POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

You can safely ignore APCOA and as it was a PN, it times out at six months! Not long to go.

Rudadiz

Coupon-mad said:

You can safely ignore APCOA and as it was a PN, it times out at six months! Not long to go.

Thank you very much @Coupon-mad. Aware that further repercussion is limited, just shocked and very disappointed at the level of incompetence on POPLA's part.

Happy New Year by the way - thank you for the wonderful service to the community over the years!  

Birkyboy

Rudadiz said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can safely ignore APCOA and as it was a PN, it times out at six months! Not long to go.

Thank you very much @Coupon-mad. Aware that further repercussion is limited, just shocked and very disappointed at the level of incompetence on POPLA's part.

Happy New Year by the way - thank you for the wonderful service to the community over the years!  

I have no knowledge or expertise, however to reassure you by sharing my own recent experience..

I had a PN from APCOA for parking at a railway station. Followed the advice on here from @Coupon-mad and others. Appealed to APCOA (rejected) appealed to POPLA. APCOA cancelled my PN approaching the 6 month point (during the POPLA appeal stage) although they never had the grace to let me know. Stand firm and good luck!

Umkomaas

If you wish, just periodically check the APCOA website for the status of the PN. But don’t concern yourself about any APCOA ‘repercussions’, there never are any!

DjangoUnchained

seems we got natalie matthews as assessor who likes to dismiss most appeals, lol

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as they appellant never paid for parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • The driver tried to pay for parking but the parking machine wasn’t working and they couldn't pay for parking which is a common issue with this site and they have a witness to prove this. • The operator never answered the question as to how someone would know if the payment had gone through or not. • When pay for parking the parking machine briefly stated the payment was confirmed and then went to ‘next customer’. • There was no indication that the payment hadn’t been accepted. • On receiving a PCN they checked their bank statement and saw the payment hadn’t gone through. • The operator never provided proof of failed payments. • They feel signage in the car park is inadequate and adding confusion. • They will take this to court if the PCN isn't rescinded. • The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section and feel the operator's evidence isn't sufficient to prove a breach. • There would be no reason for the driver to attempt a different payment method as they believed their payment had gone through and they feel there was clear frustration of contract. • They added the signage is from March and there is no proof what the signage on the date in question was like.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage in this car park is a pay for parking 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 will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. I note the appellant's comments and appreciate the driver tried to pay for parking but they were unaware that the payment hadn’t gone through as the parking machine briefly said that the payment had gone through and then went to ‘next customer’. Whilst this is regrettable, the onus is on the driver to ensure they keep to the terms and conditions and to check that their payment has gone through correctly. The driver should have checked their bank statement to ensure the payment had been taken correctly before leaving the car park, especially if there was any doubt of the parking machine going to ‘next customer’ so quickly. This proves there was at least a small indication that there might have been issue with the payment, enough for the appellant to raise it in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, this proves there is no frustration of contract. Especially as the appellant stated this is a common, known issue in this car park, the onus was on the driver to ensure before leaving that their payment had gone through correctly. They raised signage and that it wasn’t clear and writing too small. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. The operator's evidence proves clear entrance signage to adequately advise that the car park is privately owned land. 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. I am satisfied that the signage on site meets the single code of practice and clearly tells motorist's the car park is a pay for parking car park. Additionally, the font and signage is large enough for mood to read clearly. The signage may be dated from March; however, the appellant never provided any photographic evidence of the site to prove the signage was no longer on site. They raised that the operator never responded adequately to their initial appeal and never provided adequate proof of other payments that never went through for the date in question. I can see the operator have proven the appellant's payment was a failed payment and that many other motorists were able to pay for parking on the date in question, which proves this was rather user error than machine error. Any further queries about the information provided by the operator would need to be raised with the operator directly. POPLA’s role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly. Although I acknowledge that the appellant may look to take legal action, I am only able to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly or not based on the evidence available at the time of the assessment. Any further action the appellant wishes to take after my assessment is at the appellant's discretion and will have no influence on my decision. Ultimately, the crux of this case is the appellant may have tried to pay for parking, but the parking machine never accepted their payment and the appellant was at least reasonably aware that there may be an issue with the payment as they commented that the ‘next customer’ came very quickly after their payment. They should have checked the payment had gone through or tried again or used a different payment option to pay. Based on all the evidence provided to me, the appellant never paid for parking on the date in question and the appellant is liable for the charge. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.

Umkomaas

Without the name of the PPC, the POPLA decision is somewhat without context.  Dependant on which PPC, further advice, if needed, might vary. 

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

Without the name of the PPC, the POPLA decision is somewhat without context.  Dependant on which PPC, further advice, if needed, might vary. 

Euro Car Parks, so no worries as long as they use DCB Legal for the pointless court claim!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6630477/howard-centre-wgc/p1

The OP knows this but for new readers here, you do not pay when you lose at POPLA.

