POPLA Decisions

userno478

Euro car park Crewe

Thread link https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6573948/pcn-at-euro-car-park-crewe/p1

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display/permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the keeper of the vehicle, and the driver has not been identified. • The driver paid at the machine, received a receipt but the machine did not display an error, as such the driver was unaware of any issues. • The payment failed slip should not be designed so that is mistaken for a parking tariff receipt. • The payment failed slip was mistaken for a tariff receipt. • The PCN is in breach of this requirement and the spirit of the code. • They would like to see evidence the operator has complied with section 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. • They would like to see evidence of landowner authority in accordance with section 14.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (Code). • The appellant has referred to section 19.11 of the Code of Practice in relation to surface markings and states it’s just gravel and no bay markings are present. • They would like to see evidence that ANPR equipment has been maintained in accordance with section 7.1 of the Code. • The appellant would like to see evidence the operator has complied with the requirements under clause 17 regarding training records. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states the receipt is not one thing or another. It’s confusing as it states please display on dashboard at the top, but void transaction at the bottom. It’s designed to confuse and not in keeping with clause 6.2 of the Code of Practice. The landowner document does not name the landowner and is not signed. No training records have been provided. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of the payment receipt and image of a sign and site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate no driver details have been provided. As such, I need to establish if the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. 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 must be adhered to. I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 19th October 2024, and the PCN was issued on 25th October 2024, well within 14 days specified in PoFA. The Notice to Keeper goes on to state that if after 28 days the full amount has not been paid and they do not know the name and address of the driver, they have the right to purse the registered keeper. It also instructs the keeper to pass the notice to the driver. As such, I must conclude that the operator has complied with the requirements of PoFA. I acknowledge the appellants evidence which shows the drivers intention to pay for parking and was not aware they hadn’t. The receipt shows ‘VOID TRANSACTION RECEIPT’ near the top and ‘NOT A PARKING TICKET’ at the bottom. I acknowledge that it does state ‘PLEASE DISPLAY TICKET ON DASHBOARD’ but the receipt does make it clear that no payment was taken, and the ticket is void. I appreciate the appellant believes this is not adequate, but I believe any motorist looking at the receipt would know that no payment had been made and that the ticket was void. It would be ideal for the machine to alert motorists of this, but as the ticket does clearly state it’s void, it’s more than suitable to alert a motorist that no payment had been made. The appellant has referred to section 6.2 of the Code of Practice, but this refers to compliance statements and the fact a letter is needed from a director. It does not relate to the grounds raised and as the breach occurred after 1st October 2024, the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (code) applies, not the BPA Code of Practice. I must add that the BPA Code of Practice does apply to signage as operators have until the end of 2026 to update their signs in accordance with the Code. Section 6.2 of the Code relates to Pay and Display, note 2 states: a “payment failed” slip should be designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt. Whilst it’s clear the receipt is the same size and shape as a receipt, it cannot be mistaken for a valid payment receipt as it clear states VOID TRANSACTION and NOT A PARKING TICKET. The appellant has raised section 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 19.2 relates to entrance signs and states: Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 relates to specific terms signs and states: Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided date stamped images of signs throughout the site and upon entry which make the terms clear, and motorists must pay for their time on site. The entrance signs advises that charges apply and the signs throughout the site show what those payments are. The operator has also provided a site map showing the location of each sign. It’s clear the driver was fully aware of the signs and the need to pay as they thought they had paid. As such, I must conclude that the operator has fully complied with the Code above. The operator has provided a list to demonstrate others paid during the time the driver was on site, but no valid payment was made by the driver to park on site. POPLA must assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. I note the appellant has raised section 19.11, 7.1 and clause 17 of the code. I must first address section 19.11 which again is referring to the old code not the current code. I must make clear that whilst there are no surface markings on site, it has no bearing on my decision or indeed the PCN as it was not issued for failing to park within a marked bay. Section 7.1 of the Code relates to use of photographic evidence technology and states: Parking operators must ensure that the equipment and systems used to capture photographic evidence in respect of controlled land are fit for purpose, maintained to a good standard in accordance with the manufacturers’ operating requirements and those of the ATA to which the operator belongs, and are synchronised so that they record accurately photographic evidence of whether a parking charge is due. NOTE: Information about the design, security and maintenance of equipment and systems should be recorded and maintained for inspection by authorised bodies. As POPLA is not an authorised body we cannot request this information, this needs to be requested by the British Parking Association. Perhaps the appellant may be better served in speaking with the BPA www.britishparking.co.uk to request the information. If it can provide the information it will do, but please note this information may only be provided to the BPA for review. Clause 17 of the Code in relation to training cannot be requested by POPLA either, this is sensitive information relating to the operator and their training practices. The appellant may wish to contact the operator directly via their complaints process https://www.eurocarparks.com/complaints-policy/ to ask for this information, but they may not divulge it. They can also refer to the BPA to ask, but again, it may not be divulged. Section 14.1 of the Code relates to relationship with landowner and states: Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s). The operator has provided a landowner document which stipulates the land in question, Pedley street, Crewe. Stipulates the landowner, ECP Holdings (the client) the fact they authorise ECP to manage the site as stated above. The agreement runs for 5 years, initially from July 2017 and renews automatically. Whilst I am unable to read the signatures due to redaction, it’s clear it has been signed by both parties and I accept the operator has authority from the landowner to operator on the land in question. If the appellant does not believe this to be correct, they needed to provide evidence to dispute this at the time of reviewing the evidence. Whilst I appreciate the points raised, it does not exempt the driver from the terms and conditions. As no payment was made to park on site, despite the fact the driver thought they had paid, I must conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the driver broke them by failing to pay for parking. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Coupon-mad

