POPLA Decisions

Squibalicous

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6580482/pcn-help-cash-paid/p1

Decision Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to unpaid tariff time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They paid at the machine at around 11:50 and displayed their ticket accordingly. • They paid £2.30 in cash which covered the duration of their stay. • The only explanation is a keying error which the operator is obliged to check in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. • No proof of the breach has been provided, just images of them entering and exiting the site. • They requested evidence of payments made, but this was never provided. • The operator has not handled their personal information responsibly. • They have asked the operator several times to update their address details and received unreason demands for evidence. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states they don’t dispute the images provided but some of them are out of date. No evidence has been provided of other payments made on the day.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate their claims that they did pay for 2 hours parking. I note the appellant no longer has the ticket but did ask the operator to review their systems as they may have made a keying error. The operator has provided a list to demonstrate they searched for the appellants vehicle but found no payment made against the full and correct vehicle registration (VRM). The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code,) which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. It is noted that it may be appropriate for evidence to be requested where it is lacking before the parking operator finalises their decision. In the operator’s response to appellants appeal they did not ask for further evidence or provide any evidence to show they checked for keying errors. As the operator failed to request further evidence and simply rejected the appeal, it has failed to comply with the Code above. As such, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

parkingoffender

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6579735/met-parking-stansted-starbucks-after-closing

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Kevin Woodall

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being longer than the period of parking that had been paid for or without authorisation.

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 say there is no obligation for them to disclose the driver’s identity. 

• They advise there is lack of landowner authority as the operator is to put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 

• They state there is inadequate signage which is not prominent and lighting resulting in lack of illumination. • They advise the grace period is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. 

• They say there are no entrance signs for the regular entry. 

• They state there is a failure to comply with the data protection “ICO Code of Practice” and contains no information. 

• They advise there is no evidence of a period of parking and state the ANPR system is not reliable. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

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. 

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. 

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 state "...PAY BY PHONE CAR PARK…60 MINUTES FREE STAY FOR SOUTHGATE PARK CUSTOMERS WHILE THEY REMAIN ON THE PREMISES ONLY…ENTER YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER ON ARRIVAL..." 

The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. 

The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) to demonstrate the time the vehicle entered and left the site. 

It has also provided photos of the signs around the site which I will discuss in more detail below. 

• They say there is no obligation for them to disclose the driver’s identity. As stated above, the PCN meets what is required in the PoFA so the liability has been transferred onto the keeper. 

• They advise there is lack of landowner authority as the operator is to put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 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, the operator has provided evidence which shows the contract started with the landowner on 3 September 2014 for 12 months and continued after this date and would terminate if 12 weeks’ notice in writing had been provided. 

I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements of section 14 and a contract to enforce PCN’s was in place the date the appellant parked. 

• They state there is inadequate signage which is not prominent and lighting resulting in lack of illumination. 

Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. 

The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The operator has provided photos of the signs which are attached to lampposts throughout the site. The signs are a size which makes them easy to identify and are white. 

The sign contains bold black text in capitals which state it is a pay by phone car park. Text below this also states there is 60 minutes free parking if they enter their registration on the terminal. In this instance, the premises was closed so there would have been no access to the terminal. 

Section 3.1.6 of the Single Code of Practice states that signs should be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions, including during dusk and in the dark if the land is accessible at those times. 

The signs must be installed at a height that takes into account where the signs will be viewed from, and whether vehicle headlights will illuminate the signs in the dark. 

The operator has provided further images which show the signs on the site are also lit up in dark periods making it visible for users to see. I am satisfied the signs adhere to what is required in The Code. 

• They advise the grace period is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. I must advise the BPA Code of Practice was replace by The Single Code of Practice on 1 October 2024. 

Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. 

The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. 

In this case, as the vehicle remained on site with no valid payment being made, the grace period was not applicable. 

• They say there are no entrance signs for the regular entry. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. 

The operator has provided a photo of the entrance sign, which is again in white and contains bold black text which states it is a pay by phone car park, there are 60 minutes free for Southgate Park customers only and to read the signs on site for the conditions of use. 

I am satisfied the entrance signs adhere to what is required in The Code. 

• They state there is a failure to comply with the data protection “ICO Code of Practice” and contains no information. The signs on the site contain the universal camera logo to make drivers aware of the cameras. 

