POPLA Decisions

TheYoungster

Operator Name: Euro Car Parks - EW

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Gayle 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: • They were not allowed a Grace Period in line with the BPA Code of Practice. • There is no evidence to show the ANPR information is reliable. • There is insufficient signage. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has provided extensive comments and a PDF document detailing their appeal.

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. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site for one hour and 10 minutes. The data from the payment system shows that a payment for one hour had been processed for the vehicle on the day in question. I am allowing this appeal and my reasons are noted below: The appellant has advised that they were not allowed a grace period when they left. I refer to Section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and in Section 13.3 it advises that motorists should allowed at least 10 minutes to exit the site after the parking period has ended. In this case the motorist left the site 10 minutes after their parking payment had expired. I am not satisfied that the operator has complied with Section 13.3 of the BPA Code of Practice in this case and I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. 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. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

rosborne

Operator Name: Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Amy Cafferty

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator 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 from their grounds of appeal • There was no Notice to Driver (NTD) issued and as such, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued and sent via post. • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle and are not liable for the PCN issued. • They say the NTK issued was not complaint, as there is no reference to either keeper liability of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • They say the parking even occurred on 27 April but the NTK was not issued until 9 May, meaning it arrived 15 days later and outside of the 14 day window for PoFA 2012 to be used. • The operator has not shown the individual they are pursuing for the PCN is the driver who is liable for the charge. • The appellant has provided an abundance of information relating to the NTK and PoFA 2012. • There is no evidence of landowner authority and they put the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The signage in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from the entrance and from all parking spaces. • There is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself on the signs on site. • The appellant has referenced a decision that was made by POPLA Accessor Rochelle Merritt from 2016. • The appellant has referenced Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule within their appeal. • They say that in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a requirement for transparency. • They would like the operator to show what the signs looked like on the date of the parking event. • They say that they put the operator to strict proof to show where the vehicle was parked on site and to show the signs were visible from the where the vehicle parked. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • 2 images showing the site in question • 3 copies of the PCN received from the operator • 3 pdf documents containing their full appeal details • 2 copies of their appeal rejection issued by the operator • A pdf document containing the full BPA code of practice • 3 pdf documents containing the information relating to PoFA 2012 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: By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case, the appellant in both their appeal to POPLA and the operator have said they were not driver on the date of the parking event. Within their appeal to the operator, they have declared themselves as the registered keeper. As the driver’s details are unknown therefore, I need to assess if the PCN is complaint with the relevant aspects of PoFA 2012, in order to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. 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 PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the NTK sent. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “The notice must – F) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) 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 (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”. Having reviewed the NTK, I note the wording does not mention any of the above. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012 to be able to transfer the liability to the keeper. I can only conclude that on this occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. As such, this 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.

parkingfunalways

POPLA ignored all of my comments about the fact the evidence provided by operator was outdated or inaccurate (different format NTK to the non-compliant one sent to me, photo of sign contained signs which have since been removed since my more recently timestamped images). Also sounds like there's a bit of ChatGPT in this response based on some of the language structure. Still no chance of paying of course.

Operator Name

Euro Car Parks - EW

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Amy Cafferty

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle overstayed the maximum time period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• The entry sign for the car park are not prominent or clear enough for a motorist to know they are entering into a contract. 

• The signs within the car park itself are not prominent and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 

• There is no evidence of landowner authority. 

• The operator fails to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR. 

• There is no information on site about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate. 

• There is no evidence of the period parked. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. 

• The vehicle images shown on the NTK are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 

• They say that the ANPR system on site is neither reliable nor accurate. 

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • Two images showing the entrance sign on site • Two images showing a sign within the car park • Three images showing the PCN they received from the operator • Two PDF documents containing further information about their appeal The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The driver has not been identified for the contravention on the date of the event, I am considering keeper liability and will check that the PCN issued complies with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the NTK will need to comply with Section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the NTK has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. I can see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to the operator within 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given. As this information has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. As such, I will be considering their liability for this charge. 