userno478 said:

Euro car park Crewe

Thread link https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6573948/pcn-at-euro-car-park-crewe/p1 

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display/permit.

Assessor summary of your case

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

 • They are the keeper of the vehicle, and the driver has not been identified.

 • The driver paid at the machine, received a receipt but the machine did not display an error, as such the driver was unaware of any issues.

 • The payment failed slip should not be designed so that is mistaken for a parking tariff receipt.

 • The payment failed slip was mistaken for a tariff receipt. 

 • The PCN is in breach of this requirement and the spirit of the code.

 • They would like to see evidence the operator has complied with section 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

 • They would like to see evidence of landowner authority in accordance with section 14.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (Code).

 • The appellant has referred to section 19.11 of the Code of Practice in relation to surface markings and states it’s just gravel and no bay markings are present.

 • They would like to see evidence that ANPR equipment has been maintained in accordance with section 7.1 of the Code.

 • The appellant would like to see evidence the operator has complied with the requirements under clause 17 regarding training records.

The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states the receipt is not one thing or another. It’s confusing as it states please display on dashboard at the top, but void transaction at the bottom. It’s designed to confuse and not in keeping with clause 6.2 of the Code of Practice.

The landowner document does not name the landowner and is not signed. No training records have been provided.

The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of the payment receipt and image of a sign and site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination

Assessor supporting rational for decision

... I acknowledge the appellants evidence which shows the drivers intention to pay for parking and was not aware they hadn’t. The receipt shows ‘VOID TRANSACTION RECEIPT’ near the top and ‘NOT A PARKING TICKET’ at the bottom. I acknowledge that it does state ‘PLEASE DISPLAY TICKET ON DASHBOARD’ but the receipt does make it clear that no payment was taken, and the ticket is void. I appreciate the appellant believes this is not adequate, but I believe any motorist looking at the receipt would know that no payment had been made and that the ticket was void. It would be ideal for the machine to alert motorists of this, but as the ticket does clearly state it’s void, it’s more than suitable to alert a motorist that no payment had been made.

The appellant has referred to section 6.2 of the Code of Practice, but this refers to compliance statements and the fact a letter is needed from a director. It does not relate to the grounds raised and as the breach occurred after 1st October 2024, the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (code) applies, not the BPA Code of Practice. I must add that the BPA Code of Practice does apply to signage as operators have until the end of 2026 to update their signs in accordance with the Code. Section 6.2 of the Code relates to Pay and Display, note 2 states: a “payment failed” slip should be designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt.

