POPLA Decisions

Gamm

Original thread here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6551908/template-question

LDast

Oh dear... POPLA once again showing bias and ignorance. Both "Bransby Wilson" and "Minster Baywatch" are distinct legal entities with their own company registrations. Unless there is documented evidence of a formal partnership, agency agreement, or shared operational structure, the assessor's assumption is baseless.

The contract for parking enforcement must be with the company named on the signage or the PCN issuer. If some signs reference "Bransby Wilson," then Minster Baywatch might not have the authority to issue a PCN unless a clear contractual relationship between the two companies is proven.

The BPA Code of Practice requires clear and unambiguous signage. Mixed signage from two different companies could mislead drivers about who is managing the parking and their rights under any potential contract. The assessor has made an unsubstantiated assumption about the relationship between the companies without evidence. This is contrary to POPLA’s duty to base decisions on evidence.

Any ambiguity in the terms and conditions (e.g., conflicting signage) must be interpreted in the consumer’s favour. Mixed signage creates such ambiguity.

Never mind, the POPLA decision means nothing and has no bearing on going forward. Let them try and make a claim with that nonsense.

hurdys

Original thread here:Initial Parking - PCN Notice to Hirer — MoneySavingExpert Forum
CPM Company: Initial Parking

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

########

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for unpaid tariff time.

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 raised Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and stated the Notice to Hirer was not POFA compliant. • They will not divulge who the driver was. • They raised landowner authority and stated the operator do not have the authority to issue PCNs on behalf of the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing the appeal for the following reason: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. The operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for not purchasing a parking ticket for the full duration of their stay. 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. POFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle if certain rules are followed. The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but there is no evidence that the required documents were ever obtained. As the operator have not adequately transferred liability to the hirer, I am not completely satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. 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.

SpinninginInfinity

Most pleased to add this one.

Operator: Euro Car Parks No evidence of landowner authority.

POPLA assessment and decision

16/12/2024

Verification Code

XXX

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name
XXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a 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, which have been summarised: • They were not the driver and will not be naming the driver • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by the operator breaches conditions to transfer the liability under the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 • There is no mention in the NTK that the driver is required to pay the charges • No statement has been made by the NTK that a Notice to Driver (NTD) has been given and that specific information has been repeated • There is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge • The creditor has not been named within the NTK • The set of images provided by the operator breaches Section 21.5a of the code of practice as there is a lack of date and time stamp • The images are now only visible post appeal and were not available on the portal or other correspondence • They put the operator to strict proof that a contract exists between themselves and the landowner After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail regarding the lack of landowner authority document, PoFA 2012 and the date stamped images. They also raise new grounds regarding signage. The appellant has provided the rejection letter and the NTK as evidence towards 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: By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. The appellant has argued, as part of their grounds for appeal, that the operator does not have the authority to issue PCN’s. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 recognises that an operator must have written authorisation from the landowner to carry out parking management and issue PCN’s. In this instance, I would expect the operator to provide evidence or commentary on whether this is the case. Whilst I recognise that the signage has been date stamped to February 2024, this does not sufficiently rebut the appellant’s grounds and show that they have written authority from the landowner to issue PCN’s. I have reviewed the case file provided by the operator and there is nothing to evidence that they have Landowner Authority. As such, the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds and I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Umkomaas

In view of this quite clear statement from POPLA, why not give the PPC a dose of their own medicine by making life uncomfortable for them?  

Write to the DVLA and complain that POPLA has grave doubts that the PPC has authority to operate at this site. Ask that the DVLA investigates and reports back to you. In particular they should calculate how many charges have been issued, and should there be no valid landowner authority, the PPC should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid. Email in the first instance:

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (and) 

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk 

Send to both. 

