POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Welcome! You won't win v CEL by saying their NTK is non-PIFA so concentrate on how ling it took you to pay on arrival and why. But we can't discuss that here.

You need to start a thread and delete the above post from here please and I'll delete this reply.

This thread is only for POPLA Decisions.

crossaboutparking

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Michelle Drinkwater

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They paid the requested fee at the payment machine. • The amount calculated was incorrect, but they are only aware of this now. • They say the machine must be faulty to calculate the incorrect fee. The appellant has provided 1. A copy of their bank statement. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds regarding paying the amount requested by the payment machine. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The signs also display all the appropriate tariffs. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. I acknowledge that the appellant advises that they paid the requested fee at the payment machine and have provided a copy of their bank statement to show the payment made. It must be noted that I do not dispute that the appellant made payment on the day of the parking event. However, the evidence provided by the operator shows that the appellant was on site for 2 hours and 18 minutes and the payment made as shown on the appellant’s bank statement and payment list from operator shows that a payment of £3.80 was paid. According to the tariffs shown within the signs £3.80 only covered a period of parking for 1 hour. I note that the appellant advises that the machine must have been faulty as it calculated the incorrect fee that they did not do their own calculation. Whilst I do not dispute that the machine may have calculated the amount for the appellant, it is the responsibility for a motorist to be aware of when they entered the site and how long they have there for so that when they make payment, they ensure that they have paid the correct amount before leaving. The signage at the site displays the tariffs that need to be paid. If the appellant had been aware of how long they had been at the site, they would have seen from the signage that the amount being requested was not sufficient to cover their stay and they could have selected the correct tariff to pay on the machine. The operator has provided a copy of their payment report for the day of the parking event, this shows that other motorists were able to pay varying amounts for various durations of stay and therefore, on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the machine was working as it should. I respect that at the time of the parking event the appellant was not aware that they had not paid enough for their stay. I understand that the appellant feels it is not reasonable that it is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking and to review the fee asked for. I also appreciate that they made payment in good faith, however, the fact remains that the appellant did not pay enough for their duration of stay and has therefore, breached the terms and conditions shown within the signage at the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

crossaboutparking

crossaboutparking said:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Michelle Drinkwater

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They paid the requested fee at the payment machine. • The amount calculated was incorrect, but they are only aware of this now. • They say the machine must be faulty to calculate the incorrect fee. The appellant has provided 1. A copy of their bank statement. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds regarding paying the amount requested by the payment machine. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The signs also display all the appropriate tariffs. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. I acknowledge that the appellant advises that they paid the requested fee at the payment machine and have provided a copy of their bank statement to show the payment made. It must be noted that I do not dispute that the appellant made payment on the day of the parking event. However, the evidence provided by the operator shows that the appellant was on site for 2 hours and 18 minutes and the payment made as shown on the appellant’s bank statement and payment list from operator shows that a payment of £3.80 was paid. According to the tariffs shown within the signs £3.80 only covered a period of parking for 1 hour. I note that the appellant advises that the machine must have been faulty as it calculated the incorrect fee that they did not do their own calculation. Whilst I do not dispute that the machine may have calculated the amount for the appellant, it is the responsibility for a motorist to be aware of when they entered the site and how long they have there for so that when they make payment, they ensure that they have paid the correct amount before leaving. The signage at the site displays the tariffs that need to be paid. If the appellant had been aware of how long they had been at the site, they would have seen from the signage that the amount being requested was not sufficient to cover their stay and they could have selected the correct tariff to pay on the machine. The operator has provided a copy of their payment report for the day of the parking event, this shows that other motorists were able to pay varying amounts for various durations of stay and therefore, on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the machine was working as it should. I respect that at the time of the parking event the appellant was not aware that they had not paid enough for their stay. I understand that the appellant feels it is not reasonable that it is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking and to review the fee asked for. I also appreciate that they made payment in good faith, however, the fact remains that the appellant did not pay enough for their duration of stay and has therefore, breached the terms and conditions shown within the signage at the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

This was a hospital car park with numberplate recognition. The parking machine showed a photo of my car entering the car park and I paid when I left, by typing in my numberplate. The machine told me I owed something like £2.80 and I tapped and left - didn't think anything of it. I don't think I could have over-ridden the automatic calculated fee if I'd wanted to? It's not reasonable that I should have doubted the machine's calculation and double-checked it against the signage...is it?!

