POPLA Decisions

mattyratty78

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Taylor-Jade Ryan

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the driver paid for insufficient time.

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 parked in the gym group car park with postcode MK9 1HA, not the Milton Keynes car park MK9 1AZ • The signs in the car park advised that the car park was monitored by ANPR, and the stay would be calculated on exit once the registration was entered into the machines • 

Neither they or their wife could find a pay and display machine or any other machine to complete this task • There were no means to make payment available • They re-entered the car park to try and make payment as they thought payment could be made on exiting, to no avail • They saw signs in the gym group car park to pay via RingGo, which they did • 

The operator claims they paid for a car park that they were not parked in • The operator does not have a contract to issue PCN’s at the site they were parked After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. An aerial view of the area 2. An image of the entrance x 2 3. A RingGo payment receipt 4. An image of a sign 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 parking operator does not have a contract to issue PCN’s on the land in which they were parked. 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 parking operator has failed to provide confirmation that they have the authority to issue PCN’s on this land. Whilst it is clear from their evidence that they do have signs erected on site, this does not mean that the authority they may once have had is still valid and in place. As the operator has failed to evidence their authority to issue PCN’s on this land, I cannot be satisfied that they have adequately rebutted the grounds raised by the appellant, nor have they proven that they meet the requirements set out within the Code of Practice. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other grounds, but as I have allowed this on the above, I did not feel they needed further consideration.

Umkomaas

👆👆 Smart Parking. Well done @mattyratty78

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6597186/advice-needed#latest

 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. 

baldy10

Copy of contract if needed. I have the same issue. Now need to add comments to their evidence.

doubledotcom

I seem to have mislaid my copy of the very same contract that is probably still somewhere on this forum, but in that one, the question about "Relevant Land", just under the address, had not been marked as "Yes / No".

If anyone either has a copy of that contract (the same one but un-doctored) or can link to it here, then there is some very damning evidence that MET has forged the agreement.

doubledotcom

Found the reference from the POPLA appeal in this post: 7 April at 12:40PMrussiangoldfinch where the POPLA assessor said:

 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."

So, it wasn't answered in that very same contract back in April but somehow, it now answered as "yes". 

baldy10

Signed part of contract:

baldy10

doubledotcom said:

I seem to have mislaid my copy of the very same contract that is probably still somewhere on this forum, but in that one, the question about "Relevant Land", just under the address, had not been marked as "Yes / No".

If anyone either has a copy of that contract (the same one but un-doctored) or can link to it here, then there is some very damning evidence that MET has forged the agreement.

Yes, would be very handy

Darthij

Location: Town Quay, Southampton
PPC: Parking Eye Ltd
Forum Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6577902/parking-eye-town-quay-southampton/p1

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Barry Arledge

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a 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 • The land is owned by Associated British Ports and is not relevant land • The operator has not identified the driver who is liable for the charge • The operator or landowner has not demonstrated they have the required planning consent • The operator has not complied with the ICO code of practice in relation to information about ANPR, SAR and privacy statements. No justification to show 24/7 ANPR use is fair and proportionate • No evidence the operator is enforcing parking terms with the authority of the landowner • Signage is unclear, insufficient and not prominent – as such no parking contract can be considered as formed • ANPR is not reliable or accurate • The Beavis cased cited by the operator is not relevant as the circumstances were different to those applicable at this car park After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a separate document as evidence to support their appeal which expands and elaborates on the summarised appeal grounds. 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: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. I do not dispute the operator identified an alleged breach of parking terms on the 3rd of October 2024 and issued a PCN to the registered keeper ‘Ian Bennet’ on the 7th of October 2024. The PCN sent to the keeper included an invitation to name the driver of the vehicle, if it was not themselves driving. I cannot see any evidence of a response to the operator from the registered keeper to either appeal the PCN or name a different driver. I do not dispute the operator issued a PCN to ‘Amy Bennet’ on the 10th of January 2025, however, there is no evidence submitted by the operator that explains why. A letter in the operator’s evidence pack to an unnamed recipient issued on the 2nd of January indicates they acknowledge this recipient does not identify as the driver and again asks for details of who was driving. An appeal submitted in the name of Amy Bennet of 143 Mill Hill Road in Cowes on the 29th of January 2025 informs the operator they do not identify as the driver of the vehicle and they deny any liability. I acknowledge that Amy in the same submission identifies as a customer of Red Funnel, explains they were waiting in the car and says they were not in a bay. I accept these statements could be interpreted as contradictory in terms of where they the driver or not. I conclude the greater clarity comes from the initial direct statement that they do not identify as the driver. On the 31st of January 2025 the operator against writes a letter to an unnamed recipient asking for the full name and address of the driver. This would suggest the operator remained uncertain who the driver was still. On the 3rd of March 2025 the operator has issued an appeal rejection notice. In their commentary the operator names Amy Bennet as the person they hold liable for the PCN on the basis they were the driver. I am not satisfied that the statements made and sequence of events demonstrates that Amy Bennet is the driver and as such liable for this PCN. 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. I am not satisfied the driver has been identified and do not consider the person the operator is holding liable to be the vehicles registered keeper. I conclude liability has been incorrectly transferred to Amy Bennet. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 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.