If the appellant feels like the operator has failed to comply with Data Protection, this is something they will need to address to the Information Commissioners Office. 

• They advise there is no evidence of a period of parking and state the ANPR system is not reliable. When the ANPR photos are taken, these are taken at face value as the time on the site is calculated from when the vehicle enters and when it leaves. 

No evidence of the car being parked needs to be provided as the information shows the vehicle itself remained on site for 2X (redacted) minutes. 

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 no valid payment was made for the parking, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

jellybellysp

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81336326#Comment_81336326

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to being longer than the period of parking paid for, or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

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

• They are the registered keeper of the vehicle; they were not the driver of the vehicle on the day.

• They are appealing as the Notice to Keeper (NTK) warns they are liable for the PCN through the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

• Which is very misleading as it is legally incorrect as the site, 346 - Southgate Park Stansted, CM24 1PY, is within the boundary of the airport, and cannot be held to be relevant land as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

• This is because the airport land at Stanstead, falls outside the definition of relevant land as it is subject to the Stansted-London byelaws which came into effect in December 1996.

• They are surprised to see the 28 day warning within the NTK, with no express refence to PDA.

• The NTK makes it look as though they can be held liable if the driver is not identified, which is simply incorrect.

• They have been told by the parking operator they are unable to identify the driver, the appellant explains they are not willing to identify the driver, and the parking operator is not in a position to purse a parking charge due to the location on Stanstead Airport land.

• After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal, they express dissatisfaction with parts of the evidence. They provided a link to an external PDF, and mention a different decision referencing POPLA’s complaints team. The appellant has provided the NTK as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The crux of the appellant’s appeal the land in question, is not relevant land under the requirements of PoFA, they explain it is subject to Stanstead London byelaws. Within their appeal the parking operator has stated they are confident there are no applicable byelaws relating to parking in effect at the location, while the have provided an embedded website document within their evidence, POPLA is not able to access any third party website (the same for the appellant’s document). Each party must provide any evidence they wish to be considered as a document, clearly wording explaining which sections are to be reviewed. Based on the evidence provided, I am not able to determine if the land in questions is relevant land and not subject to airport byelaws or not. Due to this I can only determine the land is subject to airport byelaws, and not relevant land as within PoFA. Due to this, the parking operator is not able to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver to the registered keeper using PoFA, and can only hold the driver liable for the PCN. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. 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

Very good! Another MET Stansted win!

cheveleyaprkpaul

Umkomaas said:

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. 

I contacted DVLA and apparently PE have shown them an updated landowners permission, they just sent the wrong outdated version to POPLA. Not sure I cbf to continue down this road given that information.

Umkomaas

cheveleyaprkpaul said:

Umkomaas said:

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. 

I contacted DVLA and apparently PE have shown them an updated landowners permission, they just sent the wrong outdated version to POPLA. Not sure I cbf to continue down this road given that information.

At least you alerted the DVLA that there is some sloppy approaches to some of the fundamental requirements of the KADOE contract, and you put PE through the inconvenience of having to dig out the correct paperwork to show the DVLA. Well done in fighting back against this pernicious blight on the British public. 

Cassius99

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver had unpaid tariff time. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant disputes that the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has questioned the accuracy of the ANPR cameras and question the period of parking used. They have asked to see evidence that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a receipt for payment, an image showing the PCN and a document which repeats their appeal. 