Umkomaas

crossaboutparking said:

crossaboutparking said:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Michelle Drinkwater

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They paid the requested fee at the payment machine. • The amount calculated was incorrect, but they are only aware of this now. • They say the machine must be faulty to calculate the incorrect fee. The appellant has provided 1. A copy of their bank statement. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds regarding paying the amount requested by the payment machine. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The signs also display all the appropriate tariffs. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. I acknowledge that the appellant advises that they paid the requested fee at the payment machine and have provided a copy of their bank statement to show the payment made. It must be noted that I do not dispute that the appellant made payment on the day of the parking event. However, the evidence provided by the operator shows that the appellant was on site for 2 hours and 18 minutes and the payment made as shown on the appellant’s bank statement and payment list from operator shows that a payment of £3.80 was paid. According to the tariffs shown within the signs £3.80 only covered a period of parking for 1 hour. I note that the appellant advises that the machine must have been faulty as it calculated the incorrect fee that they did not do their own calculation. Whilst I do not dispute that the machine may have calculated the amount for the appellant, it is the responsibility for a motorist to be aware of when they entered the site and how long they have there for so that when they make payment, they ensure that they have paid the correct amount before leaving. The signage at the site displays the tariffs that need to be paid. If the appellant had been aware of how long they had been at the site, they would have seen from the signage that the amount being requested was not sufficient to cover their stay and they could have selected the correct tariff to pay on the machine. The operator has provided a copy of their payment report for the day of the parking event, this shows that other motorists were able to pay varying amounts for various durations of stay and therefore, on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the machine was working as it should. I respect that at the time of the parking event the appellant was not aware that they had not paid enough for their stay. I understand that the appellant feels it is not reasonable that it is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking and to review the fee asked for. I also appreciate that they made payment in good faith, however, the fact remains that the appellant did not pay enough for their duration of stay and has therefore, breached the terms and conditions shown within the signage at the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

This was a hospital car park with numberplate recognition. The parking machine showed a photo of my car entering the car park and I paid when I left, by typing in my numberplate. The machine told me I owed something like £2.80 and I tapped and left - didn't think anything of it. I don't think I could have over-ridden the automatic calculated fee if I'd wanted to? It's not reasonable that I should have doubted the machine's calculation and double-checked it against the signage...is it?!

Complain to PALS at the hospital. If no joy from them, escalate up to the Facilities Director, and then to the Chief Exec.

If you need further help beyond this, please open a new thread and tell us which parking operator is involved. 

Coupon-mad

crossaboutparking said:

crossaboutparking said:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Michelle Drinkwater

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • They paid the requested fee at the payment machine. • The amount calculated was incorrect, but they are only aware of this now. • They say the machine must be faulty to calculate the incorrect fee. The appellant has provided 1. A copy of their bank statement. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds regarding paying the amount requested by the payment machine. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The signs also display all the appropriate tariffs. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. I acknowledge that the appellant advises that they paid the requested fee at the payment machine and have provided a copy of their bank statement to show the payment made. It must be noted that I do not dispute that the appellant made payment on the day of the parking event. However, the evidence provided by the operator shows that the appellant was on site for 2 hours and 18 minutes and the payment made as shown on the appellant’s bank statement and payment list from operator shows that a payment of £3.80 was paid. According to the tariffs shown within the signs £3.80 only covered a period of parking for 1 hour. I note that the appellant advises that the machine must have been faulty as it calculated the incorrect fee that they did not do their own calculation. Whilst I do not dispute that the machine may have calculated the amount for the appellant, it is the responsibility for a motorist to be aware of when they entered the site and how long they have there for so that when they make payment, they ensure that they have paid the correct amount before leaving. The signage at the site displays the tariffs that need to be paid. If the appellant had been aware of how long they had been at the site, they would have seen from the signage that the amount being requested was not sufficient to cover their stay and they could have selected the correct tariff to pay on the machine. The operator has provided a copy of their payment report for the day of the parking event, this shows that other motorists were able to pay varying amounts for various durations of stay and therefore, on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the machine was working as it should. I respect that at the time of the parking event the appellant was not aware that they had not paid enough for their stay. I understand that the appellant feels it is not reasonable that it is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking and to review the fee asked for. I also appreciate that they made payment in good faith, however, the fact remains that the appellant did not pay enough for their duration of stay and has therefore, breached the terms and conditions shown within the signage at the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant did not purchase the appropriate parking time, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

This was a hospital car park with numberplate recognition. The parking machine showed a photo of my car entering the car park and I paid when I left, by typing in my numberplate. The machine told me I owed something like £2.80 and I tapped and left - didn't think anything of it. I don't think I could have over-ridden the automatic calculated fee if I'd wanted to? It's not reasonable that I should have doubted the machine's calculation and double-checked it against the signage...is it?!

You won't ever pay this.

ParkingEye or their alter ego CPP?

russiangoldfinch

Here is a decision which was successful, just in, on a case at the BP Garage at Stansted Airport