If you get a fob off from that approach, follow it up with a full blown Freedom of Information request. It will be more difficult for them to hide under FOI. 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

You might also consider issuing the PPC a Letter of Claim prior to a possible county court claim for breach of the DPA/GDPR. Read these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017...0-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...orist-wins.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

There has to be some backlash against PPCs to make them think twice before issuing tickets on a scattergun basis and their unchecked harvesting of personal data from the DVLA on an industrial scale. 

sdg213

Operator: Horizon 
Reason: Non-compliance with POFA 

POPLA assessment and decision

17/12/2024

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

***********

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay period. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN does not meet the wording requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). • This is comparable to an earlier POPLA decision whereby the case was allowed. • They transpose the wording from this decision. • The wording in respect of when a period of 28 days (before the keeper can be pursued) begins a day too early. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant largely reiterates their primary grounds. 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 presented a technical challenge to the parking operator’s application of PoFA. The parking operator is reliant on the correct application of PoFA in this case as driver liability cannot be established. As such, in respect of the 28 day period given for the PCN to be paid or for the driver’s details to be provided, I must note that Notice to Keeper in this case does state: “the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge”. However, PoFA stipulates (at paragraph 9 subparagraph (2) (f)) that this period must be given from: “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. In respect of the presumed date of issue, paragraph 9 subparagraph (6) of PoFA advises: “A notice sent by post is to be presumed…to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted”. As such, I must uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of the wording used by the parking operator in this case, as this sets the 28 day timescale from the presumed date of issue, whereas PoFA stipulates this must begin from the day after. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

sdg213 said:

Operator: Horizon 
Reason: Non-compliance with POFA 

POPLA assessment and decision

17/12/2024

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

***********

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay period. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN does not meet the wording requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). • This is comparable to an earlier POPLA decision whereby the case was allowed. • They transpose the wording from this decision. • The wording in respect of when a period of 28 days (before the keeper can be pursued) begins a day too early. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant largely reiterates their primary grounds. 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 presented a technical challenge to the parking operator’s application of PoFA. The parking operator is reliant on the correct application of PoFA in this case as driver liability cannot be established. As such, in respect of the 28 day period given for the PCN to be paid or for the driver’s details to be provided, I must note that Notice to Keeper in this case does state: “the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge”. However, PoFA stipulates (at paragraph 9 subparagraph (2) (f)) that this period must be given from: “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. In respect of the presumed date of issue, paragraph 9 subparagraph (6) of PoFA advises: “A notice sent by post is to be presumed…to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted”. As such, I must uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of the wording used by the parking operator in this case, as this sets the 28 day timescale from the presumed date of issue, whereas PoFA stipulates this must begin from the day after. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Yay!  POPLA actually got it!

Could you give the POPLA Code and date of decision here, so others with that Horizon NTK can cite it, please?

sdg213

Coupon-mad said:

sdg213 said:

Operator: Horizon 
Reason: Non-compliance with POFA 

POPLA assessment and decision

17/12/2024

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

***********

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay period. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN does not meet the wording requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). • This is comparable to an earlier POPLA decision whereby the case was allowed. • They transpose the wording from this decision. • The wording in respect of when a period of 28 days (before the keeper can be pursued) begins a day too early. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant largely reiterates their primary grounds. 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 presented a technical challenge to the parking operator’s application of PoFA. The parking operator is reliant on the correct application of PoFA in this case as driver liability cannot be established. As such, in respect of the 28 day period given for the PCN to be paid or for the driver’s details to be provided, I must note that Notice to Keeper in this case does state: “the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge”. However, PoFA stipulates (at paragraph 9 subparagraph (2) (f)) that this period must be given from: “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. In respect of the presumed date of issue, paragraph 9 subparagraph (6) of PoFA advises: “A notice sent by post is to be presumed…to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted”. As such, I must uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of the wording used by the parking operator in this case, as this sets the 28 day timescale from the presumed date of issue, whereas PoFA stipulates this must begin from the day after. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Yay!  POPLA actually got it!

Could you give the POPLA Code and date of decision here, so others with that Horizon NTK can cite it, please?

Of course - the code is 3762434330 and date of decision was 17/12/2024.

Coupon-mad

Everyone with a Horizon case should use the same argument. Thanks for being the guinea pig! We knew the argument was right, but POPLA assessors are not always that bright!

sdg213

Coupon-mad said:

Everyone with a Horizon case should use the same argument. Thanks for being the guinea pig! We knew the argument was right, but POPLA assessors are not always that bright!

Would sharing excerpts from my appeal help for a template?