POPLA Decisions

toystory4321

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82078203#Comment_82078203

it looks like there was someone who got their POPLA approved with a stay of 9 minutes due to a payment machine failure where they agreed that no amenity was gained from the time spent in the car park. I don’t seem to have been so lucky.

My problem was that the app downloaded to pay showed the wrong start time for parking, as this a few days after the clocks went forward (I believe anyway). We couldn’t make the parking start time in the app accurate as it showed 1h before actual time, so we decided to abandon this car park and park somewhere else (only a few metres down the same road).

Unfortunately didn’t capture any screenshots of this anomaly at the time.

Umkomaas

Just wait and see what PE’s next move is, if any. A loss at POPLA places no obligation on the appellant to pay PE. Patience is your strongest ally at this stage.

yarpsnehpets

If PE pursue this then you can defend using points from the recent CMA open letter - this situation is directly covered.

The 5 min consideration period is the minimum, not the maximum.

Gary Milne needs to give his head a wobble.

pillsandthrills

where do I find the template to appeal a parking charge from apcoa MCR airport?
I did appeal however they report not receiving it and now has been passed to a debt recovery centre. I had been waiting for an appeal response.
I did pay the parking charge albeit 48 hours later when it should be within 24 hours. I am
reluctant to pay £170 fine as it seems unfair and I did actually pay the parking charge. I have proof in my bank statement.

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82078379#Comment_82078379

Wrong thread mate.

Best to start your own.

TheEnglishBaguet

initial post:

Stansted PCN from NSL — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Paul Garrity

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

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. • The land is not relevant land and therefore, there is no keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. On reviewing the case file, the appellant expands on their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The crux of the appellants appeal is that the land is not relevant land under POFA as Stansted Airport is governed by Byelaws. Therefore, the operator cannot use POFA to transfer liability. I have reviewed a copy of the map provided which appears to be official documentation showing that the land does fall under the airport Bylaws boundaries. The operator within its case file has provided a map which shows that Coopers End Road appears to be within the boundary of the airport. As airport are cover by byelaws, the operator cannot transfer liability to any other party other than the driver. 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 provided an adequate rebuttal to their grounds, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued this 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.

yarpsnehpets

Nice job.

The NSL issued PCNs for Stansted are an absolute shambles.

They continue to claim POFA compliance even when the notice itself does not contain the required sections of text set out in Schedule 4 Para 9(2).

SaeedB

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Abby Muxlow

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not clearly displaying a valid permit.

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. • No notice to keeper served – no keeper liability under POFA 2012. • Lack of landowner authority. • Inadequate signage. • No evidence of the alleged contravention. • No grace period given. The appellant has provided 1. A copy of the initial appeal rejection. 2. A document containing Google maps images from 2023 and the operator images. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their initial grounds of appeal. All of the above 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. 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 authorised vehicles only where a valid parking permit must be displayed at all times and that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £95.00. The operator has provided photographs to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit. 

The appellant has raised that no notice to keeper was issued and therefore no liability has been established. The PCN was issued to the vehicle on the day and therefore considered issued to the driver, a reminder was then issued to the keeper per process and as is advised on the initial issued PCN. 

The evidence provided by the operator clearly shows this was put on the vehicle. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence, 

I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met PoFA 2012 to transfer liability. 

I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. 

The appellant has raised that no landowner authority has been provided. 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. In addition to this, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator does not have landowner authority, therefore there is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operator’s contract with the landowner. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. I am satisfied the operator has the appropriate authority on this site. 

The appellant has raised that the signage is inadequate and has provided photographs and google maps images to demonstrate this. Section 3.1.3. of the Code states that signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must: be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach, use a sentence-case font size appropriate for the location of the sign so as to be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign, use colours such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible. The signage provided by the operator, clearly shows the terms of the contract. 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. By parking at the site, the appellant became subject to the terms of the contract, which apply to all motorists that enter the site. The images provided by the appellant do clearly show the signage at the site. Having reviewed the signage at the site, I am satisfied that it meets the Code and that it makes clear the terms of the contract. 

The appellant raises that there is no evidence of the alleged contravention. The photographs provided by the operator clearly show the vehicle being parked with out a parking permit. 

Furthermore, the appellant has not provided any statement or evidence to suggest that they hold a valid permit, therefore I am satisfied that a breach occurred and the appellant is aware that they were not able to comply with the terms, or evidence forgetting to show a parking permit. 