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 understand the appellant says that the entry sign for the car park are not prominent or clear enough for a motorist to know they are entering into a contract. The BPA has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. The entrance sign for a car park is there to warn motorists that they are entering private land and terms and conditions are in place for parking. It does not need to set out individual terms for motorists to be aware of, it is the responsibility of the motorist that when they enter the site to seek out the signs detailing the full terms of parking. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is a sign upon entering into the car park notifying motorists that there is a maximum stay of 3 hours, how it is camera controlled and how terms and conditions apply and to see signage in the car park for full details. An entrance sing is there as a warning and motorist should seek out the signage in the car park to understand the terms of parking. I can see that the appellant has also provided two images showing the entrance sign on site, which shows that the sign is clear and explains what I have wrote about in my decision. Therefore, I am satisfied that the entrance sign is complaint with the BPA Code of Practice, as both the operators and the appellants evidence shows there is one on site and it is clear. 

I note the appellant says that the signs within the car park itself are not prominent. 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 images of the signage on site, I can see from the site map provided that there are multiple signs located around the site. These includes signs at the entrance of the car park and a further signs located throughout the site. The signs explain that parking is for Templars shopping park customers only, how there is a maximum stay of 3 hours and how cameras are in operation at all times. The sign goes on to explain that a £100 PCN will be issued for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. Upon reviewing these images the signs are conspicuous, legible, written in intelligible language, so they are easy to see, read and understand. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage on site is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Additionally, the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where the vehicle stopped, they simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when entering private land subject to terms and conditions, that they ensure they have read and understood the signage before leaving their vehicle parked. 

I can see that the appellant has said that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself on the signs on site. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice 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. In this instance, the operator has provided images of the signage on site that set out the terms and conditions of parking, tariffs applicable and that a PCN will be issued for breaching the terms and conditions of parking. The signage on site is clear when reading it that ‘failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice’. The text does not appear in a small font, making it hard to read or see. As such, I am satisfied that the charge amount would be visible upon reading the signs and does not appear in a smaller font making it unclear to see. I can see that the appellant has referenced Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule within their appeal. However, POPLA assess appeals against the BPA Code of Practice and we cannot assess appeals against this rule. 

I appreciate that the appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The BPA has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 the operator has provided evidence of their contract with the landowner confirming that they have landowner authority. This authorises them to operate on the land in questions as the document details the locations the land they manage. It also explains that they are authorised to carry out all aspects of parking control and enforcement on the site. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In addition to this, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator do not own the land in question, therefore there is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operators contract with the landowner. 

I note the appellant says that the operator fails to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR. They say there is no information on site about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. If the appellant feels that the operator is in breach of the points they have raised above, they would need to raise this a complaint themselves with the ICO and BPA directly, outside of POPLAs process. 

I understand that the appellant says that there is no evidence of the period parked. The site in question is monitored by ANPR cameras that calculate the duration of stay from entry to exit. There is no requirement for the parking operator to provide images of the vehicle parked within one of the bays on site. The operator has provided images of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, captured by the ANPR cameras. Upon looking at these, it shows that the vehicle was observed on site for 3 hours and 43 minutes. Had the vehicle not entered the boundaries of the car park and remained on site, the ANPR cameras would not have calculated a duration of stay. Therefore, as the vehicle entered the site and remained there for 43 minutes longer than the 3 hour maximum stay allowed, they breached the terms and conditions of parking and a PCN was issued. 

I acknowledge the appellant says that the vehicle images shown on the NTK are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has reference 21.5a and how the images have been cropped down to only show the vehicle registration place and does not show the vehicle or its colour. 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’. There is no requirement for the operator to have images of the vehicles on the PCN issued to motorists. The operator can include images of the vehicle registration numbers on the PCN issued. However, it is clear on the PCN issued to the appellant that there are images of their vehicle registration number which can be seen and the colour of the vehicle on the inward image can also be seen. The images on the PCN issued also contain a date and time stamp showing the entry date and time, along with the exit date and time. Despite the appellant's challenge and reference to 21.5a, the operator has provided evidence of full images of the vehicle and I am satisfied this evidence shows a parking event took place. 

I can see that the appellant says that the ANPR system on site is neither reliable nor accurate. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. 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. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The operator has provided the ANPR images of the vehicle captured entering and exiting the boundaries of the car park. It shows that the vehicle was observed entering the car park at 18:31 and was observed leaving 3 hours and 43 minutes later at 22:14. Had the driver not entered the boundaries of the car park and remained parked on site, the ANPR cameras would not have calculated a duration of stay. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle was observed parked on site for longer than the maximum stay 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.