'  Successful

Assessor Name

Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The vehicle was on land within the boundaries of Stansted Airport as the BP Stansted SF Connect garage at postcode CM24 1PY is on the airport land and it is well established this is subject to the Stansted Airport-London Byelaws which have been in effect since December 1996. • They are not the driver and the parking operator cannot transfer liability to them as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle as the site is on airport land which is never 'relevant land' within The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which means any land other than land which is subject to statutory control. • The Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control and that this is key in making a determination over PoFA 2012 compliance. • It has been accepted by POPLA that the status of airport land is not ever 'relevant land' whether or not an operator such as the garage use the byelaws themselves and whether or not the land is considered to be or described as private. This means that 'keeper liability' can never apply on airport land. • The parking operator does not refer to PoFA 2012 in its Notice to Keeper (NTK) but issued them with a warning which purported to make them liable, which was misleading and legally incorrect. It also incorrectly • In response to their appeal the parking operator stated its NTK complies in all respects with PoFA 2012 requirements, which is incorrect for the reasons given. • The date of issue of the NTK was Friday 27 December and it was received on Thursday 2nd January. The parking operator incorrectly states it is entitled to pursue them, from 25th January, which is at odds with the requirements of PoFA 2012. • The parking operator’s interpretation of PoFA 2012 is flawed in relation to both airport land and the incorrectly worded warning. • To omit any reference to PoFA 2012 in the NTK feels like sharp and misleading practice and this is compounded by the very clear and established fact that the site in question is land within the Stansted Airport boundaries. • Lack of any evidence of its standing authority in this particular location, they request an unredacted record of its contract with the landowner. • The parking operator have submitted no evidence to show where the vehicle was parked on the site. • There is no clear information on the signs, the parking charge does not appear on all the signs and the parking operator has not provided evidence to show what a driver would have been able to see in the darkness and evidence of this should be provided. • This means that in all the circumstances the parking operator is incorrect to say that its NTK is PoFA compliant. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. • The parking operator has not submitted any evidence such as documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not covered by their byelaws and as the site is on airport land without such proof it is simply inadequate for the parking operator to rely on unfounded 'confidence' and mere assertions which carry no weight at all. • They have not been able to copy and paste available maps here but are happy to produce them on request. • They refer POPLA to page 28 of the Uttesford Local Plan (2005) where this land is clearly denoted as airport land, Title Number EX438483.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case the parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation. The appellant appeals on the grounds that they are not the driver and the parking operator cannot transfer liability to them as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle as the site is on airport land and this is never 'relevant land' within The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which means any land other than land which is subject to statutory control. They say the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control and this is key in making a determination over PoFA 2012 compliance. The parking operator responds stating it is confident that the location is considered relevant land as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. They says it does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 3.1, and it is not subject to statutory control as defined in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4. The parking operator says an area being part of a parcel of land surrounding an airport does not automatically mean that statutory control is in place for that particular area. While I acknowledge the parking operator's comments, I am not satisfied that it has fully rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal, as I would have expected to see evidence to support its statement. The parking operator may be confident in its assertion but it has failed to provide evidence to show the location where the appellant parked is outside the airport boundary, or not subject to statutory control. I have also reviewed the redacted copy of the contract with the landowner and note that the following question has not been answered, "Is the land “Relevant Land as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - yes/no." POPLA is not responsible for evidence gathering and can only assess the case on the evidence freely provided by both parties. Based on the evidence provided, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the 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. '

Gr1pr

Link to the successful Stansted Airport land thread above is below,  for any other victims at that airport,  especially MET cases

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6578125/met-ntk-parking-charge-notice-bp-stansted-non-pofa-notice-which-contains-the-pofa-warning/p1

pluspad

BP Stansted Airport - Successful Appeal.

The following appeal was based solely the "relevant land" defence, I am not sure why the at the end of the decision the assessor states that other grounds for appeal were raised. They weren't.

Assessor Name: Rebecca Appleton

Summary
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle and not liable for the parking charge. • The BP SF Stansted Connect, Stansted CM24 1PY, where the alleged contravention took place falls within the boundaries of land defined as airport land by the Airports Act 1986 (see pg. 28 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005) where this land is clearly denoted as airport land, title number EX438483.) Airport land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is therefore specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The appellant has referred to a previous POPLA appeal. 6062356150 After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. Appeal document. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is a parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly and that the parking charge is therefore owed. The appellant says the BP SF Stansted Connect, Stansted CM24 1PY, where the alleged contravention took place falls within the boundaries of land defined as airport land by the Airports Act 1986 (see pg. 28 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005) where this land is clearly denoted as airport land, title number EX438483.) Airport land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is therefore specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We have considered the Stanstead Airport Byelaws, which separate out the land within the airport boundary into areas subject to traffic enactments, and areas not subject to traffic enactments. In either case, the land described would be subject to statutory control and not relevant land as defined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator has failed to provide a clear map or boundary, simply defining the relevant area as the aerodrome known as Stanstead Airport . The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to support their confidence in that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 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. As such, I am not satisfied the PCN was issued correctly. I must allow the 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.

Coupon-mad

The operator has failed to provide a clear map or boundary, simply defining the relevant area as the aerodrome known as Stanstead Airport . The operator has stated its confidence that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am not satisfied that the operator has rebutted the motorist’s reason for appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to support their confidence in that the land would be considered relevant land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

That's great! Two in a row here.

We also had the very similar POPLA decision (above) which pointed out that the landowner agreement has not ticked the box 'is this relevant land under the POFA?'

We should use that point in future.

Singularity1991

Any advice please?