POPLA Decisions

CaptainYellow

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no valid payment or validation was made to cover the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN was issued to a vehicle which accessed the forecourt of Hilton Hotel, Gatwick Airport and the parking operator is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in order to establish keeper liability. • The Gatwick Airport site is governed by Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996 and the airports website states that the byelaws regulate the operation of all land, buildings and road at the airport. • They claim the site is under statutory control and PoFA is not applicable. • The parking operator has not addressed this in their appeal response. • The parking operator has also not provided evidence of the additional evidence on the site which indicates that free drop off parking is available here upon registration at the hotel reception. • The parking operator has failed to acknowledge that the vehicle may have been whitelisted by hotel staff. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to: • The parking operator has provided evidence of a contract they have with the landowner but as the landowner is Gatwick Airport, this is not valid. • They refer to the British Parking Association and that without evidence from the actual landowner, the parking operator has not evidenced that they have authority here. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal: 1. A large map of the area indicating where the car park is located. 2. The additional drop off signage on the site. 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 PoFA. 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 explained that PoFA does not apply on this land as this is located and run by Gatwick Airport London and is governed by the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996. I acknowledge the appellant’s claim here and the evidence they have provided however, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to show that the land is governed by byelaws. There is nothing on the signage to indicate that the Byelaws are in operation here and the PCN is a Parking Charge Notice rather than a Penalty Notice, which would have bene issued if Byelaws were in operation. Therefore, I am satisfied that the parking operator is able to issue PCNs here under PoFA and seek keeper liability in this case. Furthermore, the parking operator has provided evidence that they have the authority of the landowner to operate here. The British Parking Association (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 parking operator has provided evidence of the landowner to operate on this land. Furthermore, this contract explains that PCNs are to be issued here and makes no reference to the alleged Byelaws that the appellant claims are in operation here. As such, I am satisfied that parking operator has complied with BPA and can issue PCNs here. The appellant has also provided evidence that shows additional signage on the site that allows motorists to register at reception for drop off parking. They state the parking operator has not addressed this and it is possible that the driver was registered for this service. The signage on this site explains that tariffs are applicable for up to 15 minutes and up to 30 minutes. The signs also explains that a £100 PCN would be issued for any contravention of the parking contract. The parking operator has also acknowledged the exemption process here by providing a redacted list of vehicles that there registered. On this occasion, there is no evidence that a payment was made or the vehicle was registered for the vehicle’s 14 minute stay on the site. I am satisfied that the parking operator has provide sufficient evidence that shows they have reviewed all aspects of the parking contract. As the vehicle has been parked in contravention of the parking contract for 14 minutes, this has resulted in the issuance of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver made no payment or validation to cover the duration of stay 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.

Coupon-mad

CaptainYellow said:

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no valid payment or validation was made to cover the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

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

 • The PCN was issued to a vehicle which accessed the forecourt of Hilton Hotel, Gatwick Airport and the parking operator is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in order to establish keeper liability.

 • The Gatwick Airport site is governed by Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996 and the airports website states that the byelaws regulate the operation of all land, buildings and road at the airport.

 • They claim the site is under statutory control and PoFA is not applicable.

 • The parking operator has not addressed this in their appeal response.

 • The parking operator has also not provided evidence of the additional evidence on the site which indicates that free drop off parking is available here upon registration at the hotel reception.

 • The parking operator has failed to acknowledge that the vehicle may have been whitelisted by hotel staff. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to:

• The parking operator has provided evidence of a contract they have with the landowner but as the landowner is Gatwick Airport, this is not valid.

 • They refer to the British Parking Association and that without evidence from the actual landowner, the parking operator has not evidenced that they have authority here.

The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal:

1. A large map of the area indicating where the car park is located.

2. The additional drop off signage on the site. 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 PoFA. 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 explained that PoFA does not apply on this land as this is located and run by Gatwick Airport London and is governed by the Gatwick Airport – London Byelaws 1996. I acknowledge the appellant’s claim here and the evidence they have provided however, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to show that the land is governed by byelaws. There is nothing on the signage to indicate that the Byelaws are in operation here and the PCN is a Parking Charge Notice rather than a Penalty Notice, which would have bene issued if Byelaws were in operation.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the parking operator is able to issue PCNs here under PoFA and seek keeper liability in this case.

Furthermore, the parking operator has provided evidence that they have the authority of the landowner to operate here. The British Parking Association (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 parking operator has provided evidence of the landowner to operate on this land. Furthermore, this contract explains that PCNs are to be issued here and makes no reference to the alleged Byelaws that the appellant claims are in operation here. As such, I am satisfied that parking operator has complied with BPA and can issue PCNs here.

The appellant has also provided evidence that shows additional signage on the site that allows motorists to register at reception for drop off parking. They state the parking operator has not addressed this and it is possible that the driver was registered for this service.