DE_612183

parkingfunalways said:

POPLA ignored all of my comments about the fact the evidence provided by operator was outdated or inaccurate (different format NTK to the non-compliant one sent to me, photo of sign contained signs which have since been removed since my more recently timestamped images). Also sounds like there's a bit of ChatGPT in this response based on some of the language structure. Still no chance of paying of course.

Operator Name

Euro Car Parks - EW

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Amy Cafferty

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle overstayed the maximum time period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• The entry sign for the car park are not prominent or clear enough for a motorist to know they are entering into a contract. 

• The signs within the car park itself are not prominent and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 

• There is no evidence of landowner authority. 

• The operator fails to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR. 

• There is no information on site about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate. 

• There is no evidence of the period parked. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. 

• The vehicle images shown on the NTK are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 

• They say that the ANPR system on site is neither reliable nor accurate. 

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • Two images showing the entrance sign on site • Two images showing a sign within the car park • Three images showing the PCN they received from the operator • Two PDF documents containing further information about their appeal The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The driver has not been identified for the contravention on the date of the event, I am considering keeper liability and will check that the PCN issued complies with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the NTK will need to comply with Section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the NTK has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. I can see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to the operator within 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given. As this information has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. As such, I will be considering their liability for this charge. 

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 understand the appellant says that the entry sign for the car park are not prominent or clear enough for a motorist to know they are entering into a contract. The BPA has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. The entrance sign for a car park is there to warn motorists that they are entering private land and terms and conditions are in place for parking. It does not need to set out individual terms for motorists to be aware of, it is the responsibility of the motorist that when they enter the site to seek out the signs detailing the full terms of parking. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is a sign upon entering into the car park notifying motorists that there is a maximum stay of 3 hours, how it is camera controlled and how terms and conditions apply and to see signage in the car park for full details. An entrance sing is there as a warning and motorist should seek out the signage in the car park to understand the terms of parking. I can see that the appellant has also provided two images showing the entrance sign on site, which shows that the sign is clear and explains what I have wrote about in my decision. Therefore, I am satisfied that the entrance sign is complaint with the BPA Code of Practice, as both the operators and the appellants evidence shows there is one on site and it is clear. 

I note the appellant says that the signs within the car park itself are not prominent. 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 images of the signage on site, I can see from the site map provided that there are multiple signs located around the site. These includes signs at the entrance of the car park and a further signs located throughout the site. The signs explain that parking is for Templars shopping park customers only, how there is a maximum stay of 3 hours and how cameras are in operation at all times. The sign goes on to explain that a £100 PCN will be issued for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. Upon reviewing these images the signs are conspicuous, legible, written in intelligible language, so they are easy to see, read and understand. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage on site is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Additionally, the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where the vehicle stopped, they simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when entering private land subject to terms and conditions, that they ensure they have read and understood the signage before leaving their vehicle parked. 

I can see that the appellant has said that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself on the signs on site. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice 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. In this instance, the operator has provided images of the signage on site that set out the terms and conditions of parking, tariffs applicable and that a PCN will be issued for breaching the terms and conditions of parking. The signage on site is clear when reading it that ‘failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice’. The text does not appear in a small font, making it hard to read or see. As such, I am satisfied that the charge amount would be visible upon reading the signs and does not appear in a smaller font making it unclear to see. I can see that the appellant has referenced Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule within their appeal. However, POPLA assess appeals against the BPA Code of Practice and we cannot assess appeals against this rule. 

I appreciate that the appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The BPA has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 the operator has provided evidence of their contract with the landowner confirming that they have landowner authority. This authorises them to operate on the land in questions as the document details the locations the land they manage. It also explains that they are authorised to carry out all aspects of parking control and enforcement on the site. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In addition to this, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator do not own the land in question, therefore there is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operators contract with the landowner. 

I note the appellant says that the operator fails to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice applicable to ANPR. They say there is no information on site about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. If the appellant feels that the operator is in breach of the points they have raised above, they would need to raise this a complaint themselves with the ICO and BPA directly, outside of POPLAs process. 