Braquo99_2

 just want to thank the people in the forum, had this through today:




The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Coupon-mad

Darthij said:

Location: Town Quay, Southampton
PPC: Parking Eye Ltd
Forum Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6577902/parking-eye-town-quay-southampton/p1

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: B A 

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a 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

• The land is owned by Associated British Ports and is not relevant land

• The operator has not identified the driver who is liable for the charge

• The operator or landowner has not demonstrated they have the required planning consent

• The operator has not complied with the ICO code of practice in relation to information about ANPR, SAR and privacy statements. No justification to show 24/7 ANPR use is fair and proportionate

• No evidence the operator is enforcing parking terms with the authority of the landowner

• Signage is unclear, insufficient and not prominent – as such no parking contract can be considered as formed

• ANPR is not reliable or accurate

• The Beavis cased cited by the operator is not relevant as the circumstances were different to those applicable at this car park.

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal.

The appellant has provided a separate document as evidence to support their appeal which expands and elaborates on the summarised appeal grounds. 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:

When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly.

I do not dispute the operator identified an alleged breach of parking terms on the 3rd of October 2024 and issued a PCN to the registered keeper ‘Bruce Springsteen’ on the 7th of October 2024. The PCN sent to the keeper included an invitation to name the driver of the vehicle, if it was not themselves driving.

I cannot see any evidence of a response to the operator from the registered keeper to either appeal the PCN or name a different driver.

I do not dispute the operator issued a PCN to ‘Madonna’ on the 10th of January 2025, however, there is no evidence submitted by the operator that explains why.

A letter in the operator’s evidence pack to an unnamed recipient issued on the 2nd of January indicates they acknowledge this recipient does not identify as the driver and again asks for details of who was driving.

An appeal submitted in the name of Madonna of ADDRESS on the 29th of January 2025 informs the operator they do not identify as the driver of the vehicle and they deny any liability.

I acknowledge that Madonna in the same submission identifies as a customer of Red Funnel, explains they were waiting in the car and says they were not in a bay. I accept these statements could be interpreted as contradictory in terms of where they the driver or not. I conclude the greater clarity comes from the initial direct statement that they do not identify as the driver.

On the 31st of January 2025 the operator against writes a letter to an unnamed recipient asking for the full name and address of the driver. This would suggest the operator remained uncertain who the driver was still.

On the 3rd of March 2025 the operator has issued an appeal rejection notice. In their commentary the operator names Madonna as the person they hold liable for the PCN on the basis they were the driver.

I am not satisfied that the statements made and sequence of events demonstrates that Madonna is the driver and as such liable for this PCN. 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. I am not satisfied the driver has been identified and do not consider the person the operator is holding liable to be the vehicle's registered keeper.

I conclude liability has been incorrectly transferred to Madonna.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 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.

I've removed the names and replaced them with the Boss (Bruce Springsteen) and Madonna - the first neutral names that sprang to my (certain age) mind - as I suspect the original names and address were real?

You need to edit your post. 

Nice result! Well done that POPLA Assessor.