The signage on this site explains that tariffs are applicable for up to 15 minutes and up to 30 minutes. The signs also explains that a £100 PCN would be issued for any contravention of the parking contract. The parking operator has also acknowledged the exemption process here by providing a redacted list of vehicles that there registered. On this occasion, there is no evidence that a payment was made or the vehicle was registered for the vehicle’s 14 minute stay on the site.

I am satisfied that the parking operator has provide sufficient evidence that shows they have reviewed all aspects of the parking contract. As the vehicle has been parked in contravention of the parking contract for 14 minutes, this has resulted in the issuance of the PCN.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver made no payment or validation to cover the duration of stay 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.

This is legally wrong and the OP is complaining to POPLA.

The Airport Act 1986 applies and and part of an Airport site is certainly not 'relevant land'.

It is naive in the extreme for an Assessor to say "if byelaws applied here they'd have issued a Penalty Notice"...

Don't be so stupid, POPLA!  Almost no PPC issues PNs and the fact a 'PCN' was issued doesn't define the land's status!

45mip19lot

POPLA - Your appeal has been withdrawn - Appeal Verification Code 6063024653

Dear Mr ,

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

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

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

Kind regards

POPLA Team

If you are looking to appeal a PCN issued by Parkingeye for a 'so called' parking infringement at Southampton Town Quay, I have created a PDF file that you can copy and then tailor to your own circumstances.

The first page is obvious that you just substitute your details in place of the X's, but don't just skim through the document (because it is intentionally long and boring), because on page 12 there are a couple more X's relating to your situation. It won't affect your claim if you missed them, but it does show that you copied it from someone else.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y2aufbf6kuyvxdtngw1uh/parking-eye-POPLA-appeal_Nov_2024_template-for-other-users.pdf?rlkey=f7582s3ny1e8ti9mucy43e0qd&dl=0

Umkomaas

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

POPLA still using this template rubbish. No, the operator hasn't 'withdrawn your appeal', they have withdrawn from chancing their arm at grabbing your cash!  That's the main rational (sic!).

Well done in seeing them off!

Couldey

Thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6549898/pcn-parking-eye/p1

Operator Name: Parking Eye 

Decision: Operator withdrawn appeal / Successful

Assessor Name: Not known

"Dear xxxxxxxx,

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

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

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

Kind regards

POPLA Team"

mrflib

Thread link (page 3 has the appeal to POPLA that caused ECP to withdraw) https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6554656/quick-question-on-bank-statements/p3

Operator Name: ECP

Car Park: Lullingstone Country Park

Assessor Name: N/A - ECP withdrew appeal.

Thanks for the assistance guys, I have learned a lot. My appeal cites a 2018 POPLA ruling against ECP, which would be useful for this car park.

lokz

The POPLA Decision is Unsuccessful, but the documents submitted by UKPC for the Appeal helped me to  find out who owned and managed the car park which helped me in contacting them and they cancelled the PCN.

Please find the details below

Operator Name: UKPC

Car Park: 1 - 21 The Martletts, Crawley, RH10 1ER

Car Park managed by : SAVILLS

Car Park Owned by:  Aegon AM (Billion dollar Pension fund)

POPLA Decision: Unsuccessful

FINAL OUTCOME: PCN Cancelled by  on behalf of the  owner.

Please email to  SMRCarParking@savills.com to get the ticket cancelled.

Umkomaas

Savills have almost always been helpful in getting PCNs cancelled. Well done on succeeding with your complaint to them. 

Couldey

Thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81119678#Comment_81119678

Operator Name: Select Parking Ltd

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist parked without a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant states they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds. The appellant has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper and their grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. After issuing a Notice to Driver, the parking operator has 56 days to issue a Notice to Keeper from the date of the contravention. The operator has failed to do this as the date of the contravention was 25/05/2024 and the date of issue for the Notice to Keeper was 19th August 2024. Therefore, the Notice to Keeper was not issued within the permitted timeframe. The appellant has identified themselves as the registered keeper and the Notice to Keeper has failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA, due to this, the parking operator cannot pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision."

hirersezn

Forum Post: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6547100/not-given-the-option-to-appeal-to-popla-for-nth/
Operator: CUP Enforcement

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for being parked within a restricted area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. • No evidence of Landowner Authority. • Insufficient and unclear signage in the area the vehicle was parked. • No evidence of period parked. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their grounds: • A document with full expansions to their appeal grounds. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds about liability in respect of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The above will be considered in my determination of this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In this case the appellant has challenged the parking operator’s ability to pursue them for this PCN as the hirer of the vehicle. The appellant has not provided an account of being the driver at any stage of appeal. On review of the parking operator’s evidence, I must concur with the appellant’s grounds that the original Notice to Keeper (NTK) in this case was not issued in accordance PoFA. Paragraph 13, sub paragraph (1) (b) of PoFA stipulates that a NTK must be sent within the relevant period for hirer liability to be established. As the NTK in this case was not sent within this period I am not able to consider hirer liability has been established in this case and must therefore allow this appeal. 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.