POPLA Decisions

paly4

Hi all,

I've received this decision from POPLA.

Location: Zone A + B, Holloway Street, Hounslow TW3 (actual location, Matisse Road)
PPC: Private Parking Solution (London) Ltd - paypps.co.uk

What are my options? How often does this PPC proceed to court? I also moved home, do I need to inform the PPC about this?

Thank you.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Michelle Drinkwater

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for parking in no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper. • They say the PCN does not specify the relevant land as per the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The entrance sign was not adequate. • This was a passenger drop off, not parking. • No grace period. • The road markings were unclear. • Unlawful request for DVLA information. • Obstruction preventing parking on Private Land. • No evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal their grounds of appeal regarding not parking and unclear road markings. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. Document with full grounds of appeal with photographs, summarised above. This evidence 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 parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who park in the no parking at any time area. The operator has provided photographs of the vehicle parked in the no parking at any time area. I will be assessing the grounds of appeal using the new Single Code of Practice which replaced the 2024 British Parking Association (BPA) Code practice and relates to all PCN’s issued on or after 1 October 2024. However, the grounds of appeal relating to signage at the site will be assessed using the 2024 BPA Code of Practice Version 9 as this still currently applies. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal when parking on a private car park the driver enters into a contract with the operator. The terms and conditions of this contract are displayed on the signage throughout the car park. I have reviewed the PCN provided by the operator and note that it does show the relevant land, namely Zone A + B, Holloway Street, Hounslow TW3. The operator has also provided a copy of their site map which shows that Matisse Road is within the boundary managed by the operator and that it is on private land. 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 a copy of the agreement they have with the landowner which shows they are authorised to operate on the land. I am satisfied that the agreement meets the requirements set out in section 14.1 of the code. The operator has also provided photographs showing signage at the site. On the balance of probabilities, if this equipment is placed on the land and the landowner hasn’t given permission, I doubt that they would allow them to operate on the land. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the site so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. While an entrance sign plays an important part in establishing that a site is managed, there must be other signs around the site, bringing the specific terms and conditions to the motorist’s attention. The operator has provided images of the signs within the site as well as a site map demonstrating where all the signs are and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the area and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. It must also be noted that the photographs provided by the operator of the appellant’s vehicle show that it is stopped next to a no parking at any time sign. I acknowledge that the appellant says that the road markings were not unclear, however, it must be noted that there is no requirement for the operator to have clear road markings, only clear signage which as advised above, they have. I note that the appellant says that the driver was not parked that they were dropping off a passenger and have provided a definition of park from Hounslow Council’s website. It must be noted that the driver was not parked on council land but on private land and the definition of parking the operator has to follow is that of The Code. Section 2.19b of The Code defines being parked as a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. The appellant states that the vehicle was not parked as the driver was dropping off a passenger; however, for the period that the vehicle remained on site, the motorist was making use of the facilities provided by the operator, regardless and are therefore, classed as parked. The signage on site tells motorists that the DVLA will be contacted to request details of the registered keeper. If the appellant feels that the operator has unlawfully obtained information from the DVLA then they will need to take this up with the information commissioners office as this is something which is outside of POPLA’s remit. I note that the appellant says that there was no grace period given at the beginning or end of the parking duration. 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 the area was a no parking at anytime area and as per Annex B a consideration period does not apply for no parking or stopping areas. 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 the driver did not park in compliance with the terms and conditions and therefore, a grace period does not apply in this case. I note that the appellant says that other vehicles were parked next to the wall preventing the vehicle being on private land, however, the site map provided by the operator shows that the area where the vehicle parked was on private land. The fact remains that the vehicle parked in a no parking at any time area. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in 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. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Coupon-mad

What are my options? How often does this PPC proceed to court? I also moved home, do I need to inform the PPC about this?

Yes, email their DPO and tell them to erase the old address.

Losing a farce of an 'appeal' at POPLA doesn't matter a jot. I wouldn't have even tried it!

Await a claim, if it ever happens, then start a new thread.  Ignore £170 threatograms as seen in post 4 of the NEWBIES thread, in pictures.

  

doubledotcom

Check the location map in the operators evidence pack. It is a reprint from a Google Maps with their own info overlayed. However, if you compare it to an actual Google Maps view, you will see that the map has been Photoshopped and the names of the roads moved to suit their narrative.

juzzyp

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Cafferty

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for not entering your registration details via the terminal.

