POPLA Decisions

Perdusys1955

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82159590#Comment_82159590

Apologies, there seeemed to be a fair amount of comments on the re assessment issue, so I thought POPLA decisions was correct. I have moved this to a my own thread and asked for them to be merged.

hirersezn

Parking Eye Ltd

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Darminderpal Panesar

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing a valid pay or not entering your registration details via the terminal.

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 appellant states that the operator failed to issue a Notice to Hirer that fully complies with the relevant statutory requirements. • The appellant submits that the operator has not demonstrated that the individual being pursued is the driver who was liable for the parking charge. • The appellant contends that the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence of its authority from the landowner to manage and enforce parking at the site. • The appellant further states that the signage in the area where the vehicle was parked was insufficient, unclear, and inadequate to bring the parking terms and conditions to the attention of motorists. • The appellant also argues that the operator has not provided evidence of the period for which the vehicle was parked and therefore has not established the duration of the alleged contravention. 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 parking tariffs apply. 5 per hour and maximum stay of 24 hours. Hotel overnight guests must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival and pay £!5 per 24 hours.

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 log to demonstrate the vehicle was not permitted to park. The operator has provided landowner authority to demonstrate PCNs can be issued. The operator has provided site map to demonstrate where the signs are located. The Operator provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras recorded the Appellant’s vehicle, registration number in the car park during the date and time. The image shows the car entering the car park at 08:26:24 and departing at 13:39:10 resulting in a total stay of approximately 5 hours, 12 minutes, and 46 seconds.

• The appellant states that the operator failed to issue a Notice to Hirer that fully complies with the relevant statutory requirements. • The appellant submits that the operator has not demonstrated that the individual being pursued is the driver who was liable for the parking charge. The PoFA 2012 is a law allows parking operators to transfer the liability of a PCN to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.

In this case, it is unclear who the driver of the vehicle was on the date of the parking event, and therefore, I must consider the requirements of PoFA 2012, as the parking operator is holding the keeper liable. 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 as the registered keeper did not provide the driver’s details as part of the original appeal, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As such, I will be considering the appellant's liability for the PCN as the registered keeper.

The notice clearly specifies both the date of issue and the date of posting. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate a failure in the postal process, I am unable to conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly or outside of the required timescales. Therefore, I am satisfied it was issued correctly and met PoFA 2012 requirements. Further, we cannot comment on any reasons for any postal delays in delivering the PCN which may have led to it being received later.

Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 5 and 6 discusses the following: • (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. • (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

This PCN was sent on the issue date of 27 June a Monday and therefore was deemed to be delivered on the second working day and was within the relevant period. The appellant has provided no evidence to prove the contrary to prove it was not delivered. I cannot agree the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

• The appellant contends that the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence of its authority from the landowner to manage and enforce parking at the site. I note the appellant has challenged the operator’s authority to enforce the charge.

Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice states: “Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) before a parking charge can be issued.” In this case, the operator has provided documentation confirming a valid contract is in place.

The appellant has not submitted any evidence to dispute or contradict this. •

The appellant further states that the signage in the area where the vehicle was parked was insufficient, unclear, and inadequate to bring the parking terms and conditions to the attention of motorists. • The appellant also argues that the operator has not provided evidence of the period for which the vehicle was parked and therefore has not established the duration of the alleged contravention.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 can confirm the operator has complied with Section 3 of the Single Code of Practice. The terms and conditions are clear, and easy to understand. The signage clearly alerts motorists of the charges applied if the terms and conditions are breached and how long they can park before receiving a parking notice.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed throughout the site, together with a site map showing the locations of the signs. The signage advises motorists that parking tariffs apply at a rate of £5 per hour, with a maximum stay of 24 hours, and further states that hotel overnight guests must enter their full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception upon arrival and pay £15 per 24 hours. The signage also clearly advises that failure to comply with the terms and conditions may result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice for £100.

Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that signage was present at the site and that the parking terms and conditions were adequately communicated to motorists. The operator has provided ANPR evidence showing the appellant's vehicle entering the car park at 08:26:24 and departing at 13:39:10, resulting in a total stay of approximately 5 hours, 12 minutes, and 46 seconds.

