POPLA Decisions

Timewarp

piggypower said:

Coupon-mad said:

Please edit that and add ten paragraph breaks. We can't read the decision! Yes, we know that's how it copies and pastes from POPLA but (like all the other decisions posted here) please put in paragraphs, so we can read it.

You already know from the NEWBIES thread and/or the MSE Guide to Private Parking Tickets, to ignore POPLA and that this isn't a fine.

  

apologies. Done a number of breaks where it seems most beneficial. I will read the newbies thread again, its been a few weeks since I did. thanks for the reply. 

I thought the same as coupon mad, but I copied your whole post into Chatgpt and got it to reformat for me automatically.

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

Looks very much like a bot generated response from POPLA. Still can't spell rationale though! 🤦

I reported that over two year ago and they said they would roll it out in their next training update program.  Still waiting!

piggypower

Umkomaas said:

Looks very much like a bot generated response from POPLA. Still can't spell rationale though! 🤦

yeah it lacks in a few areas with grammar and spelling. 

Ynot0691

Hi my decision which I created a new thread for too just now:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to purchase a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They inadvertently parked 15 minutes early for the free 30 minute session. • The operator did not provide a means of payment as the signage states to pay at the machine or by phone. • There are no machines, and they do not have a smart phone. • Their mental health contributed to them parking too early. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states the machines shown in the evidence are a good distance away from where they parked and not visible. There should be directions to the closest machine. The closest machine according to the map is in another car park. I am unable to respond to new grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • An image of a university sign and a Parking Eye sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

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. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided of an image of a university sign and a Parking Eye sign. It’s clear from the Parking Eye sign, and university sign that parking is free, but this only applies to the first 30 minutes of a motorists stay. If motorists wish to remain for longer, they must pay to do so. I note the appellant confirms they were aware of the need to pay, but no payment machine was in the vicinity and they could not pay using a smartphone. I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided date stamped images of signs throughout the site and upon entry which make the terms clear, and motorists must pay if remaining for longer than 30 minutes. The operator has demonstrated the appellant remained for 58 minutes and provided a list to demonstrate they searched for the appellants vehicle and found no payment for their stay. I acknowledge the location of the payment machines in relation to the area the appellant parked and accept the site is very large and spread over several areas. It’s unclear if the appellant was aware of the lack of machines at the time of parking, but if they were, it’s reasonable to expect them to exit before their free time had elapsed. If not, then the signs do advise how to pay using an app/online or by phone. Whilst I accept the appellant doesn’t have a smartphone, they could have called the number on the sign to make payment over the phone, without the need for an app. I note the appellant believed this was just an instruction to download the app, but that is not the case and there is no evidence the appellant tried to call the number to pay. It’s always the responsibility of the motorist to review the signs in full and comply with the terms. Again, the signs clearly advise of the need to pay and how to pay, if the appellant knew they could not make payment, they should have left within the free stay period. POPLA must assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. I empathise with the appellant and appreciate their mental health may have contributed to the breach. Perhaps they may be better served in speaking with the university to see if they can assist with the PCN. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the appellant broke them by failing to pay for their stay. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Coupon-mad

I helped 2 friends win exact match Total Parking Solutions cases.

Bad luck TPS! Picked on the wrong ladies.

Both cases were appealed as keeper, and the appeal covered the usual stuff, plus the fact that TPS couldn't be bothered to identify the actual car park in the two matching NTKs:

Decision - Successful

Assessor Name - Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist parked without having paid.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion.

The appellant has stated that: 

• The operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

• The operator runs two car parks and the notice to keeper only specifies the name of the village and the wrong post code of the car park. 

• The operator has wrongly identified the relevant land. 

• They put the operator to proof of landowner authority. 

• The images of the signs provided in the operator’s rejection letter could be of the wrong car park.

To support their appeal, the appellant has provided screenshots of Parkopedia and Wikipedia, along with an image of the parking charge notice. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments relating to their grounds of appeal. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below:

In this case, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge as the driver has not been identified. In order to do so, the notice to keeper must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 9(1) states that

“a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met”

Section 9(2) states that the notice must: “(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”

Having reviewed the notice to keeper, it simply specifies the location as

“Rustington, Rustington, BN16 2NE”.

The appellant has demonstrated that Rustington is a town in West Sussex.

The appellant has also explained that there are two car parks in the area, and the post code relates to the one the motorist did not use.

Having reviewed the operator’s response, I can see that it has also demonstrated that there are two different car parks in the area, named Rustington Churchill Parade car park and Rustington Broadmark Lane car park. As a result, I agree with the appellant that the notice does not specify the relevant land on which the parking event occurred.

Therefore, the operator cannot pursue the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle as the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been complied with. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal and evidence, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

------------------------------

Interestingly, TPS' evidence packs differed in one important - very serious - issue that I might complain to the BPA about when I'm back from my upcoming holiday:

The motorists both parked at night. PCN timings around 11pm and they were accused of not paying.

Here's the very serious issue - raised in the Comments, but POPLA ducked dealing with it completely:

One evidence pack included an unredacted landowner agreement stating that the pay and display hours were daytime 9-5 only.

The other evidence pack had a redacted version, covering that up.

Truly shocking! I've downloaded & kept both versions if anyone else gets a TPS PCN from Rustington.

