signage. • They feel the prompt payment proves their genuine intention to keep to the terms and conditions. The appellant reiterated and expanded on their version of events in the motorist’s comments section stating: • They feel it was a keying error and raise section 17 of the British Parking Association code of practice. • They raised the signage may be approved by the British Parking Association, but that it is a guideline only and does not mention distance that they signage must be visible from and feel the text size differences make the location code easily misread and that other parking operator's do not employ this tactic. • They added the operator have not provided photographic evidence of where on site they have parked and feel the lay out and size of vehicles can hamper ones view of the signage. • They added there was no accurate GPS location finder and they use and they thought they were choosing the correct car park based on a number of different reasons in addition to the similarities in car park name and number and feel as both car parks are run by the same firm that the operator still received the money for the time spent on one of their car parks. • They raised the operator's evidence pack mentioning signage in the dark. • They fee the £100 PCN is disproportionate and they raised 19.5 and 19.6 of the code of practice. • They feel as there were many free spaces and they paid for parking, there was no malicious intentions. The appellant included photographic evidence of their parking payment in support of their appeal. I have included this in my assessment.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, a motorist might form a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided a data sheet to prove the appellant never paid for the correct car park on the date in question. Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant have included proves they paid for parking; it also proves that they paid for Dantzic Street when they were parked in 8 Dantzic Street car park. This photographic evidence proves to me the appellant paid for the wrong car park. I note the appellant's comments and appreciate they have never encountered such a situation before. Additionally, I can see their intention was there to pay for parking, however, they paid for the wrong site unintentionally. They feel the small fonts used in the signage and the similarities of the two car park names and site codes played a significant role in this error. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the code says operators need to have signs that are clear and unambiguous and set out the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the BPA code of practice and clearly states “8 Dantzic Street Car Park…Location number…8065…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions of the car park may result in enforcement procedures being carried out, and a Parking Charge Notice of £100 being issued to the registered keeper by post…”. Additionally, I can see the signage is clear, meets the size requirements and in unambiguous. Furthermore, I would also add if the motorist was in this car park, reading this signage, there would be no way for them to possibly pay for the Dantzic car park as they would not be reading that car park’s signage in this car park. Furthermore, I can’t comprehend how one would be confused when faced with only the required signage in the car park they are parked in. Moreover, where on site they parked would have no relevance as a motorist is expected to educate themselves of the signage by looking for the signs. I would also add the operator's Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images are enough to tell me they were on the car park for 2 hours and 23 minutes. There is no requirement for the operator to prove where on site the appellant parked and if signage was visible to them. In relation to distance comments and vehicles hampering the signage. It is a motorist’s responsibility when entering a car park to seek out the signage and familiarise themselves with the terms therein. This would mean getting as close as they need for their eyesight to ensure they can adequately read all the information on the signage. Additionally, in relation to vehicles blocking the view. The appellant was clearly aware of the signage on site, as they have raised very specific points to POPLA about the signage, and tells me the appellant knew there were signs on the car park and the onus was on them to ensure they looked around the car park to ensure they had read all the terms and conditions required to park on site. The operator's site map also proves there were 20 parking signs around the car park and from the images provided, many if not all of them were clearly visible to motorists. I can see there is also a phone number for motorists to call if they require assistance from the operator which is in keeping with 19.6 of the code of practice. The working of the signage is also in keeping with 19.5 of the code of practice. In relation to the comment about the operator discussing signage in the dark in their evidence pack: The appellant would need to question the operator directly about the contents of their evidence pack. The appellant raised other points in the motorist's comments section in relation to Section 17 of the code of practice, the fact that the car park was empty on the date in question and that they feel the £100 PCN is disproportionate. It should be noted that the motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review. As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist comments section have not been considered in this appeal response. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not pay for their parking for the correct location, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

Coupon-mad

For 'advice' you'd need your own thread but only when you get an actual LBC.  Please no new threads about ignoring debt recovery letters!

mysticalsoul786

Operator Name Euro Car Parks - EW

Decision- Successful

Assessor Name-Sarah Layton

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance 2) There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. 3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach 5) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements 6) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non compliance, The notice to keeper shows two close up images and there is no date and time stamp. 7) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate 8) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for 9) No Planning Permission from Leicester City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage 10) Notice to Keeper not POFA 2012 compliant. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A copy of the PCN After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in the motorist comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has stated that the images on the PCN closes close up images of the registration and that they do not have a date or time stamp. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 21.5a of the Code states that the parking operator may use photos as evidence and that a date and time stamp should be included on the photo. The PCN shows that the images of the registration plate do not have a date and time stamp on the photo. The date and time stamp is on the PCN above the photos. Whilst the parking operator has provided copies of the full ANPR images of the vehicle with the date and time stamp, these were not included on the PCN. As the date and time stamp on the PCN and not on the photo itself, I do not consider that this complies with the Code. 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.

