POPLA Decisions

Singularity1991

Singularity1991 said:

Any advice please?

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.

Coupon-mad

Wrong thread for advice.

Please delete these posts from this thread  once you get Forumite status.

You need your own thread but NO that sort of hopeless technicality isn't how to win at POPLA.

If your car was only there 5 minutes you make your main point about a lack of grace period (min 10 minutes). You also need to explain why it took you xx minutes to pay on arrival. POPLA want the detail.

cheveleyaprkpaul

Singularity1991 said:

Any advice please?

This is not a thread for advice - it's just for POPLA descisions. Read the "Newbies" thread which tell you what to do. If you need further advice then start a new thread describing your situation.

Vikom04

thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6571966/c-u-p-enforcement-parking-in-a-no-parking-area-popla-appeal-unsuccessful/p1


Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. • The appellant has mentioned different POPLA appeal. • The PCN has not been issued correctly in regard to a no parking area. • Not The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 compliant as personal data has been accessed unnecessarily. • No evidence of landowner authority. • The evidence of the parking conditions signage is generic and not specific to the site. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided correspondence from the parking operator, and a copy of their initial appeal to the parking operator, and photos of the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

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 within the site informs motorists parking is not allowed at any time, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The parking operator has provided time stamped images of the vehicle within the site on question, time from 15:10:33 to 15:12:03, the vehicle is positioned within the no parking area, I will refer to this below. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. While the appellant has referenced a different POPLA appeal, however, this report will solely focus on the events surrounding POPLA verification code 1433544022, parking charge number 33751. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper, and it is the appellant’s liability for the PCN I will be considering as the keeper of the vehicle. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. Both partes have provided photos of the site in question. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. The amount of the PCN is sufficiently clear within the parking operator’s signage. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” The signs within the car park feature a camera logo, and states: “PLEASE BE AWARE, ANPR/CCTV CAMERAS MAY BE USED ON THIS SITE”. I would therefore be satisfied the operator has made it clear that camera technology is in place to manage the site in question. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. In this case as parking is allowed within site, the allowed consideration period is whilst driving, as the entrance sign to the site informs motorists that no parking is allowed. As the motorist stopped within the no parking area, no consideration period is afforded. The appellant appears to be disputing the vehicle parked within the site on the day, however, intentionally remaining stationary doesn't necessarily entail the driver exiting the vehicle. Whether someone is considered to have 'parked' rather than merely 'stopped' or 'waited' is determined on a case-by-case basis. However, in the context of parking disputes, the terms 'parking' and 'waiting' are largely interchangeable. This means that a driver who 'waits' at a location for their own reasons is also considered to have 'parked' at that location. I acknowledge the appellant's dissatisfaction with the parking operator's handling of their initial appeal, notably the parking operator mentioning double yellow lines. However, any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised terms and conditions. Any concerns regarding customer service should be addressed directly with the parking operator. While the double yellow lines part of the vehicle parked within does appear to be public land, the vast majority of the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the boundary of the site managed by the parking operator, which the parking operator has provided a map of the site confirming this, The site in question does not allow parking at any time, a motorist has the option to reject the terms offered, and not park, or remain parked within the site, there is a contractual offer. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for during the times mentioned within the PCN. Section 14.1 of the Code 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 parking operator have provided a signed agreement between themselves and the owner of the land, confirming the relevant authority is in place for the parking operator to manage the site. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that parking within a no parking area, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park within a no parking area the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked within 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Coupon-mad

Vikom04 said:

thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6571966/c-u-p-enforcement-parking-in-a-no-parking-area-popla-appeal-unsuccessful/p1

CUP Enforcement ripping people off at a notorious entrapment roadway with no consideration period, double yellows not double reds, and hidden CCTV cameras high on a building.

Scammery at its worst, IMHO

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below

 • The appellant has mentioned different POPLA appeal.

 • The PCN has not been issued correctly in regard to a no parking area.

 • Not The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 compliant as personal data has been accessed unnecessarily. 

• No evidence of landowner authority.

 • The evidence of the parking conditions signage is generic and not specific to the site.

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided correspondence from the parking operator, and a copy of their initial appeal to the parking operator, and photos of the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, 

BLAH BLAH RUBBISH SNIPPED 

The signage within the site informs motorists parking is not allowed at any time, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued.

The parking operator has provided time stamped images of the vehicle within the site on question, time from 15:10:33 to 15:12:03, the vehicle is positioned within the no parking area, I will refer to this below.

BLAH BLAH RUBBISH SNIPPED

The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024.

Both parties have provided photos of the site in question. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms.

I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign.

Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. The amount of the PCN is sufficiently clear within the parking operator’s signage. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions.

It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site.

Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them.

Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” The signs within the car park feature a camera logo, and states: “PLEASE BE AWARE, ANPR/CCTV CAMERAS MAY BE USED ON THIS SITE”. I would therefore be satisfied the operator has made it clear that camera technology is in place to manage the site in question.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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.

In this case as parking is allowed within site, the allowed consideration period is whilst driving, as the entrance sign to the site informs motorists that no parking is allowed.

As the motorist stopped within the no parking area, no consideration period is afforded.

