POPLA Decisions

Wilderness93

Decision Successful

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They were a legitimate user of the car park and have evidence • They did not overstay they were able to park for free • The business website had misleading information regarding the free parking on site. • Inconsistent internal appeals outcome and non-compliance with BPA code section 17.4, they were only offered a reduced fee for one of their 3 appeals. • Another PCN was issued before their appeal was dealt with which is against BPA code 23.6. • There is inadequate signage at the site and does not comply with 19.3,19.4, 22.1 or appendix b of BPA code. • The PCN in not complaint with Protection of Freedoms Act. • There is no evidence of the parking operator having landowner authority. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has reiterated their grounds within their comments. The appellant has provided a detailed appeal document containing their appeal, evidence of signs, emails with the parking operator and evidence of gym usage as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 17 of the Code recognises that drivers are more frequently required to enter their vehicle registration when paying for parking or registering for a permit. Section 17.4B requires the parking operator to have a process for dealing with major keying errors. Where the motorist has proven they were a legitimate user, it requires the parking operator to offer to reduce the amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. In this case the appellant provided evidence of being a legitimate user of the site and the signs state that business users can register for parking, however the parking operator did not offer the reduced fee. I note the op has stated they did not offer £20 for the following reasons: "We did not offer XX the opportunity to pay the Parking Charge at the administration rate on this occasion as X has incurred multiple charges at this site and we have previously offered the administration rate" However, I am unable to consider the appellant could have been aware of this offer at the time they parked as this was made after the parking event in question took place. The appellant parked at the site on XX and the offer was made on XX. Therefore, I am satisfied the obligations of section 17.4b were still applicable despite the operator's rationale. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence in order to rebut the appellants grounds and prove that the parking charge was issued correctly. I acknowledge why the PCN has been issued however, I am not satisfied that evidence required in order to address the appellants claims has been provided. I must conclude therefore that the PCN has not been issued correctly and, accordingly, allow this appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant has brought other grounds of appeal and evidence to POPLA, but as I am allowing this appeal based on the reasoning above, there is no requirement to address the additional evidence and grounds as they will not affect the outcome of this appeal.

LDast

Which operator?

Smelly_Dog

Parking Eye/CPP Rugby St Cross Hospital

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Matthew Woodhouse

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds of appeal: 1) The PCN does not comply with PoFA 2) Parking Eye lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass 3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver 4) Parking Eye have not produced any evidence to show the reliability of the ANPR system 5) Parking Eye have failed to produce an explanation of the alleged contravention 6) Parking Eye have failed to produce a close-up actual photograph of the sign they contend was at the location on the material date as well as any images of my vehicle despite a written request for them to do so 7) Parking Eye have failed to produce any evidence of the actual grace period agreed by the landowner despite a written request for them to do so 8) Lack of consistency with the name of the operator pursuing the charge The appellant has provided extensive comments, in three numbered points. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided six photos.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has challenged the operator on two points which require the operator to provide a copy of the contract or other authority document they have with the landowner. After reviewing that document, on page 10 of the evidence pack, the appellant points out that the operator is only authorised to issue PCNs of up to £50 for this site, reduced down to £25 if paid within 14 days. However, the operator issued a £100 PCN, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. As the operator has issued a PCN that does not comply with the agreement they hold with the landowner, I must conclude that the PCN was not issued correctly, and I allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however, as I am allowing this appeal, I do not need to consider those further grounds.

Umkomaas

Well done. Complain to the DVLA that PE are acting outside of the confines of their landowner contract. Ask them to investigate how many charges have been issued at that site in excess of the £50/£25, how many have been paid above that level, and what action they are requiring of PE to issue refunds. Cc it to your MP, with the DVLA letter clearly showing the cc to your MP. 

Give PE a bit of their own hassle treatment. 

Ineedhelp101

Operator: Horizon Parking

Parking Location : Barking ASDA

POPLA Appeal: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist failed to validate their stay.

Assessor summary of your case

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:

 • The operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). 

• There is no evidence that the operator owns the site or has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. 

• The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. 

• There is insufficient notice of the parking charge. 

To support their appeal, the appellant has provided images of examples of signs. This evidence has been considered in making my determination. The appellant has also provided links to various websites, however POPLA cannot accept evidence through links for cyber security purposes. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I must advise that this appeal relates solely to PCN number, an appeal for which has been received by POPLA using a verification code of 3761724067. I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with PoFA 2012. I refer to Section 9(2)(f), which states that the notice to keeper must:

 “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given: (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full, and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper so much of the amount that remains unpaid”. Having reviewed the notice to keeper, it is evident that the operator has only allowed the appellant 28 days from the date of issue to provide this information, rather than the 28 days beginning with the following day required under PoFA 2012. As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Although I have reviewed the appellant’s other grounds of appeal and evidence, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Hooray!

The first POPLA appeal decision against the new 2024 Horizon NTK which they must have thought was POFA worded but we carefully read and exposed otherwise.

  

Umkomaas

As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.

That doesn't make sense!

Ineedhelp101

Umkomaas said:

As the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, it is not permitted to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.

That doesn't make sense!

Yeah I was thinking that as well! Seems they made a typo or something 

Le_Kirk

As the operator has NOT met .................possibly

ChipAway

Croydon Colonnades - UKPA

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for “Overstay”

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • Despite the timings given, they do not have reason to believe this is an accurate relation of their stay. • They dispute being on the site for 3 hours and 19 minutes as the other premises on site needed to be accessed by crossing their controlled land. • They suggest the cameras are improperly positioned and the camera evidence does not prove their car and does not prove the position of the car. • If their appeal is rejected, they will be requesting a court hearing and putting in a counter claim for the time they have spent. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided images taken from the location 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 stated they drove through the site to access KFC. I can see there is more than one entrance/exit to the site however, the operator has only demonstrated one ANPR camera which is at the main entrance to the retail park. UKPA has not demonstrated how many ANPR cameras are on the site, and for which areas these cover. From reviewing the site map, there is a area of land which does not appear to be covered by UKPA. The managed land has been clearly outlined with red lines and evidence of signage location therefore, without knowing where the ANPR cameras are located or any other system report, I cannot be certain the operator has demonstrated the appellant was within their managed land and didn’t leave as stated. I can also see there is also more than one exit to the retail park therefore, the appellant’s explanation for driving through the car park to access other areas is reasonable in this case. 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.

----

I strongly suspect my other grounds would have been upheld too, very specific to this car park though.