POPLA Decisions

pigwidgeon

My POPLA appeal was successful, parking fine withdrawn.

I had parked at angeloume way in Bury, a small private car park wedged within a larger council owned car park. Two different meters but both in the same area, paid for the council owned car park by mistake due to poor signage. Was sent parking fine from Smart Parking. Much thanks to forum users here, I used the single line: This operator does not have a contact at the site to issue PCN's.

Appeal was sent on Monday and fine withdrawn today.

Huge thanks to everyone for helping, you've saved me a whole lot of stress. Honestly, I am so grateful. 

lovediy

Coupon-mad asked me to post my appeal decision here - so here it is: -

Good news. My appeal was successful. Thanks everyone for your input and support through this. It took a long time for POPLA to assess the appeal and reach a decision, but we got there in the end.

My take on the decision is that MET did not disprove my evidence that the car park was within Stansted Airport’s boundary. Also, that they did not prove the land was relevant land, after I pointed out that they did not acquire the land from Stansted, but that they lease it from a third party, namely Tabacon Stansted 2, who obtained the land from Stansted; and that it is incumbent on MET to get evidence of the contract between Tabacon Stansted 2 that proves the car park is on relevant land.

The assessor seems to imply that it is incumbent on MET to prove the car park is outside Stansted Airport’s boundary and/or that it is on relevant land, which it failed to do.

The following is the decision from POPLA:-

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being longer than the period od parking that had bene paid for or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that: • The parking operator can not pursue the keeper of the vehicle as it relates to a car park within the boundary of statutory land. • They are unable to use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it is not relevant land. • The car park sits within the boundary of Stansted Airport so it is under statutory control, under Airports Act 1986, even if it is a private car park. • They have evidence of the land being within the airport boundary from the UK Government and Stansted Airport. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has expanded on their grounds within their comments regarding the landowner contract. The appellant has provided a boundary image of Stansted Airport showing the location of the car park within the boundary as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has provided a map suggesting a boundary of Stansted airport, and the area within which the vehicle was parked is within the boundary. The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, however no evidence has been provided by the parking operator to show the car park is located on relevant land. I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the boundary set out on the map provided by the appellant is incorrect. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the airport boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence before me. 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.

LDast

Please don't redact the assessor name or the POPLA reference no. The assessor name is in the public domain and the POPLA reference number is useful for reference.

Some assessors are useless and have little or flawed knowledge of contract law whilst others appear to be much more knowledgeable and fair.

EvenBiggerPhil

So what do you do if you don't use POPLA??

EvenBiggerPhil

Sorry should have said...
Coupon-mad said "I almost never bother with POPLA for friends & relatives.  Most people lose and it's better not to bother unless you have an obvious winning point, like a NTK being non-POFA."

Fruitcake

Wait for a court claim and fight it where you know you will (hopefully) get a fair and independent hearing as opposed to the 40% chance of winning at PoPLA, or the 4% chance of winning at the IAS stage.

Not everyone is as court savvy as M'Lady C-m, so most people prefer to appeal and hope they win.

wibblebibbleboo

Daughter received PCN from ParkingEye for spending 7 minutes attempting to pay for parking at Poole Quay Hotel car park on 6th Sept 2024.

If you want any more details i can post more, but here is the successful POPLA decision.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Alex James

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for failing to purchase a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The operator has issued a PCN for a 7 minute duration at the site. • This is shown on the ANPR images, however the vehicle made multiple entries and the operator has not answered their question in relation to any further evidence showing time stamped images. • When the driver first entered the site, it was busy so after driving around trying to find a bay the one way system directed them out, but they did manage to find a space on their second attempt. • It was raining and the driver had their dog with them so after preparing their dog they went in search of payment information, but the signage is out of date as the hotel is closed, and although there is an option to pay by mobile app, the sign doesn’t state which one they use. • They say there is an app advertised on the signs within the car park, but the driver made multiple attempts to download it but was unsuccessful, and the ticket machines throughout the car park seem to be out of service. • Having been unable to download the app with no other way to pay the driver decided to leave the car park with their dog and park elsewhere. • They have provided a PDF with more details regarding the signage and validity of the PCN. • They say the operator has a contract to manage the car park but according to the local newspaper the hotel closed six months ago. • They have asked questions whether the operator adheres to the British Parking Association’s (BPA) code of practice including Section 9.2, 9.5, 13 in relation to a consideration and grace periods, and appendix B. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail when referring to each section of the operator’s case file. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal. • Photo of main sign on entrance. • Photo of sign in the car park. • PDF with full explanation of the case. • Photo showing the incorrect landowner. • Screenshot of email from daughter. • Photo of the notices on reception door. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has referred to various sections of the BPA’s code of practice, however This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) and is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with so this is what I will use to summarize my reasons. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. Section 5.1 Annex B lists the following conditions and states a period of 5 minutes must be allowed, b) the time required for a driver to identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditions, or the consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not invited. c) the time required for a driver to identify and comply with requirements for payment; d) the time required for a driver to leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms and conditions. The appellant has explained the driver entered the site but had trouble finding a bay. The appellant says the driver exited their car with their dog in the rain and attempted to pay but had issues downloading the mobile app. After consideration, I am satisfied the 7 minute duration at the site is reasonable considering the circumstances that have been explained and the driver did the correct thing by leaving the car park when they realized they couldn’t comply, so therefore didn’t agree to the terms of contract by using the car park for any other purpose. As such, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal and provided evidence, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

wibblebibbleboo

Sorry, i put the wrong date on previous post, the incident occurred on 6th Sept 2024.

Umkomaas

wibblebibbleboo said:

Sorry, i put the wrong date on previous post, the incident occurred on 6th Sept 2025.

Hey, time traveller - that's 6 months into the future!  Seems you've put the wrong date in again! 😄

wibblebibbleboo

Whoops - fixed it now!