POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Did Horizon show an old image of the entrance sign and she believed it?

Car1980

They submitted a photo face on, but still clearly parallel to the road that would only visible to those exiting. Just a close up of the attached.

My only added comment was that Horizon's own photo backs up mine and reinforces the fact that it is parallel to the road, invisible on entry and is actually an exit sign and not an entrance sign, evident with it being directly alongside the goodbye sign.

She's obviously accepted there is a sign and thought nothing more about it other than pasting the single code of practice rules I gave her! She appears not to have read my additional comment.

As an aside, the car had broken down as the alternator has gone. But it's Catch 22 - submit evidence to Horizon and they either refuse it, or make the £20 offer. And then submit it to Popla and be told they don't accept mitigating circumstances but have some tea and sympathies.

Anyway I have the garage invoice and photos of me trying to jump start the thing ready for the court claim.

But let me know if it's worth submitting a complaint about the assessor, as I believe her performance is commonly known to be lacking.

yarpsnehpets

Did you ever post up the original PCN? Was it POFA compliant? The Assessor doesn't comment on that.

Car1980

Yeah it was a POFA compliant one.

Same assessor wouldn't have ruled against one that wasn't anyway though.

Wouldn't have bothered except the lack of entrance signage was a slam dunk 🤣

Car1980

Ref. 3761086068
Re: Complaint against assessor Sultana Yasmin

Morning

I am in receipt of the above "unsuccessful" appeal. I am fully aware that decisions are binding and cannot be reviewed, but I am highlighting my dissatisfaction for your records and to encourage you to review Ms Yasmin's decision making as she appears to require some further training.

The entrance to the land in this case had an entrance sign installed that was parallel to the road and was therefore completely invisible and could only be seen by vehicles exiting the site. Photographs were submitted and words of one syllable were used to explain that it could not be seen and the fact it was adjacent to the Tesco exit sign demonstrated that it could only been seen by drivers leaving.

The operator submitted a photo of the sign face-on: exactly the view vehicles EXITING the site would have seen. I even submitted a response to the operator's evidence to highlight for Ms Yasmin that their photo backs up my assertions that its positioning made it invisible to those entering the site.

Ms Sultana appears to box-ticked the answer to the question "was there a sign?"instead of reading my points, and then ironically quoted back to me the Single Code of Practice text that stated the sign must be clear and visible. Which my evidence proved it bloody wasn't.

In a nutshell, it would have taken a lobotomy victim a second to view my photograph and see there was no entrance sign visible to the those entering the car park. A task seemingly beyond your assessor.

Please put the case in front of a more senior assessor to review in order to help Ms Sultana improve her performance and please report back that you will be doing so.

Kind regards
XXX

I know it's a kangaroo court and I should have saved my time, but I hate injustice and sending this was rather satisfying 🤣

Coupon-mad

"In a nutshell, it would have taken a lobotomy victim a second to view my photograph and see there was no entrance sign visible to the those entering the car park. A task seemingly beyond your assessor."

🤣👏

toystory4321

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Gary Milne

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining longer than permitted at Corporation St car park.

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. • The driver left and parked at a different car park. No amenity was obtained during the 5 minutes the operator alleges the driver used the car park. • The payment methods were unsuitable or not working properly. • Incorrect parking location indicated on parking charge notice. • Consideration period did not lead to contract with the operator. • No evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has provided; 1. Their payment at an alternative car park at 18:37. 2. Image of the car park showing entrance from Seed St. Car park is also located beside a major road, Corporation St. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterated their concerns of their initial appeal, mentioning grace period when discussing the consideration period. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant ’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. 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. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise Tarif payable at machine or by phone and refers users to see notices in the car park for terms and conditions. Additional signage provides details of the tariffs that apply based on duration of stay. Payment can also be made using the Evology app. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map to demonstrate that the signs were clearly visible and located throughout the car park. The operator has provided a copy of their whitelist lookup which shows the appellant’s vehicle had not paid to park. The operator has also provided a list of other users paying by the Evology App on and around the time the appellant used the car park, indicating successful transactions were being made. The appellant has stated they left the site and parked at a different car park and has provided evidence of their parking at Hill St car park. I do not contest they left Corporation St car park and paid for parking at a different location. The appeal is for a parking charge at Corporation St car park where the operator has provided ANPR photographs showing the appellant entered the site at 18:26:02 and left at 18:31:58. The appellant stated they left Corporation St car park after they had considered the payment methods were unsuitable or not working properly. The appellant has not provided any evidence the payment methods were not working correctly, and the operator has also provided a list of other users paying by the Evology App on and around the time the appellant used the car park, indicating successful transactions were being made. Although a machine option was available to pay, the appellant has confirmed they were not carrying any coins at the time, and there is no suggestion of fault with the payment machine. The appellant has stated that the incorrect parking location indicated on parking charge notice, Corporation St rather than Seed St. The site map shows the car park is located beside the major road Corporation St, although its entrance is via Seed St. I am satisfied the correct parking location is indicated on the PCN. The appellant has stated consideration period did not lead to contract with the operator, and also that no amenity was obtained during the 5 minutes the operator alleges the driver used the car park. 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. This is given as 5 minutes for this size of site and is to allow the user time to leave the car park if they do not wish to accept the terms for parking on the site. If a user remains on site longer than the consideration period, the consideration period becomes part of the total time on site and the user must then comply with the terms and conditions of the car park and pay for parking as though a contract had been formed. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice also 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. The grace period is not a period of free parking. In this case, as the appellant did not pay for their parking, a grace period does not apply. The appellant has stated the operator has not demonstrated that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this location. 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. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as remained on site longer than permitted without making payment, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Car1980

So the contractual offer was rejected 57 seconds "too late" 🤣🤣🤣

Nobody said the app didn't work, and well done to other people who may not have had to download it, register, set up a payment method and retrieve verification codes via their email. It's 5 minutes of a job at least just to do that!

Please tell us the name of the parking company you will now be ignoring!

toystory4321

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82078130#Comment_82078130

it’s ParkingEye, not sure it can all be ignored if my reading of the newbies thread is correct.

Jenni_D

Hasn't Corporation Street come up here before? (Probably a question for the OP's thread).