I understand that the appellant says that there is no evidence of the period parked. The site in question is monitored by ANPR cameras that calculate the duration of stay from entry to exit. There is no requirement for the parking operator to provide images of the vehicle parked within one of the bays on site. The operator has provided images of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, captured by the ANPR cameras. Upon looking at these, it shows that the vehicle was observed on site for 3 hours and 43 minutes. Had the vehicle not entered the boundaries of the car park and remained on site, the ANPR cameras would not have calculated a duration of stay. Therefore, as the vehicle entered the site and remained there for 43 minutes longer than the 3 hour maximum stay allowed, they breached the terms and conditions of parking and a PCN was issued. 

I acknowledge the appellant says that the vehicle images shown on the NTK are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has reference 21.5a and how the images have been cropped down to only show the vehicle registration place and does not show the vehicle or its colour. 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’. There is no requirement for the operator to have images of the vehicles on the PCN issued to motorists. The operator can include images of the vehicle registration numbers on the PCN issued. However, it is clear on the PCN issued to the appellant that there are images of their vehicle registration number which can be seen and the colour of the vehicle on the inward image can also be seen. The images on the PCN issued also contain a date and time stamp showing the entry date and time, along with the exit date and time. Despite the appellant's challenge and reference to 21.5a, the operator has provided evidence of full images of the vehicle and I am satisfied this evidence shows a parking event took place. 

I can see that the appellant says that the ANPR system on site is neither reliable nor accurate. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. 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. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The operator has provided the ANPR images of the vehicle captured entering and exiting the boundaries of the car park. It shows that the vehicle was observed entering the car park at 18:31 and was observed leaving 3 hours and 43 minutes later at 22:14. Had the driver not entered the boundaries of the car park and remained parked on site, the ANPR cameras would not have calculated a duration of stay. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle was observed parked on site for longer than the maximum stay 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.

Can I just ask - did you actually overstay - or was this a double dip and the car was elsewhere?

parkingfunalways

Overstay due to unfortunate circumstances (which we didn't describe in the appeals since didn't want to identify the driver, in any case from what I've read on here POPLA wouldn't have been interested), no double dip.

Coupon-mad

parkingfunalways said:

Overstay due to unfortunate circumstances (which we didn't describe in the appeals since didn't want to identify the driver, in any case from what I've read on here POPLA wouldn't have been interested), no double dip.

Well worth sitting tight and awaiting a court claim from DCB Legal because they always discontinue defended claims. 

parkingfunalways

Coupon-mad said:

parkingfunalways said:

Overstay due to unfortunate circumstances (which we didn't describe in the appeals since didn't want to identify the driver, in any case from what I've read on here POPLA wouldn't have been interested), no double dip.

Well worth sitting tight and awaiting a court claim from DCB Legal because they always discontinue defended claims. 

Yeah this is my plan, there’s a few things I’m fairly sure wouldn’t hold up in their case anyway even if they did contest it. Signage shown below for context.

artyboy

Successful appeal at University of Hertfordshire's south Hatfield campus (Innovation Lane)

my own thread link, and adjudication text below:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6530463/first-parking-llp-how-litigious-aggressive#latest

Operator Name
First Parking - EW

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for reason ‘not paying for the full duration of stay or by not registering your vehicle.’