Neither PCN has landowner authority to charge after 5pm. And TPS thought it was OK to hide that fact from POPLA.

blindedmole

doubledotcom said:

POPLA is not even a TOC-approved Independent Appeals Body (IAB). POPLA has no jurisdiction to consider appeals of alleged byelaw breaches, which are criminal matters.

The correct procedure should have been an appeal to a TOC-approved IAB and then, if the TOC wished to pursue it, for the TOC to lay an information before a magistrates’ court and issue a Single Justice Procedure (SJP) notice, which the keeper could then challenge. That would mean a TOC prosecution with a requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt — including proving who was in charge of the vehicle at the material time. Where the driver is not identified and there is no reliable evidence establishing who committed the alleged offence, meeting that standard is, in practice, almost impossible.

Hey ho… the farce goes on. Sleep easy in the knowledge that nothing will ever come of this. APCOA cannot prosecute, and even if the TOC wanted to (which they don’t), APCOA would not see a penny of any fine that might be imposed — fines are paid to the public purse — and that’s assuming they could prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, which, as I’ve said, is almost impossible in these cases.

Thank you for your detailed response. It is very much appreciated. 

stop_robin_customrs

POPLA decision : Euro Car parks

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below.
 • They have used the car park previously for several years and on the day in question, they attempted to pay at the machine.
 • The machine would not accept payment and kept producing errors.
 • On the fourth or fifth attempt, it went through the full process accepted payment and issued a ticket as usual.
 • They assumed this ticket meant payment had been made so continued with their day.
 • On receiving the PCN, they noticed the ticket states void in very small text.
 • As this is not their first time they had used the car park, they find it unacceptable the machine failed to take payment at least three times.
 • There was clearly a technical issue with the machine and the screen was difficult to see as it was dirty and in monocolour.
 • The machine should not produce a ticket if no payment is taken.
 • They are happy to pay the £6.50 fee.

On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided two images of a void transaction receipt. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

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 displayed on the signs located within the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these. The signs on this site confirm motorists are required to py for the full duration of their stay and failure to do so will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. These signs also confirm the site offers ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone as alternative payment methods.

The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 22 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction records which confirms no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. While I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal, on reviewing the two parking receipts they have provided, these clearly state this is a void transaction receipt and not a parking ticket.

POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decision on the evidence provided. In response to the appellants grounds of appeal, the operator has provided the payment machine transaction report from the day in question. This confirms other motorists were able to make payment without issue demonstrating the payment machine was in working order. Other transaction reports provided also confirm the three alternative payment methods, ECPparkbuddy RingGo and paybyphone were also working without issue.

The appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate there were any technical faults with the payment machines on the day in question. While I appreciate the appellant has demonstrated the intention to pay, ultimately, it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have made a valid payment before leaving the vehicle parked. In this instance, had the appellant reviewed the receipt, they would have been aware the payment had not been accepted and there would have been sufficient tome to use one of the available payment apps to make payment.

By failing to make a valid payment, the terms and conditions have been breached. I note the appellant has advised they are happy to pay the £6.50 fee. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is solely to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. We have no involvement in payments. Should the appellant wish to discuss this matter further, they will need to contact the operator directly. On reviewing the operators evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal.

As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. I recognise the appellant has asked several questions regarding how the operator manages the site. As an appeals service, it is not within POPLAs remit to comment on how a parking operator chooses to manage car parks it is responsible for. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN 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 operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Ignore that, of course. It will be a cinch to defend and the case will end up discontinued in the end at no cost to you.

memgrubb

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver overstayed the free parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they hole a blue badge as they suffer with osteoarthritis, diabetes and hypertension. They explain that they also have mobility issues which they are undergoing medical care for. They advise that the operator has not suffered a significant loss as additional parking would have only cost £1. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a blue badge, a copy of a medical letter and a copy of a driving licence. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

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. The appellant is being held liable for this PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The notice provided is full compliance as it contains all of the required wording and was sent out within the required time scales. The signs on site advise that two hours free parking is permitted and exceeding this without purchasing additional parking will result in a parking charge of £100. The operator ANPR images show that the driver was on site for two and a half hours. This confirms that the driver exceeded the free period. 

As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the Single Code of Practice. Section 5.2 allows the driver a grace period and Section 4 advises that it can be reasonable to extend this for disabled users. The appellant has provided a blue badge and a medical letter regarding their mobility issues. While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment. If the driver required such a significant period of additional time, they were required to purchase this. 

The court case of Parking Eye V Beavis considered if the amount of a PCN needed to be proportionate to the loss suffered by the operator. The case decided that the amount did not need to be proportionate to the loss as the purpose of the PCN was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. In this case the terms and conditions including the amount of the PCN are clearly displayed on the signs so the driver was made aware from the start that they would pay a PCN of £100 so I cannot consider that it is unreasonable. 

The appellant has provided a copy of a driving licence but the fact that the appellant can driver is not in dispute. If the driver could not park in compliance with the parking restriction they should have removed their vehicle from the car park and found somewhere else to park. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver exceeded the free stay and did not purchase additional time. They 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.

Coupon-mad

"While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment."

Well the law - Equality Act 2010 - says otherwise. Councils allow at least an hour longer.

This is why POPLA isn't fit for purpose. They would need PROPER training on the Equality Act and more.