I am satisfied that this evidence establishes the period during which the vehicle remained on site. Furthermore, the operator has provided a parking log demonstrating that the vehicle was not authorised to park in accordance with the site's requirements.

The operator has also provided evidence of its landowner authority, confirming that it is authorised to manage parking and issue Parking Charge Notices at this location. I am satisfied that the operator has demonstrated that the signage adequately conveyed the parking terms and conditions, that the appellant's vehicle was present on site for the period recorded by the ANPR system, and that the vehicle was not authorised in accordance with the site requirements.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. 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 the appellant did not purchase a valid pay or not entered their registration details via the terminal. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

"As such, I will be considering the appellant's liability for the PCN as the registered keeper."

Wait, but it was a Notice to Hirer case?

These are impossible to lose at POPLA because ParkingEye don't send the necessary documents with the NTH.

This needs a POPLA complaint unless you were the registered keeper not the hirer?

hirersezn

Wait, but it was a Notice to Hirer case?

These are impossible to lose at POPLA because ParkingEye don't send the necessary documents with the NTH.

Yes i was the vehicles hirer.

This needs a POPLA complaint unless you were the registered keeper not the hirer?

Is there any point? They have already emailed asking to pay up 😂

Coupon-mad

Yes there is certainly a point.

This new Assessor needs retraining and your case needs a reassessment.

You should email complaints@ and say this one needs a full re-determination because:

• the Assessor applied the wrong POFA test (a 14 day period and what the NTK wording said is not relevant to a hirer), and
• failed to consider paras 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, and
• failed to look at a vital piece of evidence: the NTH, which was not served with any enclosures, and
• erroneously considered 'the appellant's liability as registered keeper' which is plainly wrong.

This is a case of the Assessor failing to consider the applicable law, so it doesn't just need an apology, it requires a fresh Assessment from an experienced Assessor who understands the concept and documents required for hirer liability.

Car1980

Yep. But expect the usual excuse - "I have re-assessed and I come to the same conclusion."

hirersezn

Ok, im giving it a go. Here’s my draft:

I am writing to formally submit a complaint regarding the recent determination issued by Assessor Darminderpal Panesar on the above-referenced appeal, and to request a full re-determination of this case by a different, experienced Assessor.

This decision contains fundamental legal errors and a complete failure to apply the correct statutory framework governing hirer liability. Specifically, the re-determination is required for the following critical reasons:

1. Application of the Wrong POFA Test: The Assessor evaluated the case based on standard registered keeper requirements—discussing a 14-day postal period and general Notice to Keeper (NTK) wording under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). This is entirely irrelevant and legally inapplicable, as this case involves a hirer, not a standard registered keeper.

2. Failure to Consider Hirer Provisions (Paragraphs 13 and 14): The Assessor completely failed to consider or apply paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA, which dictate the strict statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability to the hirer of a vehicle.

3. Failure to Review Vital Evidence (The Notice to Hirer / NTH): The Assessor failed to inspect and evaluate the actual Notice to Hirer (NTH) provided in evidence, which was served improperly and completely unsupported by the mandatory statutory enclosures (such as a copy of the hire agreement and statement of liability).

4. Erroneous Conclusion on Keeper Liability: The Assessor incorrectly evaluated "the appellant's liability as registered keeper," which is plainly wrong in law given the status and nature of the appeal.

This is a clear instance of the Assessor failing to consider the applicable law and missing core procedural documents. Therefore, this matter requires more than a simple apology; it necessitates a fresh assessment from an experienced Assessor who fully understands the legal concepts and documentation required for valid hirer liability under POFA.

Coupon-mad

Nice. Email it now.

yarpsnehpets

That really is an appalling assessment and plumbs new depths as far as POPLA are concerned.

Those errors are so basic that I really wonder what kind of training is being provided?

Car1980

You might remember I lost at Popla earlier in the year and kicked off at them with no success.

Out of pure interest I tried appealing to Horizon via email as if I'd just received the PCN and it hadn't gone to Popla, just to see what they'd do and whether it would confuse their system, or the work experience kid would answer.

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge , which we have reviewed.

I can confirm the Parking Charge has now been cancelled and no further action will be taken in this matter.

Looks like it did 🤣

Plan C strikes (for the first time)