POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Last week, a friend finally won their POPLA appeal that I helped them put together, about the notorious Tesco Hove site, where Horizon removed the old APCOA signs & changed the rules in September but hid the large 'car park changes' banner on the back fence instead of at the entrance.

Screenshots from the happy winner:

😄

One extra point not considered by this Assessor but worth looking out for in other cases:

Horizon had re-hashed an old generic UK-wide Tesco landowner authority document (which lists all possible breaches including failure to pay a tariff which is not relevant here). They just added 'Tesco Hove' to the old 2022 Word doc site list.

But because it's a new site for Horizon, they actually had to comply with the whole 'Joint Code' and that requires site-specific authority. No sign of that in the evidence pack.

It also took nearly 3 months to get a decision so POPLA have a backlog right now.

Le_Kirk

Weird that the breach is: -

"The parking operator ………….. due to validate the vehicle…………!"

SwankyKumquat

Original Thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6646512/popla-appeal-stage-ntk-validity/p1 (Parking Operator is NSGL Parking)

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Bethan Wenham

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for vehicle not registered electronically.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:•The appellant says 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.•They say the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge.•They say no evidence of Landowner Authority: the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in relation to the parking charge amount on the agreement (£80/£40) does not match what is being enforced (£100/£50). The appellant has raised new grounds in relation to the Enforcement Type (Patrols) does not allow for the ANPR enforcement in this case.I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision.In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following:1.Appellants submission for appeal. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When I am explaining my reasons below, I will be using the new Private Parking Single Code of Practice and the old British Parking Association code. 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. The parking operator does not need to comply with the sign’s aspect of the new Code until December 2026, therefore, for signs I am considering the old BPA Code of Practice. This will be made clear in my 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.The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that authorised vehicles must be registered electronically – College staff vehicles, annual permit holders or authorised business parking. A £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply. The parking operator has confirmed that the vehicle was not registered on the whitelist. The appellant has challenged the signage.The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with.Section 19.3 of the old BPA Code of Practice says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s site map shows multiple signs are installed across the site, including an entrance sign. It has also provided timestamped images of the signs across the site. The appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary to show that the car park does not have sufficient signs as the evidence the appellant has provided, I am satisfied clearly states that terms and conditions apply. Therefore, I am satisfied the terms and conditions are clearly brought to the motorist’s attention.I recognise that the appellant has provided a sign distinguished from 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis', however I am satisfied that the signage the parking operator complies with the code. The signs state that consequences of not complying with the terms and conditions and the amount of the charge has to be clear on the signage. In this case, I am satisfied it is clear that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN of £100. I note the appellant has said the parking charge amount on the agreement does not match what is being enforced.The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The New Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the New 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 demonstrated that they manage the land, and I am satisfied they have adhered to the code. Should the appellant wish to view it they can do and it is under evidence pack 15-18.The agreement between the landowner was agreed in 2012 and continues from the first agreement, however the operator has provided images of the site dated 2024 stating that the PCN amount is £100, £50 reduced if paid within 14 days, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage stating the £100 PCN amount if they did not agree with the parking charge amount. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission stating the incorrect terms and conditions so I am satisfied that the charge is correct.After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not register electronically 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

………….

This was certainly a fun read. Highlights include: Apparently daring to refute evidence put to the operator to prove is submitting your own evidence, the use of 'it is likely that' when speaking about terms that 'must' have existed, and failing in any substantive way to address evidence about signage prominance/visibility. Ho-hum I will await the parking operator's next move calmly

flying_bullet

Posting my recent success against Britannia Parking in case it helps others and as I've benefitted from the templates on this forum.

PCN was issued at Britannia Parking in Upper Marsh, Waterloo, London. I was in a lease car and the primary basis of my appeal rested on the well trodden POFA issue of the parking operator failing to have secured all relevant documents from the lease company.

Interestingly perhaps, I believe the evidence of landowner authority provided by Britannia Parking would also have relevant grounds, and my letter of appeal responded to that, but POPLA didn't consider this given the POFA failure.

Extract:

Operator Name
Britannia Parking Group - EW

Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to make a valid payment.

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 are appealing as the hirer • The notice to hirer is not compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as they were not provided with the 3 listed documents required • The operators’ images contain 2 cropped digitally altered photos of the vehicle number plate, that do not show the vehicle actually entering or leaving • The images do not have legible digital timestamps as mandated by the Code of Practice • No evidence of driver liability • No evidence of landowner authority After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. A letter of appeal The above 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 Protection of Freedoms Act 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. PoFA lets parking operators transfer liability for a parking charge from the unknown driver of a vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle if certain rules are followed. The rules say an operator must obtain specific documents from the hire company and send those documents to the hirer, but there is no evidence that the required documents were ever obtained and sent, and the appellant denies receiving these documents. Therefore, I cannot consider the operator has acted within the requirements of the PoFA legislation, and I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal, but as I have allowed on the above I did not feel they needed consideration.

