POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

quitetheheadache1 said:

Report below for an unsuccessful claim to POPLA against Civil Enforcement

Useless, unlawful decision.

POPLA are which actually saying that a PPC doesn't have to bother to do 'human checks' of ANPR and keypad system data to proactively avoid unfair PCNs.

POPLA think a PPC only has to lift a finger to look for a 'keying error' if the victim realises and then raises it in an appeal.

Absolutely tone deaf crap.

Illegal because this places an unfair burden on the consumer which leads to a transactional decision which is balanced against them.

Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Discussed in this case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6575219/parking-charge-after-failure-to-obtain-a-permit/p2

Singularity1991

I have recently received a PCN from Civil Enforcement, driver 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. Driver 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 and loss of income to the company. 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

You need to start your own thread please and explain what time you arrived as well (because they'll have added that time on too).

This one is only for POPLA outcomes.

zapoi

Decision  - Successful

Assessor Name - Taylor-Jade Ryan

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle has overstayed the maximum time period allowed.

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. 

• The POPLA system lists the parking operator incorrectly as Euro Car Parks -EW, instead of Euro Car Parks Ltd •

This inconsistency raises questions about the validity and accuracy of the PCN, and does not accurately identify the parking operator responsible 

• The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces 

• There is no entrance sign on the left of the entrance which would be visible to a driver 

• They have raised several cases and provided links on signage height, and font size 

• Lord Dennings right hand rule has been raised and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, along with other court cases 

• There is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN itself which is a requirement set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA)’s Code of Practice 

• There was not contract nor agreement on the parking charge, and fair opportunity was not given to read about the terms involving the huge charge, which is out of proportion and not saved by the Supreme Court judgement of Parking Eye v Beavis After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds relating to signage. 

They raise new grounds regarding the landowner document. I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision. 

The appellant has provided 

1. An authority letter 

2. A document containing their grounds of appeal and evidence to support their appeal The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: 

By issuing a PCN to the appellant the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have been breached. 

When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. 

I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised that the sum of the charge is not adequately brought to the attention of drivers on the signage. 

I have reviewed the signs in this case and must note that the reference to a £100 PCN is written in a much smaller font than the conditions that precede it, particularly the requirements of the maximum stay times, which is significantly more prominent. 

This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. 

The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. 

While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. 

On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebutted the appellant’s grounds in relation to the proportionality of this PCN. 

Therefore, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Coupon-mad

"Lord Dennings right hand rule"   

Le_Kirk

....... or even Red Hand Rule but we know what you meant!

NuckinFutz

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Michael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failure to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They believe that all requirements were met on the site however, no receipt was printed from the terminal so they cannot be sure if the information was entered correctly. • They believe that any breakdown in the terminal only benefits the parking operator. • They say that there have been no issues with the terminal prior to or since the date in question. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of extensive detail, reiterating the circumstances from the date in question and that the permit log shows system errors around the time they were using the facilities. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • A receipt of their booking from the date in question.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle was on the date of the parking event and therefore, I must consider the requirements of PoFA, as the parking operator issued the PCN to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. 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 within 28 days. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator and as the registered keeper did not provide the driver’s details as part of the original appeal, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. 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 parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that Hamble Sports Complex members must obtain a parking permit via the touchscreen or QR code provided, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. I acknowledge the appellant has raised that all requirements were met on the site however, no receipt was printed from the terminal so they cannot be sure if the information was entered correctly, and they believe that any breakdown in the terminal only benefits the parking operator. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on these grounds further, reiterating the circumstances from the date in question and that the permit log shows system errors around the time they were using the facilities. Having considered the terms of the site, a permit was required to cover the appellant’s time on the site. The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log showing that no permit was registered against the appellant’s vehicle and therefore, the PCN has been issued. The data log also shows that other motorists were able to successfully register their vehicle around the time the motorist was on the site. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am unable to determine if there were any issues with the registration system. I have considered the appellant’s email and whilst I do not dispute the motorist was visiting the centre, this booking was for 2 December 2024 and not 3 December 2024, which was the date of the parking event. As such, this evidence does not demonstrate that the motorist was a legitimate user of the site on the date of the parking event. I note the appellant says that there have been no issues with the terminal prior to or since the date in question. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. It is not within our role to comment on the motorists’ ability to comply with the parking terms on previous or subsequent visits to the site. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, it has no bearing on my decision. POPLA’s role is to assess if the parking 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, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

fivestarsamz

Decision - Successful

Notorious MET Southgate Site for Stansted London - McDonald's and Starbucks

Thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6554518/met-southgate-stansted-popla-appeal-successful#latest

cheveleyaprkpaul

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6583070/parkingeye-pcn-hoults-yard-newcastle#latest

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natasha Rhodes

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. • The signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. • The appellant has requested various items of evidence from Parking Eye. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal by stating the landowner agreement has expired. The operator has also provided no photographic evidence of the car park at night.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant says there is no evidence of Landowner Authority, and the agreement provided shows the contract has ended. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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, Parking Eye has provided a contract of authority that states “Initial Period: Means in respect of each site, a period commencing on the Services Commencement Date and, subject to any Contract Suspension Extension, expiring after 24 hours (*months)”. I have seen no evidence that this is a rolling contract or if the contract was still in place on the date of the contravention. This contract was signed on 26th April 2022. Given that the contract state it expires after 24 month, therefore, this contract would have ended on 26th April 2024. As the date of the was 5th December 2024, this was after the contract expired, and I do not feel Parking Eye has adequately rebutted the appellants grounds of appeal and I have seen no evidence to suggest the contract was still valid on the date in question. 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.

Umkomaas

Well done @cheveleyaprkpaul.

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.