Whilst it’s clear the receipt is the same size and shape as a receipt, it cannot be mistaken for a valid payment receipt as it clear states VOID TRANSACTION and NOT A PARKING TICKET.

...

I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Ignore that rubbish!

Clearly POPLA haven't heard of the CRA 2015 (the law) that says that ambiguous terms and consumer notices MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE WAY THAT MOST FAVOURS THE CONSUMER.

That little slip mimics a p&d ticket and even tells you to display it on the dashboard. Nobody READS a p&d ticket, you just plonk it on the dash and off you go.

The POPLA Assessor even admits that the slip/receipt is ambiguous:

I acknowledge the appellants evidence which shows the drivers intention to pay for parking and was not aware they hadn’t.
The receipt shows ‘VOID TRANSACTION RECEIPT’ near the top and ‘NOT A PARKING TICKET’ at the bottom.
I acknowledge that it does state ‘PLEASE DISPLAY TICKET ON DASHBOARD’ but the receipt does make it clear that no payment was taken, and the ticket is void.

I appreciate the appellant believes this is not adequate, but I believe any motorist looking at the receipt would know that no payment had been made and that the ticket was void.

It would be ideal for the machine to alert motorists of this, but as the ticket does clearly state it’s void, it’s more than suitable to alert a motorist that no payment had been made.

... the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (code) applies, not the BPA Code of Practice. I must add that the BPA Code of Practice does apply to signage as operators have until the end of 2026 to update their signs in accordance with the Code.

Section 6.2 of the Code relates to Pay and Display, note 2 states: a “payment failed” slip should be designed so that it is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt.

Whilst it’s clear the receipt is the same size and shape as a receipt, it cannot be mistaken for a valid payment receipt as it clearly states VOID TRANSACTION and NOT A PARKING TICKET.

Well it WAS mistaken for one!

Why exactly do they think the DLUHC included that paragraph in the 2022 Code (also in the Joint Code) if it means nothing?

 POPLA are just ignoring the entire meaning and making up their own interpretation of this 'consumer notice' despite the Consumer Rights Act 2015 saying THEY CANNOT because it must be interpreted the way the consumer did, in their favour not the operator's favour.

The law doesn't let the interpretation become nuanced or go the other way. There's no discretion open to the Assessor.

It is an ambiguous 'consumer notice'!  

What exactly do they expect a ticket that IS 'liable to be mistaken' should look like then? 

ex09053

UKPA - Car park location: The Colonnades, 619 Purley Way, Croydon CR0 4RQ

Contravention: Overstay

Decision: Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist exceeded the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

- The appellant states the ANPR system is unreliable and not clearly advertised on the signage in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. - The appellant states the operator has failed to apply the appropriate consideration and grace periods. - The appellant states the signage is unclear and does not meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant states the land boundaries within the site are not clearly defined. - The appellant has questioned the operator’s conduct. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds. The appellant has provided images of the site to support their grounds.

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 land boundaries within the site are not clearly defined. Upon reviewing the operator’s site map, there are areas of the site which are not covered within the operator’s marked land boundary. There are bays around the KFC building which are not within the boundary as well as a small car park towards the upper right of the site map. The operator has not advised if there are exemption cameras to capture vehicles entering these areas. Due to this, I cannot confirm the movements of the vehicle in question, and I cannot be certain that it was parked within the operator’s boundary and was bound to the terms stated. It is the operator’s responsibility to rebut the appellant’s grounds with evidence but in this instance, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently done this. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. 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.

tfo1998

Euro Car Parks - Preston

Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6572400/popla-operator-evidence-advice#latest

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised a detailed appeal, and I have summarised the following points from their grounds of appeal.

• There is no evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has detailed what information a landowner contract should contain, referring to Section 14.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.