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. I am not satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle as such the operator is required to use the provisions contained within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the appellant liable as keeper of the vehicle. Paragraph 9 sets out the requirements for the notice to keeper. I note that there is no requirement in law for the notice to use the exact wording contained within the act as long as the meaning of the wording does not change. A drivers parking starts when they enter the site and ends when they leave. The notice contains entry and exit times and as such does specify the period of parking by providing the two timings. The use of the word should when requesting the drivers details is in itself an invitation to provide drivers details which does not alter the meaning of this request. The notice provides very specific wording regarding when the keeper will become liable to pay the charge which goes beyond what is required by the act in advising that the driver has 29 days from the date given which is the second working day after the date issued. It also advises that it will then have the right to recover the unpaid charges from the keeper. This wording is fully compliant with the act. The appellant has made comments about the operator assuming that they were the driver but as the operator has fully complied with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it can hold the appellant liable as keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has provided an image showing that the wording is fully complaint with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has quoted the British Parking Association code of practice within their appeal. A new single code of practice was introduced in October 2024 which now takes president over the older code of practice. The operator has provided images from its ANPR cameras and a list taken from its back office system. Parking operator’s are required to audit this equipment but there is no requirement for them to provide evidence of this audit to POPLA. Having reviewed the ANRP images I have no reason to doubt their accuracy and there would be no reason that the timings on images would be incorrect. I note that the appellant has not presented any evidence to POPLA which calls the accuracy of the images into question. The appellant cannot demand that specific evidence be provided the ANPR images in conjunction with the system print out are sufficient to confirm the accuracy of the system. Section 14 of the single code of practice requires the operator to have an agreement in place before it starts managing a site. The operator has provided a copy of a witness staged signed on behalf of the landowner. This document is sufficient to demonstrate that the operator has a valid agreement with the landowner in place. As I have already stated a drivers parking starts on entry and ends on exit. This is allowable as the driver is given a consideration period and a grace period. This is explained within Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the single code of practice. Section 2.24 explains that a drivers period of parking includes the consideration period. In addition to any time purchased the driver is permitted a 10 minutes grace period which is a change to leave the site and the end of the parking contract. The signage on this site requires the driver to pay for their stay or a parking charge of £100 will be issued. Payment can be made at any point during the drivers stay so it is clear to drivers that their parking time does not start when they purchase a ticket. In this case the ANPR images show that the driver was on site for two hours and 15 minutes. The driver paid for two hours of parking which was exceeded by 15 minutes. Even after the 10 minute grace period is allowed the driver still overstayed at the site. I note that the appellant has provided evidence of their payment. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver did not purchase enough parking 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.

Ulrich

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566999/azure-parking-how-to-appeal-no-parking-at-any-time-pcn/

Decision: successful

Assessor Name: Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case: The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for no parking at any time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The PCN has not been issued correctly due to the reason ‘’no parking at any time’’ as the areas is a small lay-by off a public road • They feel that as the area does not permit parking at any time, there are no parking facilities and no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer, no consideration resulting in no contract • The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the PCN does not specify the period of parking as required or state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and current address • The PCN doesn’t invite the keeper to pay the charge. Therefore, it fails to comply with PoFA • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge and there has been no admittance as to who was driving by the appellant • There is no evidence of landowner authority After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail regarding PoFA 2012. The appellant has provided a third party court case transcript as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant states that as the area does not permit parking at any time, there are no parking facilities and no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer, no consideration resulting in no contract. The signage on site states that no parking at any time is permitted and failure to comply would result in a £100 PCN. It must be recognised that the area in question does not permit motorists to park within the managed area as there are no parking facilities such as bays offered within the privately manged land. The operator would be permitted to issue a PCN for trespass. However, this is not the case. As the PCN does not explicitly mention trespass and the driver would not have to form a contract to trespass on the private land, I cannot be satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. 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.

Umkomaas

Ulrich said:

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566999/azure-parking-how-to-appeal-no-parking-at-any-time-pcn/

Decision: successful

Assessor Name: Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case: The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for no parking at any time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The PCN has not been issued correctly due to the reason ‘’no parking at any time’’ as the areas is a small lay-by off a public road • They feel that as the area does not permit parking at any time, there are no parking facilities and no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer, no consideration resulting in no contract • The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the PCN does not specify the period of parking as required or state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and current address • The PCN doesn’t invite the keeper to pay the charge. Therefore, it fails to comply with PoFA • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge and there has been no admittance as to who was driving by the appellant • There is no evidence of landowner authority After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail regarding PoFA 2012. The appellant has provided a third party court case transcript as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant states that as the area does not permit parking at any time, there are no parking facilities and no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer, no consideration resulting in no contract. The signage on site states that no parking at any time is permitted and failure to comply would result in a £100 PCN. It must be recognised that the area in question does not permit motorists to park within the managed area as there are no parking facilities such as bays offered within the privately manged land. The operator would be permitted to issue a PCN for trespass. However, this is not the case. As the PCN does not explicitly mention trespass and the driver would not have to form a contract to trespass on the private land, I cannot be satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. 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.

Well that blows out of the water all 'No Parking' PCNs!  And given that 'Trespass' enforcement lies with the landowner, there shouldn't be anywhere for a PPC to turn. But, we all know how this plays out ....!

Ralph-y

you need to start a new thread please  ... this thread is for POPLA appeals decisions