Thank you to Coupon-Mad, Umkomaas, and everyone that has helped me with this case, couldnt have done it without you selfless people. I was thinking this popla appeal was going to get rejected, and I would have to refer back to the newbies to learn how to do the LBC stuff, and witness statement etc, but glad we got a win on this one. I will never enter a Euro Car Parks ltd car park again lol. 

Umkomaas

Well done on your win, happy to have helped. 

I will never enter a Euro Car Parks ltd car park again lol.

If you have a bit of time on your hands, email the retailer/managing agent responsible for contracting ECP, telling them of the damage being done to their business, one that you have no intention of returning to as long as a private car park operator (ECP or any other for that matter) are involved there. 

mysticalsoul786

Umkomaas said:

Well done on your win, happy to have helped. 

I will never enter a Euro Car Parks ltd car park again lol.

If you have a bit of time on your hands, email the retailer/managing agent responsible for contracting ECP, telling them of the damage being done to their business, one that you have no intention of returning to as long as a private car park operator (ECP or any other for that matter) are involved there. 

Will do, they definitely need to do more. Will give them a piece of my mind

_MrBojangles_

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to not clearly displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They have questioned the signage. • They have questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the land/car park. • They have mentioned other POPLA appeals. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal, and raises new grounds of appeal relating to relation to the photos within the initial PCN. The appellant has provided photos of the car park 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 British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the Code states: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Both parties have provided photos of the car park for consideration, the parking operator has provided a map of the car park, from this I can see there are three black signs within the car park. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the appellant had insufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions, while there are three signs within the car park the limited number of back coloured signs, I do not consider they can be classed as conspicuous and legible as they simply do not stand out to motorists wishing to park, also the boundary of the two parking areas do not seem to be defined. 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.

Many thanks to all here for their help in appealing this one!

Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80628433 

Umkomaas

👆👆 Minster Baywatch 👆👆. The signage shown in the original thread is dire. The Assessor would have to be blind or brain dead to have sided with MB. Well done @_MrBojangles_!

Jamran

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

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

 • They state they are the registered the keeper. They feel the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is insufficient in pursuing the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 2020.

 • The state the signage is not clear, prominent or legible. They note that PoFA discusses the clarity of the PCN and that motorists should be provided adequate notice of the PCN amount.

 • They state there was no contract with the driver as the driver did not opportunity to read the terms involving the huge PCN amount. 

They feel the signage on this site does not meet the requirements of the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case as the signs do not include the “large lettering” that were included on that case.

 • They note the signs are the entrance are not compliant with the BPA as they make no reference to the PCN amount. They also refer to Appendix B of the BPA and what language must be included.

 • They state there is only one sign dotted around the car park and considering the amount of the car park, this is not enough and several areas of the car park are not signposted at all.

 • They demand a detailed record of where all the signs are located.

 • They refer to multiple other POPLA appeals in relation to their grounds for appeal and they have provided multiple links to their sources. They also discuss letter height in regard to the signage as well as another court case, Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest. 

• The appellant refers to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the “requirement for transparency”.

 • They state the NTK is not PoFA compliant and they refer to paragraph 9 of PoFA. They state the PCN does not include the requirement that the drivers’ details must be provided and that the keeper must be warned. They argue the difference between the use of “advised” in the PCN when it should say “warned”.

 • They operator has not shown that they are pursuing the driver and the appellant provides a description on keeper liability.

 • The appellant states there is no Landowner authority and the parking operator is put to strict proof to provide evidence of this. They refer to section 7 of the BPA. • They refer to section 13.1 and 13.3 of the BPA and state that the parking operator has not allowed an appropriate grace period in line with the BPA. They state the extra 22 minutes is not an unreasonable grace period given the signage issues and the face that the car park often has traffic jam issues. • They state the PCN does not show any evidence of period of parking and this is a requirement of PoFA. The entry and exit images do not show this.

 • They feel the vehicle images are not BPA compliant and they refer to section 21.5a, noting that the images are of a vehicle registration number and not of the vehicle and no date and time stamp is included.

 • The ANPR system is not reliable as the images show the vehicle in motion and do not show the period of parking. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and state that the parking operator has not addressed all their grounds for appeal. 

The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal: 1. Their original PCN. 2. The parking operator’s response to their initial appeal. 3. Several images of the car park and the signage. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. 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 appellant has raised several issues with the signage, both at the entrance to the site and throughout the site. The BPA has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. 