• The car park is operating unlawfully without planning permission and therefore without consent of the landowner (specifically relating to BPA CoP 14.1.g). This site, Saul Street Car Park, has been operating without planning permission since 11/09/2022, therefore the original landowner authority (if it ever existed) likely expired on this date considering the land could no longer be used as a car park following this date. As a result, Euro Car Parks do not have permission to operate nor enforce on this land.

• The operator has breached BPA: Members Code of Professional Conduct, putting consumers at a material disadvantage and bringing the private parking business into disrepute. The operator has failed to comply with the BPA code 4.1.1 as they are not compliant with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Preston City Council planning legislation, they are currently being investigated under enforcement procedures as a result.

• Failure to identify a major keying error in line with BPA Code of Practice. They provided the operator with evidence showing a parking duration of 12 hours, expiring at 9:29pm and they were under the impression that this confirmed they had successfully paid for parking as for something to ‘expire’ it has to have started. The appellant has said the operator failed to identify there had been a keying error (in this instance, pressing ‘pay’ which was not displayed on their screen nor a replicated screen created on 05/12/2024 which they attached as evidence. Euro Car Parks could easily have identified this was a keying error at this point as they had evidence of them entering their location code, the correct VRM and card details, they however continued to pursue a £60 charge in breach of BPA Code of Practice.

• The appellant has provided a weblink relating to a keying error scenario from POPLAs website.

• The appellant has said the paybyphone customer service has said they would support empathy for a mistake being made due to neurodivergence. They have said they also said they could see a quote was gained and their vehicle registration and card details keyed in. The appellant has said paybyphone said they recognised their intent to buy parking on the day.

• The appellant has said it is clear this instance was a keying error as there was a clear intent to buy parking, they just failed to press one button.

• The appellant provided evidence of another transaction at this site to show they always pay to park.

• The operator (Euro Car Parks) has failed to operate in line with the Equality Act 2010, specifically relating to disability. One of the main symptoms of ADHD is inattentiveness. There was no attempt by the operator to make reasonable adjustments, as is their duty under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore they have been discriminated against and put at a material disadvantage.

• They have consulted their Member of Parliament who also supports the withdrawal of the PCN, and they have contacted the operator, but they are yet to hear of their response.

• There is also an ongoing complaint with the British Parking Association (reference BPA-058610) which unfortunately has not been able to conclude before the deadline for submitting their POPLA appeal.

• As Euro Car Parks are operating in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if this appeal is rejected and Euro Car Parks pursue the matter through the courts, POPLA are complicit in allowing Euro Car Parks to profit from an illegal contract which is contrary to the Laws of England and Wales. The appellant has provided a copy of the title register document, a copy of the email correspondence with the council and paybyphone, a copy of a document relating to planning permission and screenshots of the payment app. This has been considered in my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their case. They have said the operator incorrectly quotes in their evidence pack on page 13 "Statement: The appellant stated that ticket was purchased." Their grounds for appeal have ignored, unaddressed and not responded to nor refuted. The landowner agreement does not comply with BPA Code, and they have ignored a keying error. In the landowner agreement provided by the operator there is only a start date, and no end date or duration of permission specified as a result this landowner agreement clearly breaches BPA Code. There is an apparent falsification of statement by the operator in their evidence pack. The operator states on page 15 , "We note that in your letter you state that the parking charge notice (PCN) is not enforceable as you have currently not entered into a ‘contract’ with Euro Car Parks. I would respectfully remind that contract law applies in this instance". This is a complete falsification. As is the operator’s arrogance, they still have not applied for planning permission to operate when they easily could have as they know it has lapsed. They are clearly more than happy to operate unlawfully and rip off motorists. The operator has had the arrogance to think they can gaslight POPLA into dismissing an appeal based on submitting a page-long appeal about how an ANPR camera works and having signs up in the car park when neither of these were grounds for appeal. Common sense would say if the operator disagreed with a point of appeal, they would refute it or provide evidence against it; the lack of refutation surely means their points of appeal are agreed facts and the appeal should be successful.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions. The signage at this site states charges apply for parking. It also states if the terms and conditions are breached a PCN for £100 can be issued.

