POPLA Decisions

Bolognese

My POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. Unfortunately I didn't date and timestamp my evidence photos!

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver was parked in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal. The appellant questions the adequacy of the signs on site. They dispute that the PCN complies with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They advise that no grace period has been allowed. They question the adequacy of the vehicle images which are on the PCN. They have asked to see evidence that the operator has a valid contract to manage the site. They believe that increasing the charge after an appeal is raised with POPLA breaches the Consumer Right Act 2015.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. As the operator does not know who the driver is it must use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the keeper liable for the PCN. I have compared the PCN to the requirements of Paragraph 9. The notice contains all of the requirements wording and was sent out within the required time scales. The notice has two date and time stamped images which and therefore do state a period of parking. Within their appeal the appellant has made reference to a very old version of the British Parking Association code of practice. This is no longer valid. As such I will be considering the requirements of the British Parking Association code of practice 2024 and the Single Code of Practice where relevant. The appellant has provided images of the site but these are not date and time stamped so I have no way to tell when they were taken. The operator has provided date and time stamped images of the site. Section 19 of the British Parking Association code of practice 2024 sets the requirements for signs. The operator has shown that there was an entrance sign in place although I do note from the images taken on the date of the parking event that this may have been missing. Although a entrance sign is a requirement of Section 19.1 of the code of practice a lack of one does not invalidate the parking contract. In accordance with Section 19.3 of the code of practice I can see that there are prominent white signs around this site. These signs were in direct view of where the operator’s date and time stamped images show the vehicle was parked. These signs are written in plain English so are easy to understand. They run down the length of fence next to where the appellant was parked and were directly in front of them so I am satisfied that they were seen. I note that this whole site is managed using the same terms and conditions as such the points the appellant has raised within PAS 232 are not relevant to the outcome of this appeal. The signs advise that drivers must park within marked bays or a parking charge of £100 will be issued. As the driver was not parked in a bay they are parked in a no stopping area. Annex B.1 of the Single Code of practice advises that no consideration period shall apply in a no stopping area. As the driver was parked in a road and the operator’s images show that they were not in the vehicle I am satisfied that they were not spending time reviewing the terms and conditions. As such no consideration period shall apply in this case. There is no 10 minute grace period at a start of a parking contract. This only applies if all other terms and conditions have been met. Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice requires the operator to hold a valid contract to manage a site. In this case the operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract it holds showing that it has the relevant authority to manage the site. Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it clear that there can be no significant imbalance between parties but in this case the terms and conditions were made clear to the driver from the start by the signs. The driver decided to use the car park. As such the driver accepted the terms and conditions so it is clear there was no imbalance in this case. Further to this the court case of Parking Eye Ltd V Beavis confirmed that parking charges were fair as long as they were clearly displayed and did not need to represent a loss suffered by the landowner as their purpose was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. I feel it important to confirm that the amount of the PCN did not increase due to the appeal. The driver was offered a discount which was withdrawn due to their appeal for the start of the process to the end of the appeal with POPLA the PCN has been issued for £100. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver was parked in a no parking area 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

Ignore a lost POPLA appeal every time.

All the time this industry remains unregulated, sit tight and ignore debt demands, contacting them only if you move house or get a LBC.

f5f5f5f5f5

I won with the single line defence for POPLA reserved for Smart Parking Ltd. 

"The operator does not have a contract at this site to issue pcns"

I wasn't sure if it would work for me, as I'm one the the rare ones with a POFA compliant letter. But it still works even then. Happy days.

Dear Mr XXXX,

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

Umkomaas

f5f5f5f5f5 said:

I won with the single line defence for POPLA reserved for Smart Parking Ltd. 

"The operator does not have a contract at this site to issue pcns"

I wasn't sure if it would work for me, as I'm one the the rare ones with a POFA compliant letter. But it still works even then. Happy days.

Dear Mr XXXX,

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

Like magic!  Well done on trusting and implementing forum advice. 👍

Philosophy56

Hi all,
I'm new to this forum. Apologies if this is not the right place to post these questions.

I'm just drafting my POPLA appeal and want to clarify;

-one of my appeal points is that the NTK is not POFA compliant; should I submit the NTK as evidence for POPLA to review, or do I just need to discuss where it is not POFA compliant, without necessarily submitting the NTK?

-where the operator has provided an incorrect post code for the location, shall I just say that this is incorrect, or do I also need to say, the car was actually parked at XYZ and not in XYZ

-if i suspect that no planning permission has been sought for the land, should I try to provide evidence of this via the council, or do I just need to state that the operator needs to prove that they sought planning permission.

sorry for all the questions! thanks for much in advance! 

Le_Kirk

This thread is for POPLA decisions not for questions, suggest you start a new thread of your own giving a few details; did you appeal to the PPC and receive a rejection and POPLA code?