It goes like this with ECP:

Time-waster letters & phone calls incoming from DCB Ltd.

Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.

Usual generic Claim Form, DCB Legal.

Easy template Defence deployed.

Weeks or months delay.

Get on with life.

Usual form-filling to choose your court.

Mediation (joke) phone call.

Weeks or months delay.

Get on with life.

Hearing date in about a year from now.

Discontinued before the hearing.

Scam over. No risk, no CCJ.

aconfusedcat

Hi, my appeal against ParkingEye got rejected. The original thread is: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6635257

Decision

Unsuccessful

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 • They parked between 18:20 and 18:48 and purchased 20 minutes of parking time • An insufficient grace period was given • A consideration period should be given • Signage is not adequate or sufficiently prominent • There is insufficient notice of the parking charge sum • No evidence of landowner authority • The driver needed to wait for others to pay before them • The PCN sum is disproportionate After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal highlighting signage visibility at night. The appellant explains reasons they do not accept the operator’s rebuttals. The appellant has provided a PDF document expanding on their appeal grounds as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has already identified themselves of the driver of the vehicle this day when appealing to Parking Eye Limited. 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 time and date stamped Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images demonstrate to me that the appellant remained within the operator’s controlled parking area for a duration of 33 minutes and 31 seconds between 18:15:05 and 18:48:36. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. Images of signage taken in situ provided by the parking operator demonstrate they have met this requirement. 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. Images of signage taken in situ provided by the parking operator demonstrate they have met this requirement. Section 3.1.4 of the Code states signs informing drivers that a parking charge is applicable must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main text. 

On paid parking sites, the charge must be in a font no smaller than the tariffs or numbers. Images of signage taken in situ provided by the parking operator demonstrate they have met this requirement. Notably, the PCN sum is shown is large white lettering against a contrasting black background. The sum is present in a text size larger than the tariff information displayed. 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’s site plan show the positions of signage placed directly onto lighting poles in what is a small car park. The appellant says they went to a machine and purchased 20 minutes of parking time. The pay terminal is positioned about 3 car widths from signage placed on a lighting pole. If signage was unclear or not sufficiently readable in the lighting conditions this day, it is unclear what prompted the appellant to address the machine and make a parking payment. The appellant has provided no evidence of a lack of adequate lighting. I find the operator’s case more compelling and conclude signage was sufficiently visible at 18:15 this day. 

The terms of use require motorists to “Pay for the full duration on your stay…”. In this case that was over 33 minutes. The tariff board clearly explained a payment of £1.00 (shown on the image sent of the pay and display ticket purchased at 18:22) authorised a stay of “Up to 20 minutes” only. I have no reason to doubt the appellant had needed to wait for others to pay before they could complete their own parking payment. When they did pay, they needed to make a payment that covered their full duration of stay. 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 appellant opted to stay and made a payment at a payment machine. A parking contract was formed and the appellant needed to pay for the full duration of stay if they did not want to get a PCN for £100. If they did not want to accept the terms, the appellant could have left in that consideration period and parked elsewhere. 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 a 10 minute grace period would be warranted. I would not expect a PCN to be issued before the authorised period of parking (20 minutes) and the grace period (10 minutes) had been exceeded. 33 minutes and 31 seconds is in excess of the sum of both though. 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 sent a document that is sufficient for me to conclude they are enforcing parking terms with the agreement on the landowner. The appellant has provided no evidence that casts doubt on this. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is disproportionate or does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. 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 itself. 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 not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. I note the appellant inserted a website link in their appeal document. POPLA do not access such links for data security reasons. 

After reviewing all the evidence available I find the operator has present the more compelling case. After considering the evidence from both parties, I conclude the appellant did not purchase appropriate parking time 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.

DjangoUnchained

Coupon-mad said:

Umkomaas said:

Without the name of the PPC, the POPLA decision is somewhat without context.  Dependant on which PPC, further advice, if needed, might vary. 

Euro Car Parks, so no worries as long as they use DCB Legal for the pointless court claim!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6630477/howard-centre-wgc/p1

The OP knows this but for new readers here, you do not pay when you lose at POPLA.

It goes like this with ECP:

Time-waster letters & phone calls incoming from DCB Ltd.

Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.

Usual generic Claim Form, DCB Legal.

Easy template Defence deployed.

Weeks or months delay.

Get on with life.

Usual form-filling to choose your court.

Mediation (joke) phone call.

Weeks or months delay.

Get on with life.

Hearing date in about a year from now.

Discontinued before the hearing.

Scam over. No risk, no CCJ.

Just wondering   myself have never given either of our phone numbers at any stage, I'm guessing that until the pointless mediation stage we won't have to  and then we can just use a disposable sim/ number?

Coupon-mad

Yep you can.