The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 6 hours and 3 minutes and did not pay for their stay.

I note the appellant has said they have consulted their Member of Parliament who supports the withdrawal of the PCN, and they have contacted the operator on their behalf, but they are yet to hear of their response. As the PCN had not been cancelled at the time this appeal was assigned to me, I will continue with my assessment.

I acknowledge the appellant has said the operator has not addressed all of their grounds of appeal, and they have included incorrect quotes and statements in their case file. POPLAs role is only to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator in line with the terms and conditions on site. We have no influence on how they operate, including how they handle their appeals. This is something the appellant could raise with the operator directly.

I also acknowledge the appellant has said they always pay for parking. I appreciate this, however any other occasions they have parked has no bearing on my decision as POPLA assesses appeals on a case-by-case basis. This assessment is regarding the PCN that this appeal is for, and any evidence included only.

I acknowledge the appellant did not intend on breaching the terms and conditions of the site at the time in question and I appreciate this, however it cannot be ignored that they did. I also appreciate the appellant thought they had paid for parking at the time, but the fact remains that they hadn’t. I understand the appellant has ADHD, and they have explained this can cause inattentiveness, and as the payment app showed the expiry time of the parking session, their vehicle registration and card details, they thought the session had been booked, and they have provided screenshots of the app to show this. They have said they were unaware at the time that there was a button they had not pressed. I do understand and empathise with this.

The parking operator has explained and shown in their case file that the appellant registered for an account on the payment app and added their details, but they did not purchase a parking session.

In their appeal the appellant has said the operator has not complied with the Equality Act and they have not made any reasonable adjustments. Whilst I appreciate the appellant having ADHD may have contributed to them not completing the process and therefore not making the payment, I am satisfied the PCN was not issued to them because they have ADHD, and therefore I am satisfied they have not been discriminated by the PCN being issued. The parking operator could make reasonable adjustments possibly relating to a delay in payment, or leaving the site, or if a payment has been made for the incorrect vehicle registration. However in this case, no payment was made at all, and therefore the appellant was not authorised to park on site. 

I also appreciate the appellant has said the paybyphone customer service has said they would support empathy for a mistake being made due to neurodivergence, and they provided a copy of an email to show this. Paybyphone is a third-party payment company. The parking operator does have the right to exercise discretion in regard to withdrawing or cancelling a charge, but it is outside POPLAs jurisdiction to become involved with a parking operator’s decision in this matter. Whilst I do understand the appellants ADHD symptoms can affect them day to day. Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. This includes ensuring a valid payment has been made for their stay. When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. As the appellant remained parked on site, they accepted the contract on offer and also the consequence of not complying with this. If a payment was successful, it is likely a receipt or confirmation of payment would be shown on the app or sent by email. At the time, the appellant could have checked for this to make sure they had paid.

I note the appellant has said as they did not press the button to complete the payment, and the operator should consider this as a keying error. A keying error relates to a payment being made for the incorrect vehicle registration. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The Appeals Charter is a statement on how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Such as if a driver has paid the tariff or registered their vehicle but they have swapped characters, have digits missing or have entered the wrong registration completely. In this case, the appellant did not make a payment for an incorrect vehicle registration, and therefore the operator was not required to reduce the charge to £20.

I acknowledge the appellant has raised landowner authority in their appeal, and they have said the operator does not have planning permission. They have said the operator has breached the BPA: Members Code of Professional Conduct and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The appellant has said as Euro Car Parks are operating in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if this appeal is rejected and Euro Car Parks pursue the matter through the courts, POPLA are complicit in allowing Euro Car Parks to profit from an illegal contract which is contrary to the Laws of England and Wales. They have also said they have been in correspondence with the council about this and provided copies of emails to show this. The appellant has also provided copies of documents relating to title registers and planning permission. They have also said their concerns relating to this have been raised with the council and the BPA.

POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning application or lack thereof. Therefore this is something the appellant will need to continue to pursue outside of our appeal process. As mentioned at the beginning of this assessment, my decision will focus on the other aspects of the appeal in order to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. Section 14.1 of The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has provided a copy of its agreement with the landowner. This can be seen on page 21 of the evidence pack. This is a witness statement, which is acceptable. This agreement states the start date was 1 April 2021, and that the parking operator is authorised to carry out parking enforcement at this site, and this is signed on behalf of the parking operator and the landowner.

I appreciate this agreement does not contain all of the details the appellant has mentioned. However as this is a witness statement, it is not required to contain all of the details a landowner contract would. I also appreciate there is no end date for the agreement shown.

However at POPLA, we accept all evidence from both parties in good faith, and unless proven otherwise, we assume it to be correct. In this case, as no evidence has been provided to show otherwise, I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant did not purchase a valid pay and display/permit, and therefore they 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. Any questions relating to payment of the charge should be directed to the operator.

———————

Interestingly POPLA can’t comment on Planning Law but can determine I wasn’t discriminated against in line with EqA 2010…

Umkomaas

@tfo1998 - any chance you might break up those to huge slabs of text into a number of paragraphs to make the decision more readable please?

tfo1998

Umkomaas said:

@tfo1998 - any chance you might break up those to huge slabs of text into a number of paragraphs to make the decision more readable please?

I’ve tried to reformat - hope that helps and is more readable?

Coupon-mad

tfo1998 said:

Umkomaas said:

@tfo1998 - any chance you might break up those to huge slabs of text into a number of paragraphs to make the decision more readable please?

I’ve tried to reformat - hope that helps and is more readable?

That's better!

Well ECP have shot themselves in the foot by losing you as a repeat customer then.  No paying this.

SpinninginInfinity

Umkomaas said:

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. 

Many thanks for this Umkomaas ,and very much appreciated. The above relates to POPLA Decisions - Page 466 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

As a follow on I also submitted a second POPLA  appeal at the same (hospital) site for an event a couple of months later. That one was withdrawn from POPLA by Euro Car Parks for the reason "Driver not named" (Yeah right).

My angle of attack was Non- Complaint Notice to Keeper under POFA 2012, Strict proof that a contract existed between operator and land owner enabling the issuing of parking tickets and that the operator had mentioned and supplied photos as part of an issued Subject Access Request that they had used ANPR despite the site having absolutely no signage mentioning ANPR and it's usage under the Data Protection Act 2018. Strict proof was requested that the use of ANPR had been demonstrated via the sites signage.

So now might be the time to dig deeper

Faheyr

I’ve put my mind into an appeal to parking charge from C.E.
I put every argument I could find on the internet to help my case. I went back to the offending car park and found an area lacking in visible signage. 

Don’t know if it was this that won it for me. 

The appeal was rejected by C.E.
However when I appealed to POPLA the wisdom of C.E. Decided not to proceed any further. 

I can now celebrate and have confidence to challenge the private parking agents going forward. 

This forum has helped me.
now I think that everyone should appeal.
there should be no fear, this scam of a reduced charge if paid early is just that

Singularity1991

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.

I have recently received a PCN from Civil Enforcement, I overstayed in the parking for 5 minutes (paid for parking till 13:53 left at 13:58). My appeal has been rejected by CE.

I want to appeal to POPLA on the following grounds;
1. No mention of date the notice was sent to me, there is only mention of issue date (violation of POFA paragraph 9 subparagraph 2 (i)
2. On the front page of the PCN I have been given 28 days to complete payment from the date of issue of the notice. (violation of POFA paragraph 9 subparagraph 2 (f)) Although, on the back it mentions that I have 28 days from the day after the date on which this notice is given. Again, there is no mention of a date when this notice is given/posted.
3. I overstayed in the parking for 5 minutes (proof of payment via Ringo app available), and as such the fine imposed does not justify the amount of extra time spent in the car park. This is an unjust and cut-throat method to harass and rob people out of their hard-earned money.

Is it ok to submit an appeal as above. Will really appreciate any advice. Date of issue was within 3rd week of March.

Many thanks.