The appellant has raised that the operator has failed to give a grace period. Section 5.1 of the Code 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 consideration period refers to the time before a motorist chooses to park and utilise the car park. The appellant chose to remain in the car park without a parking permit, and as such a I am satisfied a breach occurred. Section 5.2 of the Code 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. A grace period refers to time given to those who exit a site after a compliant parking session. As the vehicle remained without a permit, I am satisfied that a breach occurred. 

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. The terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as no valid permit was displayed. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

yarpsnehpets

Another absolutely shocking decision from Abby Muxlow.

Once again she demonstrates that she has no real understanding of the requirements of POFA.

There is no way this individual should be anywhere near the assessment process given her ignorance to the correct rules - how many clear and obvious mistakes are there in this recent assessment, I lost count?

NotMyName51

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no commercial vehicles permitted to park on site.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.

• Unlawful Data Processing: As no breach occurred and no keeper liability can arise; there was no reasonable cause to obtain keeper data from the DVLA. The operator’s processing of personal data lacks a lawful basis. This is contrary to: UK GDPR, and the Data Protection Act 2018. The operator has no lawful basis to retain or process their data in connection with this PCN.
• They are the registered keeper of the above vehicle. They appeal against a PCN issued by UK Parking Control Ltd. They deny liability for this charge. The operator has not identified the driver; they have not admitted to being the driver. This appeal is made strictly in their capacity as keeper. No assumptions should be drawn regarding driver identity.
• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular: The NTK fails to specify any “period of parking” as required by paragraph9(2)(a). The operator relies on a single timestamp (from one of multiple images). The operator relies on images taken within approximately 27 seconds. A short sequence of timestamps does not evidence a period of parking. it merely shows the vehicle was present momentarily. As a result, the NTK is non-compliant and keeper liability does not arise. Only the driver could be liable, and the operator has not identified the driver.
• No Breach Occurred, vehicle Classification the PCN alleges “No commercial vehicle permitted on site.” No breach occurred: The signage relied upon depicts a twin rear axle vehicle or trailer unit (HGV). The vehicle in question is not of this type. The keeper’s vehicle is registered with the DVLA as M1 (passenger vehicle). The operator has defined the restriction through its signage. The keeper’s vehicle does not meet that definition. The signage is therefore: Ambiguous, and Misleading, as it visually conveys a restriction relating to HGV-type vehicles. Any purported term must be interpreted contra proferentem (against the drafter). The operator cannot extend the meaning of signage beyond what is clearly conveyed.
• Inadequate Entrance Signage & Unfair Consumer Term There is no visible signage at the entrance warning that “commercial vehicles” are prohibited. Drivers are invited onto site with signage stating “2 hours maximum stay” and “no paid parking”, implying free parking without any indication of restriction. Any such term is therefore only discoverable after entry. This constitutes: A failure to bring material contract terms to the driver’s attention before entry. An unfair consumer term under the principles of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 No reasonable driver could understand or accept the alleged contractual terms under these circumstances.
• No Consideration Period BPA Code Breach The operator’s own evidence shows that images were taken within approximately 27 seconds. This is wholly insufficient for a driver to: locate the relevant signage Read and understand the terms Decide whether to accept or leave The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that drivers are afforded a reasonable consideration period before a contract can be formed. No such period was provided.
• Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage (Visibility & Legibility) The operator’s own evidence demonstrates that the signage at the site is not clearly visible or legible under normal conditions. The photographs provided by the operator appear to rely on camera flash to illuminate the sign. There is no evidence that the signage is adequately lit or visible to a driver in real-world conditions. The terms are barely legible. The parking charge is not prominently displayed and illegible in the operator’s own evidence. This falls below the standard required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which requires that signage must be clear, conspicuous, and legible at all times. Appendix E, which is their own photograph, was taken in broad daylight and therefore in optimal conditions, unlike the time of the alleged contravention. Even in optimal conditions: The parking charge remains barely legible due to being very small and partially obscured by a screw. The HGV depiction is clear A driver would still struggle to see and understand the terms. The principles established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis confirm that parking charges can only be enforceable where terms are prominently displayed and clearly brought to the attention of the motorist.
• No Evidence of Landowner Authority The operator must provide proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice regarding land owner authority to issue the PCN and to enforce these restrictions. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal The appellant has provided the PCN, photo the vehicle parked at the site on the day right next to signage, in well-lit car park, and photos of the parking operator’s signage as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

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.

