POPLA Decisions

Jenni_D

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81835563#Comment_81835563

I'm late to the party (not read this thread since 2022 apparently 🤣) but in the post quoted above the byelaw (bylaw?) talks about the owner … when it comes to cars etc. there is no such register of owners, so a notice sent to the registered keeper may still not be valid. (You don't own a car unless you've bought it outright - otherwise the finance co, lease co, Motability etc. own the car). 🙂

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81867309#Comment_81867309

POPLA believes that RK is the ‘Owner’. Fundamentally incorrect assumption, but don’t let that bother your lads and lasses John Gallagher! Keep the show ticking over!

doubledotcom

I advise anyone using POPLA for a railway byelaw Penalty Notice to pre-empt their rubbish response with:

Pre-emptive rebuttal of the “owner” assertion
I anticipate APCOA/POPLA will assert: “DVLA records indicate you were the registered keeper. You are legally liable as the owner even if not the driver. ‘Owner’ means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.” That reasoning is wrong in law for a byelaw allegation.

No deeming provision in the Railway Byelaws
Byelaw 14(4)(ii) allows prosecution of “the owner”. The Byelaws do not define “owner” and contain no presumption that the registered keeper is the owner. Any such presumption must be created by the Byelaws themselves. It is not.

Civil presumptions are irrelevant to criminal liability
The “kept by/presumed owner” wording cited by operators derives from civil contexts (e.g. VERA administration; PoFA keeper liability). Those regimes are not incorporated into the Railway Byelaws and do not create criminal liability. A byelaw prosecution is criminal in character and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ownership must be proved with evidence, not assumed from DVLA administrative data.

DVLA data is keeper data, not proof of ownership
DVLA provides registered keeper details only. The V5C expressly states it is not proof of ownership. DVLA data may be a starting point for enquiries, but it is not conclusive (or even sufficient) evidence of ownership for a criminal allegation.

Jurisdiction and correct route
If the operator believes an offence occurred, the only lawful route is to lay information in the magistrates’ court under the Single Justice Procedure within six months of the date of the allegation. POPLA cannot determine criminal liability or apply criminal standards of proof. Directing civil recovery or purporting to impose keeper liability under PoFA is outside scope.

Outcome sought

POPLA should decline jurisdiction over a Railway Byelaws Penalty Notice and direct APCOA to cancel it; or

In the alternative, if POPLA nevertheless considers itself competent, it must allow the appeal because APCOA has provided no evidence of “owner” as required by Byelaw 14(4)(ii) and cannot rely on PoFA or civil presumptions to impose keeper liability on non-relevant land.

For the avoidance of doubt, should POPLA be minded to endorse APCOA’s defective position, please instruct APCOA to refer to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

You can replace APCOA with SABA as necessary.

bennjiboy

DecisionSuccessfulAssessor NameAssessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to make or validate a payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal which have been summarised for the purpose of my report: • They say it was pitch black when they arrived and it took a few minutes for the driver to read the signs which were sparse, placed high and only one was noticed on a non-prominent unlit wall. • The drive her to shine their phone onto the sign to read it and left. They say all in all 7 minutes was taken to read the signs and as the driver did not agree to a contract they left. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands upon their grounds of appeal. The appellant states a 10 minute grace period should be granted, the images do not show the times of darkness and its photo of the sign taken on a laptop could be anywhere in the world. The appellant has raised new grounds of appeal in relation to the landowner document being heavily redacted.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle was on this land 6 minutes in total without a valid payment for their stay. The appellant tells POPLA this period was used to try to read the signs in an unlit car park in pitch black before the driver decided to exit, rejecting the contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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. A a period of 5 minutes is granted. In this case the vehicle entered and exited within a period of 7 minutes which were taken trying to locate the signs and read them. Having taken their grounds into consideration, I am satisfied that a period of 7 minutes, to enter, locate the signs in a car park in the dark which they claim to be unlit is reasonable. They chose to exit the site before entering into a contract and being issued with a PCN for not paying. As such a consideration period under section 5.1 should be extended for the additional minutes in this instance. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator has not applied a consideration period, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the 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.

Umkomaas

👆👆. For context (otherwise the above successful appeal is in a bit of a vacuum), the PPC is LDK. The thread link is below.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6628043/ldk-parking-charge-conflicting-times-on-letter-appeal-successful/p5

zenith125

DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor NamePaul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking fee for the visit duration was not paid in full.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below. • They paid £0.60 on the day and entered the vehicle registration via the machine however, no ticket was issued and the machine was obviously faulty. • They have seen no evidence of the machine logs confirming the vehicle details and payment was mot made. • The CCTV cameras on site will show the driver at the payment machine. • They dispute the operator has authority to issue PCNs on this site. • The signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided two photographs. 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 all motorists must pay for the full duration of their stay and failure to do so will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. Other signs set out the appropriate tariffs. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 28 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction report which confirms no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. While I acknowledge the appeals grounds of appeal, POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decision on the evidence provided. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 28 minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online transaction report which confirms no payment was made for the appellants vehicle. I recognise the appellant has advised the machine was faulty and did not issue a parking ticket. They have also stated no machine logs have been provided by the operator and also confirmed they made a payment of £0.60. The tariff signs on this site confirm that a payment of £0.60is sufficient for up to one hour of parking only. Therefore, as the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 28 minutes, the appellant was required to pay £1.60 which permits parking for up to two hours. As such, regardless of whether a payment was made, the appellant has not paid for the full duration of their stay. This car park is controlled by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture still images of vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This ANPR data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if there is no payment located against a vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. ANPR cameras are not CCTV. There is no evidence to suggest that the car park or machines are monitored by any CCTV camera, and any footage recorded would not necessarily belong to the operator to be able to provide such images. Regardless of this, even if there was footage of the appellant at a payment machine this would not be sufficient to prove that the appellant paid the correct amount for the correct vehicle registration as per the terms and conditions. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. This 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 and applies to all PCNs issued after this date. The new coded supersedes all previous versions of the BPA code of practice. 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 contract with the landowner, Bransby Wilson. On reviewing this, I am satisfied that Minster Baywatch has the appropriate authority from Bransby Wilson to pursue parking charges on this site. 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 several images of the signage on this site which confirms there are multiple signs located throughout the car park. On reviewing these images, I am satisfied they meet the requirements of the Single Code of Practice. I note the appellant has provided two images of the site, including a sign. This sign confirms the available payment option on this site and payment can be made either by cash or pay by mobile. I acknowledge these signs do not have the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) logo displayed, however, these signs do display the BPA logo confirming it is a member which is the Accredited Trade Association for this parking operator. On reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not comment further. 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.

This is a joke as I parked on a Sunday and the sign clearly states all day on Sunday for 60p so the assessor completely missed that part!

Umkomaas

In this case, the operator has provided a copy of the contract with the landowner, Bransby Wilson. On reviewing this, I am satisfied that Minster Baywatch has the appropriate authority from Bransby Wilson to pursue parking charges on this site.

As far as I am aware, Bransby Wilson don’t own car parks; they are a sister company of Minster Baywatch. What did MB submit as such evidence? Please post the POPLA result on your original thread, and show us the MB landowner evidence there.

zenith125

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81886888#Comment_81886888

I will, but I got told to post it here 👍

zenith125

Actually I can't post their evidence as it's not viewable anymore and I never saved it! Oh well guess I will see them in court.

From what I remember it was a contract between the land owner and Bransby Wilson and then a kind of sub contract from Bransby to Minster Baywatch

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81887328#Comment_81887328

Nope you need to email POPLA for a copy of the evidence pack now.