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They say they were the registered keeper but not the driver and they will not be advising who was driving as such the operator cannot make assumptions. • They say the PCN does not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in section 21.5a. they say the notice contains two images of the registration plate and two of the vehicle and the date and time stamp has been inserted. They say these images cannot support a contractual breach and they ask for evidence of the date and time stamp at and images of the vehicle parked at the location and not just entering and exiting. They mention a previous decision reached by another POPLA assessor. • There is no proof of parking as the images show the vehicle in motion. They provide the campus site plan and believes the red dot shown is where the cameras are placed and within the campus there are 10 separate car parks. • There is no proof of any breach of contractual term. They say each car park at the campus contains different signs and terms and they have included images of the differing signs. They say the operator has not proved which car park they believe the car was parked in. • They say the signs are not clear or legible from all spaces and the entrance sign is minimal, deficient and positioned on the opposite side of the road and they provided an image to confirm this. They raise the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in section 18. • They mention the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the requirement to give adequate notice of the charge. The appellant raises the court case heard between Beavis v Parking Eye held at the supreme court and discuss the differences with the signs in this case as compared to the appeal in question. • They mention the decisions of other POPLA assessors in relation to signs. After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided photos of the site and signs 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 burden of proof lies with the operator to prove that the PCN was issued correctly. In this instance the operator is issuing a PCN as the vehicle parked without payment or registering. The appellant challenges the fact there is no proof of parking as the images show the vehicle in motion. They provide the campus site plan and believes the red dot shown is where the cameras are placed and within the campus there are 10 separate car parks. There is no proof of any breach of contractual term. They say each car park at the campus contains different signs and terms and they have included images of the differing signs. They say the operator has not proved which car park they believe the car was parked in. Having looked at the site maps provided I can see there is 2 locations College Lane and De-Havilland. The operator’s PCN states the vehicle was captured entering and exiting Innovation Road, yet having reviewed the site map cannot see Innovation Road upon it. Therefore, I am unable to determine which of the many car parks without evidence that this vehicle was parked in on the date of the event and what terms and conditions the appellant was expected to comply with when parking. The operator has not provided an adequate rebuttal to confirm the location parked or show what signs were displayed in situ in that area. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. Due to the above, 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.

BeachWalker

Hi my thread link
 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556773/wrong-reg-parking-fine#latest

Brittannia Parking 
Flamborough North Landing 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as they failed to make a valid payment.

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 paid for parking but the parking machine never gave them a parking ticket it just said the payment was successful. • They apologise if they input their vehicle registration in incorrectly and there was only one car in the car park if that helps to track the payment. • They feel the reduced PCN of £20 is still insulting and amounts to a scam. • They feel the PCN is also discriminatory as they are dyslexic and they feel there has been unethical treatment based on their disability. • They will take this further to the British Parking Association (BPA) and their solicitor. The appellant reiterated and expanded on their version of events in the motorist’s comments section stating: • They entered their other vehicle registration in error – ****** The appellant included photographic evidence of their parking payment bank statement in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Whilst assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When considering an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract and that the car park is to pay for parking and to enter the full, correct vehicle registration when doing so. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images proves the appellant was parked on site for 33 minutes. The operator has provided an information report to prove there was payment for the appellant’s vehicle registration and others were able to pay for parking. Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included of their bank statement which proves they paid for parking but does not prove their payment was a valid payment for the car they were driving on the date in question. I note the appellant's comments and appreciate that they paid for parking and that they feel the £20 reduced PCN offered is insulting and amounts to a scam. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 17.4B requires parking operators to have a process for dealing with major keying errors, where more than one character have been incorrectly entered or not entered at all. It requires the operator to reduce amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. I can see the operator offered the reduced PCN of £20 as stipulated in the code of practice when the appellant appealed and provided evidence of their receipt. To provide some context: the PCN was issued for not paying for parking. The operator changed this once the appellant had appealed to them and proved they did pay for parking, but they didn’t enter their correct vehicle registration when paying. The operator offered the £20 reduced PCN during the initial appeals stage. As their vehicle was on site without a payment for the full, correct vehicle registration, the operator had to write to the DVLA to gain the registered keeper’s details. The DVLA charge the operator’s every time they need to get the registered keepers details. The PCN was then issued to state there was no payment for '****** My wifes car parked up in 'It is only after the PCN is issued and the appellant appealed and told the operator and they paid for their other vehicle registration; the operator was able to determine that they were a legitimate user. The operator then offered the £20 reduced PCN which the BPA stipulate is the process purely to recoup the money they had to pay to the DVLA. I note they feel the operator was discriminating against them due to their dyslexia. The principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as having a disability equally with those who do not. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant has a disability. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. As such, the operator would issue a PCN in these circumstances regardless of the circumstances. What actions an operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the operator and has no effect on the validity of the parking charge. While I note the appellant’s comments regarding the discrimination, I do not consider that the operator has applied any unfavourable treatment. Furthermore, I do not consider that the operator has demonstrated any discrimination, nor do I understand why the appellant believed this was the case. For clarity, any motorist parking in breach of the conditions of the parking contract would have been issued with a PCN. I also appreciate they will take this to BPA and their solicitor. POPLA’s role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly. Although I acknowledge that the appellant may look to take further action, I am only able to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly or not based on the evidence available at the time of the assessment. Any further action the appellant wishes to take would have no effect on my decision. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the evidence proves that the appellant never entered their full, correct vehicle registration when at the gym ((  i was at the beach for a walk not the gym dont know where they got from ? ))and were therefore in breach of the site’s terms and conditions. This PCN was issued correctly and the operator dealt with the initial appeal appropriately. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

Coupon-mad

BeachWalker said:

Hi my thread link
 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556773/wrong-reg-parking-fine#latest

Brittannia Parking 
Flamborough North Landing 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as they failed to make a valid payment.