Philosophy56

Okay I will do now Le_Kirk, thank you.
Yes I appealed to the PPC and they rejected it (of course), and have been provided with a POPLA code.

number8elephant

POPLA appeal successful. Got a lot of advice and guidance from this forum, so very much appreciated. 

Eternity Fire & Security Ltd tried to issue a PCN despite the fact that there was zero lighting on the signage or pay machine in their car park, thus meaning the driver did not realise that it was a pay and display car park. The company tried to submit photographic evidence in their evidence pack of their signage with solar powered lights on, but these were not there at the time of the alleged parking offence or even at a later date when the driver went to collect their own evidence. The company were basically lying in their evidence to try and secure the PCN against the driver of the vehicle. Absolute bunch of charlatans! I think there were 7 different point of defence raised in the appeal and I am pretty certain that a few of the other ones would have won the appeal with POPLA too, but it was the lighting issue raised in argument No. 1 that won it.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

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

Assessor summary of your case

- The appellant states the operator’s site is not sufficiently lit to illuminate signage in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Appendix B. They state they have provided their own images which show the site is not lit and signage is not visible. The appellant advises they have a statement from a local councillor who confirms the lack of lighting. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation. - The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice in relation to the ANPR systems and the ANPR systems are not reliable. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant states the site does not have planning permission for ANPR. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds. The appellant has provided images of the signage at night, an email from a local councilor and a screenshot from the council planning database.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. - The appellant states the operator’s site is not sufficiently lit to illuminate signage in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Appendix B. They state they have provided their own images which show the site is not lit and signage is not visible. The appellant advises they have a statement from a local councillor who confirms the lack of lighting. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. The ANPR images provided by the operator shows the vehicle entered and exited during the hours of darkness. The appellant has provided images which show the site has no little to no lighting around the site and therefore the signage is not illuminated. Although I acknowledge the operator has provided images of signage with a little lit affixed to it, these are not time and date stamped and therefore I cannot conclude if these are in working order. The appellant provided a witness statement from a local councillor who also confirmed that the lighting on for several months. Upon reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s grounds to demonstrate that the signage meets the requirements of Appendix B. Accordingly, I must allow this 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.

munaafg

POPLA appeal withdrawn by Euro Car Parks Ltd for a leased car overstay using NTH POFA incompliance

Ref thread with case submission details: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6582323/jd-parking-euro-car-parks-parking-charge-notices/p2 

Thank you all so much, especially Coupon_mad and Gr1pr!

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

M03

Euro Car Parks - Knowle Park Cranleigh

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81328938

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase a valid ticket.

Assessor summary of your case:

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • There weren’t any visible signs by the space in which the vehicle was parked. • There weren’t any signs from the walk between the space and the park entrance. • The text on the signage is very small and the amount of the charge is not in a large font. • There weren’t any clear entrance signs; the entrance sign was not clear or prominent. • It is not clear to which direction the entrance sign applies. • There are multiple directions of travel and separate car parks. • They are unhappy with the operator’s

response to their appeal and the evidence provided/lack thereof. • There isn’t any evidence of the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the landowner’s behalf. • The notice to keeper does not meet the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The operator has failed to comply with ICO guidelines applicable to automatic number plate recognition. • The automatic number plate recognition is neither reliable nor accurate. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the automatic number plate recognition data will be used for. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided photographs of the entry to the site and the car

park. This evidence has been considered in making my determination. Within their appeal, the appellant has also provided links to various websites. It is important to advise that we are unable to accept links to websites as evidence due to our cybersecurity policy; our website requests that physical evidence is submitted at the first stage. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal and provided comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not purchase a valid ticket. Within their appeal, the appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site. They have specifically stated that there weren’t any visible signs by the space in which the vehicle was parked or from the walk between the space and the park entrance. With regards to signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. Section 19.3 specially states that signs must be easy to see, read and understand. Within their appeal, the appellant has provided photographs of the surrounding area of where the vehicle was parked. Having reviewed these images, there do not appear to be many signs. In response to the appellant’s grounds of appeal, the operator has provided photographs of the signage at the site along with a site map to demonstrate the distribution throughout. While I can see that there are signs, I can also see that there are areas in which there aren’t any. Having compared the appellant’s images of where the motorist parked to the site map, it is evident that they parked in an area without any terms and conditions signage nearby. Although the appellant’s own evidence shows that there is entrance

signage, there is a requirement that there be succinct accompanying terms and conditions signage located throughout the site for motorists to read before choosing whether to park. In light of the evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the operator has rebutted the appellant’s claims and demonstrated that there is succinct signage throughout all areas of the site. As such, I have been unable to determine whether the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review and comply with the terms of parking. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, evidence and comments, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.