The appellant appears to be disputing the vehicle parked within the site on the day, however, intentionally remaining stationary doesn't necessarily entail the driver exiting the vehicle. Whether someone is considered to have 'parked' rather than merely 'stopped' or 'waited' is determined on a case-by-case basis.

However, in the context of parking disputes, the terms 'parking' and 'waiting' are largely interchangeable. This means that a driver who 'waits' at a location for their own reasons is also considered to have 'parked' at that location. I acknowledge the appellant's dissatisfaction with the parking operator's handling of their initial appeal, notably the parking operator mentioning double yellow lines. However, any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised terms and conditions. Any concerns regarding customer service should be addressed directly with the parking operator.

While the double yellow lines part of the vehicle parked within does appear to be public land, the vast majority of the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the boundary of the site managed by the parking operator, which the parking operator has provided a map of the site confirming this.

The site in question does not allow parking at any time, a motorist has the option to reject the terms offered, and not park, or remain parked within the site, there is a contractual offer.

The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for during the times mentioned within the PCN.

Section 14.1 of the Code 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 parking operator have provided a signed agreement between themselves and the owner of the land, confirming the relevant authority is in place for the parking operator to manage the site. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that parking within a no parking area, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park within a no parking area the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked within 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

I mean ... that's a total embarrassment.  POPLA you should be ashamed.

This is not a no-stopping zone. You do not have to (and cannot possibly) read contractual signs whilst driving.

The driver DID leave within 2 minutes. They DID reject the nonsense contract.

This sort of covert CCTV surveillance (that often films entire public streets, pedestrians, roads et al) must be banned by the MHCLG asap. 

chilli_grower

Been looking forward to posting this as I thought I had a pretty good case (Parking Eye's "evidence" was rubbish) but it's been upheld on what I thought was my weakest argument. Goes to show you never know. I did not seek any help directly with this but found the advice on here invaluable, particularly the posts from @Coupon-mad

Operator Name: Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Rebecca Appleton

Assessor summary of operator case 
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They could not pay for parking as the machine was out of order. • There was no other option to pay. • As they could not pay for parking they read the signage to see if there were any other options for payment. • When reading the small print they thought about their options and decided to leave the site. • They were on site for 14 minutes, 4 minutes over the grace period set out in the BPA code of practice (Annex B, Table B.1). After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. Photo of the machine. 2. Photo of a sign. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for 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 in this case has stated they tried to pay for parking, read the information on the signage and when they were unable to do so left the car park. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. In this case Appendix B sets out the minimum time period allowed for a driver to review the terms and decide to accept the contract and remain on site. In this case I am satisfied 14 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to park, attempt to pay for parking, read the information and the sign and leave when they were unable to pay. As such I do not feel in this case the appellant entered into a contract with the operator. 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.

Happy to answer any questions anyone might have in case it helps someone in the future. Thanks to all posters here who put the time in to help us who know nothing at the start.

Umkomaas

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. In this case Appendix B sets out the minimum time period allowed for a driver to review the terms and decide to accept the contract and remain on site. In this case I am satisfied 14 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to park, attempt to pay for parking, read the information and the sign and leave when they were unable to pay. As such I do not feel in this case the appellant entered into a contract with the operator.

Refreshing take on the 'Consideration Period'.  Great result. Thanks for update @chilli_grower. 

Mahone1302

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6564585/notice-to-hirer-total-parking-solutions#latest

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Alex James

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) due to being parked with no valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They say they wish to appeal and have identified as the hirer. • They say the Parking Charge Notice in not complaint with The Protection of Freedoms Act (PFA) 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 4. • They say the operator has not shown the individual they are pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. • They say there’s no evidence of Landowner authority which must be provided in accordance with The British Parking Association’s (BPA’s) section 7 code of practice. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in relation to them being the hirer, PoFA 2012 and say they cannot be blamed for any postal delays between the operator and rental company as the operator state they received contact from the rental company on 15/10/2024, and the letter from the rental company is dated 16/09/2024. They say that even if the operator was to use the later date of 15/10/2024, to comply with PoFA 2012 they would have to serve the relevant documentation (as per POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2)(a), with the relevant documents listed at Paragraph 13(2) a, b and c) to me by 06/11/24 at the latest - 21 days as per Paragraph 14(3). They say the operator did not send these documents to them until 13/12/2024 which is 37 days late. On page 2 they say the operator states there is no longer a requirement for parking operators to provide liability packs, a copy of the hire agreement when issuing a Notice to Hirer.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Schedule 4, 13 (2) says, the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement. (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued on 09/09/2024 and complies with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The operator didn’t receive the information until 15/10/2024, when it was considered as given as shown by the stamp on the documentation. As this is outside the 28 day period the operator cannot therefore pursue the hirer and must pursue the registered keeper for the charge. Its clear from the operator’s case file that they are pursuing the hirer and not pursuing the Registered Keeper. As such, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Now to chase the hire company for a refund of the £35 admin fee they charged for processing the NtK.

Coupon-mad

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued on 09/09/2024 and complies with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The operator didn’t receive the information until 15/10/2024, when it was considered as given as shown by the stamp on the documentation. As this is outside the 28 day period the operator cannot therefore pursue the hirer and must pursue the registered keeper for the charge. 

Somewhat muddled thinking there!

quitetheheadache1

Report below for an unsuccessful claim to POPLA against Civil Enforcement