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 paid for parking but the parking machine never gave them a parking ticket it just said the payment was successful.

• They apologise if they input their vehicle registration in incorrectly and there was only one car in the car park if that helps to track the payment.

• They feel the reduced PCN of £20 is still insulting and amounts to a scam.

• They feel the PCN is also discriminatory as they are dyslexic and they feel there has been unethical treatment based on their disability.

• They will take this further to the British Parking Association (BPA) and their solicitor. The appellant reiterated and expanded on their version of events in the motorist’s comments section stating:

• They entered their other vehicle registration in error – ****** The appellant included photographic evidence of their parking payment bank statement in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

Whilst assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When considering an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract and that the car park is to pay for parking and to enter the full, correct vehicle registration when doing so.

The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images proves the appellant was parked on site for 33 minutes.

The operator has provided an information report to prove there was payment for the appellant’s vehicle registration and others were able to pay for parking.

Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included of their bank statement which proves they paid for parking but does not prove their payment was a valid payment for the car they were driving on the date in question.

I note the appellant's comments and appreciate that they paid for parking and that they feel the £20 reduced PCN offered is insulting and amounts to a scam. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 17.4B requires parking operators to have a process for dealing with major keying errors, where more than one character have been incorrectly entered or not entered at all. It requires the operator to reduce amount of the PCN to £20 if it can be shown that the driver was a genuine user of the site. I can see the operator offered the reduced PCN of £20 as stipulated in the code of practice when the appellant appealed and provided evidence of their receipt.

To provide some context: the PCN was issued for not paying for parking. The operator changed this once the appellant had appealed to them and proved they did pay for parking, but they didn’t enter their correct vehicle registration when paying. The operator offered the £20 reduced PCN during the initial appeals stage.

As their vehicle was on site without a payment for the full, correct vehicle registration, the operator had to write to the DVLA to gain the registered keeper’s details. The DVLA charge the operator’s every time they need to get the registered keepers details.

The PCN was then issued to state there was no payment for '******'. It is only after the PCN is issued and the appellant appealed and told the operator and they paid for their other vehicle registration; the operator was able to determine that they were a legitimate user. The operator then offered the £20 reduced PCN which the BPA stipulate is the process purely to recoup the money they had to pay to the DVLA.

I note they feel the operator was discriminating against them due to their dyslexia.

The principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as having a disability equally with those who do not.

Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant has a disability. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability.

The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. As such, the operator would issue a PCN in these circumstances regardless of the circumstances. What actions an operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the operator and has no effect on the validity of the parking charge.

While I note the appellant’s comments regarding the discrimination, I do not consider that the operator has applied any unfavourable treatment. Furthermore, I do not consider that the operator has demonstrated any discrimination, nor do I understand why the appellant believed this was the case. For clarity, any motorist parking in breach of the conditions of the parking contract would have been issued with a PCN.

I also appreciate they will take this to BPA and their solicitor. POPLA’s role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly. Although I acknowledge that the appellant may look to take further action, I am only able to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly or not based on the evidence available at the time of the assessment. Any further action the appellant wishes to take would have no effect on my decision.

Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the evidence proves that the appellant never entered their full, correct vehicle registration when at the gym ((  i was at the beach for a walk not the gym dont know where they got from ? )) and were therefore in breach of the site’s terms and conditions.

This PCN was issued correctly and the operator dealt with the initial appeal appropriately. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

POPLA don't understand the Equality Act which is NOT ABOUT TREATING EVERYONE THE SAME. Quite the opposite.  And charging for a keying error is obviously discriminating against someone with dyslexia.  

Sigh!

Live the fact she's also copied and pasted words about a gym when this wasn't at a gym.