--

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • They say the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, due to the dates and wording used. • They say that there was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle and a NTK was sent via post. • They say the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. • There is no evidence of Landowner authority and they put the operator to strict proof to show full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A PDF document containing their grounds of appeal and 2 images showing the front and back of the PCN received. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. Within the appellant within their appeal to the operator, the appellant has advised that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and have no intentions of identifying the driver on the date of the parking event. Within their appeal to POPLA, the appellant has reiterated that they are the registered keeper and how the NTK issued, does not comply with PoFA 2012. In this case, there has been no driver details provided to the operator nor has the appellant declared that they were the driver on the date of the parking event. Therefore, I need to assess if the PCN is complaint with the relevant aspects of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, in order to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “The notice must – F) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”. Having reviewed all the PCNs provided within the operators evidence pack, I note that none of the PCNs mention any of the above wording. In addition to this, the operator has also admitted that the PCNs were not issued under PoFA 2012 As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012 to be able to transfer the liability to the keeper. I can only conclude that on this occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. As such, this appeal is allowed. 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

Having reviewed all the PCNs provided within the operators evidence pack, I note that none of the PCNs mention any of the above wording. In addition to this, the operator has also admitted that the PCNs were not issued under PoFA 2012 

Jolly good! Which PPC?

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Having reviewed all the PCNs provided within the operators evidence pack, I note that none of the PCNs mention any of the above wording. In addition to this, the operator has also admitted that the PCNs were not issued under PoFA 2012 

Jolly good! Which PPC?

In addition to this, the operator has also admitted that the PCNs were not issued under PoFA 2012 As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012 to be able to transfer the liability to the keeper. I can only conclude that on this occasion, the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. As such, this appeal is allowed.

After 13 years PPCs should know that if they are not pursuing under PoFA, they should have allowed the initial appeal - just as APCOA does. 

Wolflobo1

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The operator has not allowed a consideration or grace period and has not complied with the BPA Code of Practice. • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice • The operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR. • There is no evidence of the period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. The appellant has reiterated and expanded upon their grounds of appeal in the comments. They add that there is no option to enter the time the vehicle entered on the payment machine. The appellant has provided three images of their bank statement, a letter containing their full grounds of appeal and the operator’s rejection letter as evidence.

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. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I am therefore assessing keeper liability. The appellant says that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The 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. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. The signage on the site clearly advises that motorists are required to display a valid ticket in the windscreen. The tariffs are as follows: Monday to Saturday…Up to 1 hour £2.50…Up to 2 hours £4.00…Up to 3 hours £4.60…Up to 4 hours £4.60. Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I have reviewed the images of the signs provided by the operator and I am satisfied that these comply with Section 19.4 of The BPA Code of Practice. There is no requirement for operators to place signs in each parking bay and there is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the driver would have walked or driven past at least one of the operator’s signs and as such, was afforded this opportunity. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority and 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 a redacted contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The appellant has advised that they were not allowed a consideration or grace period 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 the recommended consideration period according to Table B.1 is five minutes however as the motorist had not used the time to decide they were not entitled to an additional five minutes. 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 the recommended grace period for the site is 10 minutes and as the vehicle remained on the site for an additional 32 minutes which exceeded the recommended 10 minutes. I note that the appellant’s ground for appeal is whether the operator has complied with the GDPR laws and refers to the ICO. Please note, that POPLA’s role is to assess if the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of whether the operator has complied with GDPR rules or lack thereof. On this basis, my decision would focus on the other aspects of the appeal in order to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked .The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if any motorist has not paid enough for parking, a PCN is issued. I have reviewed the appellant’s evidence and I acknowledge that the appellant had made a payment for three hours however they had remained on the site for an additional 32 minutes without making payment. When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of all motorists to be aware of how long their vehicle has remained at the site and to make the appropriate payment for parking. Operators are not obligated to calculate the length of stay for motorists or to ensure each motorist has purchased sufficient parking time before leaving the site. After considering the evidence from both parties the driver parked on the site and did not purchase enough parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Umkomaas

This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Wrong!  Only a Judge can tell you to do that!  Do not pay on the say-so of a POPLA Assessor. 

Which parking firm, we need context to get a better understanding of this?  Otherwise it's a standard POPLA rejection in a vacuum. 

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Wrong!  Only a Judge can tell you to do that!  Do not pay on the say-so of a POPLA Assessor. 

Which parking firm, we need context to get a better understanding of this?  Otherwise it's a standard POPLA rejection in a vacuum. 

I think the OP should complain about that added sentence. It is patently untrue.

juzzyp

Coupon-mad said:

Having reviewed all the PCNs provided within the operators evidence pack, I note that none of the PCNs mention any of the above wording. In addition to this, the operator has also admitted that the PCNs were not issued under PoFA 2012 

Jolly good! Which PPC?

Apologies - this was Parking Eye.