This is further expanded upon in appendix B. In this case the evidence provided by both the appellant and the parking operator shows that there is a clear sign at the entrance to the site. The appellant has referred to appendix B and the language that is required to be included. One of these requirements is “[x minutes’/hour’s/hours’] free parking [for [business name] customers only]”. The entrance signage here explains “Maximum stay 90 minutes” showing that it is compliant with the BPA. Furthermore, section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is clear and compliant signage around the site. The signage clearly explains the full parking contract, including the maximum allowed stay time for Sainsbury’s customers.

 It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they are familiarising themselves with the signage in order for them to comply with the parking contract. On this occasion, the driver has remained on the site for 1 hour and 53 minutes, exceeding the maximum allowed stay time by 23 minutes. As the driver exceeded the maximum allowed stay time, the parking contract has been contravened and this has resulted in the issuance of the PCN. 

The appellant has explained that the signage does not the requirements of section 19.4 of the BPA as there is not adequate notice of the PCN. Section 19.4 states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. The signs on this site clearly state, in bold text, “Please observes the following conditions to avoid a parking charge notice of £85”. I am satisfied this brings adequate notice to all motorists as the black writing is on a yellow background with the PCN amount particularly highlighted. The appellant states that the driver was not parked near a sign and they were not made of the terms and conditions. 

The BPA states that the “contract is offered by the signage and accepted when the motorist remains on site.” Whilst I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing to comply with terms and conditions, 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. The appellant has stated that the size of the font does not meet the requirements of the BPA. 

I am satisfied the font of the applicable conditions was large enough to read, I do not consider the appellant's technical challenge to all parts of the signs hold enough material bearing for me to conclude they were not bound by a clear contact of parking. As such, I am satisfied that the signs meet the requirements of the BPA and are sufficient for establishing a parking contract. I accept the appellant’s challenges to the Beavis ruling as well as Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, 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 and must be within the region of £85. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it.

 I note that the appellant has referred to multiple other POPLA cases as support for their case. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 2410454138 which was issued to PCN number 88887541226. The appellant has referred to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the “requirements for transparency”. 

Private parking operators must comply with the BPA, PoFA and any valid case law and it does fall with POPLA’s remit to handle complaints regarding the Consumer Rights Act. If the appellant would like to take their compliant regarding this further, they could do so with the appropriate party. The appellant has raised several issues with the NTK, stating that is not compliant with PoFA. PoFA 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. 

The appellant has stated that there is no evidence that the parking operator has the authority to operate on the land. 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. 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, a witness state has been provided showing that the parking operator’s contract was automatically renewed after five years. I am satisfied that the parking operator has the authority if the landowner for them to issue PCNs on this land. 

The appellant has also referred to consideration and grace periods regarding the time the driver spent on the site. Section 13.1 of the Code requires parking operators to allow the driver a consideration period that is a minimum of 5 minutes. This is to read the signage and decide if they are going to stay or go if the site is one where parking is permitted. Furthermore, section 13.2 says that the requirement of a consideration period shall not apply when a parking event has taken place. As the driver remained on the site for 1 hour and 53 minutes, a parking event has taken place and the driver should consider the full duration of their stay. Section 13.3 of the Code of Practice requires parking operators to allow the driver 10 minutes to leave if parking is permitted for a limited amount of time or on paid car parks. On this site, motorists are entitled to 90 minutes of free parking. With a grace period included, motorists would be allowed 1 hour and 40 minutes in order to leave the site. As the driver remained on the site for 1 hour and 53 minutes, both the maximum allowed stay time and the grace period has been exceeded. I note the appellant has explained that the site often has traffic jam issues and they have provided evidence of this. As no evidence has been provided from the date of the contravention, I cannot take this into consideration. 

They state the PCN does not include a period of parking and this is a requirement of PoFA. The PCN includes two images showing when the vehicle entered the site and when the vehicle exited the site. There is no requirement for evidence to show the duration of time the vehicle was specifically parked within a bay. Drivers should be considering the full duration of their stay from the moment they enter until the moment they leave. As the PCN shows these times, I am satisfied that this shows the period of parking. 

The appellant also refers to section 21.5a as they feel the parking operator’s images do not include a date stamp in the images. Section 21.5a states, “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”. Whilst I acknowledge PCN shows only images on the vehicle, the parking operator has shown the full images with the time stamp included. I am satisfied that these images meet the requirements of the BPA. 

The appellant also feels that the ANPR images are not reliable. The site in question is ANPR operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. Two ANPR images featured on the PCN show the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 19:05 and vacating at 20:58, 1 hour and 53 minutes after arriving. However, no evidence has been provided by the appellant to show that they were in an alternative area between the times pictured on the PCN, so we are unable to presume that they were not on site after being pictured entering at 19:05 and not leaving until hour and 53 minutes later. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary, I will work on the basis that the information is accurate. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed 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.