FactsNotFiction298

Hello all!

Have read this thread for a few months now in anticipation of a unsuccessful claim from POPLA.

I'm pasting the details here hoping for some advice please, I parked and paid to charge my EV and it turns out there's a 90 min maximum stay at the garage in question, which I wasn't aware of and wouldn't even have done my EV from very low percentage (only reason I stopped and paid the obscene prices) and now they want another £100!! Help please

DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor NameJessica Nuttall

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

• They were paying for the electric charging service after making an emergency trip to see a family member.

• They think it is unfair to receive a PCN when they would not have had sufficient charge to get home meaning they would need to stop again

• They are extremely disappointed. • They didn’t see the signage. • They were a legitimate user of the site. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates and expands on their grounds of appeal

• The operator’s own wording supports their position. • The operator’s claim that the driver “does not need to read the terms” is legally incorrect. • The charge is disproportionate and punitive.

• They request that the PCN is cancelled. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: • Charging receipt. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

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. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who exceed the 90-minute maximum stay.

The appellant has provided a copy of their charging receipt and stated that they were a legitimate user of the site, explaining that it would have been inconvenient for them to stop charging their vehicle. However, this does not exempt them from the terms and conditions in place. It remains the motorist’s responsibility to monitor their duration on site and ensure they do not exceed the maximum permitted stay.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator have provided images of the signs and a site map. This shows frequent signage throughout the site.

While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. 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 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 appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity. I note that the appellant believes the site wording supports their position; however, the phrase “no concessions apply” means the motorist has no additional leeway for the time spent charging their vehicle and is not exempt from the site’s terms and conditions. All users remain responsible for adhering to the maximum stay permitted.

I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is unfair, disproportionate and punitive. 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 do empathise that the appellant wants the PCN cancelled. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is to assess whether a Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly based on the evidence provide by both parties. It is simply not within our remit to allow an appeal which the motorist breached the parking condition. For further support you may wish to speak with Citizens Advice on 03444 111 444.

Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on and reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report.

Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the max stay 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

Just ignore them unless you get a claim.

For completeness: which parking firm?

(This is not a thread for advice).

FactsNotFiction298

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81911963#Comment_81911963

Apologies, I thought it was...

It was VARS Technology

dahliafield_d11

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6639174/three-parking-fines-at-tesco-hove-by-horizon#latest

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor NameAmy Cafferty

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to validate the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • the appellant has referenced received another 2 PCNs from the operator for the site in question; • they’re the registered keeper of the vehicle and the drivers identity hasn’t been provided and the PCN issued didn’t comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; • the operator doesn’t have proprietary interest in the land, they require they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner; • the signage is totally inadequate to alert people to the changes in restrictions within the car park, so the operator is in breach of section 19.10 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice; • the operator changes the restrictions in September, 2 material changes were made but there was little or no warning of the reduced maximum stay and the reintroduction of the validation process; • there is now no entrance sign at all as the old operator signage has been removed and it hasn’t been replaced; • there were no prominent signage inside the store to warn anyone about the changes to the terms; • they were advised by staff that providing receipts to the operator would be valid evidence to get the PCNs cancelled; • they’ve since discovered after speaking with staff that a lot of customers are facing the same issues; and • they request that POPLA uphold their appeal on the grounds raised. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has also provided an image from google maps, 2 images showing the entrance of the car park, 2 images showing other PCNs cancelled and 3 Tesco receipts 1 from the date in question and 2 from the other parking events. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Before I begin my assessment, I can see the appellant within their appeal, it would appear that the appellant has made referenced the BPA Code of Practice. However, at the time the PCN was issued, The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) was in place. 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. 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. As such POPLA will assess points raised by the appellant which will fall within the standards set out in The Code which came into force on 1 October 2024, as well as discussing the points raised by the appellant which will fall within the standards set out in version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN as there is no record of a payment made for staying longer than the free period. The appellant has argued as part of their grounds for appeal, that the operator doesn’t have proprietary interest in the land, they require they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. In order for the operator to show that it has correctly issued the parking charge, it must demonstrate to POPLA that it has considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal in accordance with the guidance set out within Section 14.1 of the Code. 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 instance I would expect the operator to provide information or evidence on whether this is the case. I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator and there is nothing to evidence that they have landowner authority. As such, there is no evidence to suggest they were authorised to issue PCNs on the date of the parking event. In this case, the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds and I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. 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.