The parking operator’s signage at the site mentions that commercial vehicles are not allowed to park within the site at any time, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued.

The parking operator has provided photos of the vehicle in question parked within the site on day, which is a livered vehicle, with the wording “REDACTED” on the sides of the vehicle, with other such wording. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN.

POPLA’s role and remit is above, while I note their concerns regarding data processing, and the data protection act, this would not fall within our remit, the appellant would need to address their concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

It is important to note that POPLA is an evidence-based service. It is not the role of a POPLA Assessor to gather evidence or contact witnesses for either party. Each party is invited to provide any evidence they wish to be considered, and the decision is based solely on what is submitted. While the appellant has explained the vehicle in question is registered with the DVLA as a M1 (passenger vehicle), they have failed to provide evidence of this within their appeal. The vehicle in question is a livered vehicle, with a company logo and paraphernalia. A liveried vehicle (a vehicle displaying a company's branding, logos, colours, or advertising) is often treated as a commercial vehicle because it is being used in connection with a business rather than purely for private, personal use. As above, the appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle is registered with the DVLA as a passenger vehicle.

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. While I understand the appellant’s reference to the BPA Code of Practice, it will not be considered due to its withdrawal.

When parking on private land car park, motorists must be given sufficient time to decide whether to accept the terms and remain on site or reject them and leave, known as a consideration period. 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. In this case the consideration period is five minutes, once a motorist exceeds this period, they are bound by the contractual terms and conditions detailed within the parking signage. However, a consideration period may end earlier than the times set out in Annex B if there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions (whether or not they have read them). This may be demonstrated by actions such as parking and leaving the premises, paying the required tariff, or remaining on the controlled land for more than five minutes. As the evidence demonstrates the vehicle was clearly parked (there is no driver or passenger within the front seats of the vehicle) and parked very close to signage, a consideration period would end when the vehicle was parked. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking at the site.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 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. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.

The appellant disputes that the photos within the PCN do not show the period of parking, however, this incorrect, as it states the date and time of the vehicle parked, the parking operator is not required to display multiple images of a vehicle within the PCN when parked in breach of the terms and conditions. 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. 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. 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. 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. Signage within a car park is used to communicate the terms and conditions to motorists, and it is important that these are clear and visible so drivers can understand the requirements before parking.

The parking operator has provided a series of photos of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. The appellant has provided the evidence mentioned above. In this case, the parking operator and appellant have provided several photographs of the signage during the hours of darkness. These photographs demonstrate there is ample lighting throughout the car park, and the signage is visible during night conditions, these also demonstrate the vehicle was parked very close to signage on the day. Also, due how close the vehicle was parked to signage, it would not be reasonable to suggest the driver was not afforded with the opportunity to see the signage. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign, which the driver passed on their way into the car park. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of The Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them.

While I understand the signage has a logo which appears to be an HGV, it also clearly states: “No commercial vehicles permitted on site”, I am satisfied the parking operator has made it clear within their signage that any commercial vehicle is not permitted to park within the site. The parking terms outlined above are established through an agreement between the landowner and the parking operator, with the parking operator acting in accordance with the landowner's instructions, and not something POPLA are in a position to dictate.

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 (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) should the appellant wish to read it.

The appellant has questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the land in question, they have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. Therefore, I can only base my decision on the evidence provided to me by the operator 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 parking operator has provided signed documentation by both the owner of the land, and the paring operator, which confirms the relevant authority is in place for the parking operator to manage the site in question. In addition, there is signage displayed throughout the site, together with the operator’s staff. It is reasonable to conclude that, if the landowner did not wish the operator to manage the site, they would not permit the installation and operation of such equipment on the premises. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the parking operator has the necessary authority from the landowner to manage and enforce parking terms on the land in question.

I appreciate the appellant did not intend to breach the terms and conditions; they were breached as the motorist parked a commercial vehicle within the site.

Having considered all the evidence provided, I find that the motorist parked a commercial vehicle within the site, and did not comply with the site’s terms and conditions. I appreciate the appellant’s explanation and the effort taken to provide detail, but based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and the appeal must be refused. Although the appellant has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation of the PCN. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.