NCL airport

Fatlad

Ok, thanks for that. I've written to POPLA to ask if non-parking cases are within their remit.

denideth

Hope you get it sorted man, I work there and sympathise with anyone trying to read the parking/directional signs especially when there's other traffic behind you. Good luck!

bazster

Fatlad wrote: »

Ok, thanks for that. I've written to POPLA to ask if non-parking cases are within their remit.

Don't see the point really. Just get your POPLA code and then appeal to them. The first of their four grounds for appeal seems to cover it: "The vehicle was not improperly parked". Too right it wasn't: it wasn't parked at all!

Guys_Dad

I agree that you should send off the soft appeal to the PPC. Don't wait for the answer to your question from POPLA as they are snowed under and you are wasting time.

Did you not read the pointer I gave you to the POPLA lead adjudicator's report? Let me quote you.

No stopping zones
An area where Assessors are beginning to see issues arise in appeals is one where there is a prohibition on vehicles stopping. Whilst this does not usually occur in car parks, it can do, for example, on approach roads to airports.

Typically the motorist may have stopped on a double yellow line to allow
passengers to board or alight the vehicle. Of course, on the public highway this is generally permitted, although not on a red route where there is a clear red line.

It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it. As always, each case will turn on its own facts and will be determined on the evidence produced by the parties.

http://www.popla.org.uk/AnnualReport.htm

bazster

So the POPLA lead adjudicator acknowledges that "stopping" is not the same as "parking" by recognising the distinction between yellow lines (no parking) and red lines (no stopping) on the public highway. He then fails to draw the obvious conclusion that anyone who merely stopped to drop off or pick up passengers was not parked and hence can't possibly have been parked improperly.

Howsoever, whatever the POPLA lead adjudicator thinks makes no difference to the POFA, which is clearly concerned with parking, and only parking, not with stopping to drop off or pick up. Accordingly, no keeper liability exists in these circumstances.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

So the POPLA lead adjudicator acknowledges that "stopping" is not the same as "parking" by recognising the distinction between yellow lines (no parking) and red lines (no stopping) on the public highway. He then fails to draw the obvious conclusion that anyone who merely stopped to drop off or pick up passengers was not parked and hence can't possibly have been parked improperly.

Howsoever, whatever the POPLA lead adjudicator thinks makes no difference to the POFA, which is clearly concerned with parking, and only parking, not with stopping to drop off or pick up. Accordingly, no keeper liability exists in these circumstances.

The Oxford dictionary definition is as follows
Park "verb
[with object]
bring (a vehicle that one is driving) to a halt and leave it temporarily, typically in a car park or by the side of the road:
he parked his car outside her house
[no object]:
he couldn’t find anywhere to park
[with object and adverbial of place] informal leave (something) in a convenient place until required:"

That seems pretty conclusive. However, one needs to be a bit careful about unleashing a demon on this point.

Your argument is that this is outside POPLA's jurisdiction. I can see that argument. That leaves the only recourse to the PPC is to take it to court (or drop it). And it is generally accepted on here that POPLA can be a good thing for the motorist. The POPLA Lead Adjudicator has a view that is sympathetic to motorists where signage is poor, so that would sway me to wanting to allow the matter to proceed under Parking.

If their signs mention Stopping and not Parking, then all the BPA signage requirements, POPLA and POFA timescales , the £100 maximum with 40% discount flies out of the window.

I would contend that it is not in the motorist's interest to push this point further without actually seeing what the contract with the airport says.

But, that's only my view.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The Oxford dictionary definition is as follows
Park "verb
[with object]
bring (a vehicle that one is driving) to a halt and leave it temporarily, typically in a car park or by the side of the road:
he parked his car outside her house
[no object]:
he couldn’t find anywhere to park
[with object and adverbial of place] informal leave (something) in a convenient place until required:"

That seems pretty conclusive. However, one needs to be a bit careful about unleashing a demon on this point.

Your argument is that this is outside POPLA's jurisdiction. I can see that argument. That leaves the only recourse to the PPC is to take it to court (or drop it). And it is generally accepted on here that POPLA can be a good thing for the motorist. The POPLA Lead Adjudicator has a view that is sympathetic to motorists where signage is poor, so that would sway me to wanting to allow the matter to proceed under Parking.

If their signs mention Stopping and not Parking, then all the BPA signage requirements, POPLA and POFA timescales , the £100 maximum with 40% discount flies out of the window.

I would contend that it is not in the motorist's interest to push this point further without actually seeing what the contract with the airport says.

But, that's only my view.

The charge notice sent to the OP stated thus:

The owner.... Has been issued this notice for the alleged contravention of 'Dropping off / picking up in a restricted area'

So there ya go, the PPC itself confirms that he didn't park.

You are right about the dictionary definition, it makes it clear that stopping to pick up or drop off is not parking. However, I wasn't relying on that, I was relying on the wealth of published material confirming that "No Waiting" (i.e. no parking) does not include stopping to pick up or drop off. The POFA doesn't define "parking" or "parked", so it seems reasonable to accept the long-established principles governing what is or is not parking as applied to the public highway.

As indicated above, I wouldn't want to suggest not appealing to POPLA purely on the grounds of its dubious jurisdiction in this area. The more POPLA appeals the merrier. And with hindsight I would probably not tell them that they have no jurisdiction, rather I would point out to them that (i) a vehicle cannot have been "parked improperly" if it wasn't parked at all and (ii) I cannot be held liable as the keeper because it's not a parking case and hence POFA does not apply.

Plus, of course, making an avalanche of other points about useless signage, no contractual right to issue parking charges, unenforceable contractual penalties and so on and so forth.

Guys_Dad

You have reasoned arguments and I agree that you are technically correct.

But I wonder if the one would shoot oneself in the foot if one states that one was not parked, but only stopped.

Apart from all the generic appeal clauses, the POPLA "official" appeal would presumably be under the fist case

* The vehicle was not improperly parked.

Is there any danger, therefore, that the adjudicator could say "The car was not parked and as POPLA deals with parked cars, I can not hear this case" and refer it back.

Or even worse, the PPC decides that it is not a parking issue as such but a traffic management one and therefore POPLA is not relevant in this case, refuses to issue a POPLA code, making court the next step?

Or even if the motorist said this was not parking but stopping and therefore outside a parking "offence" and the PPC agreed, saying they would seek recompense through the courts

Just considering all of the possible routes that could follow if this was included as an appeal point.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Don't see the point really. Just get your POPLA code and then appeal to them. The first of their four grounds for appeal seems to cover it: "The vehicle was not improperly parked". Too right it wasn't: it wasn't parked at all!

I agree to press ahead with a challenge and POPLA but the OP needs to know that a winning POPLA appeal doesn't rely on one point alone...far from it!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4610773

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/61968045#Comment_61968045

I think this DOES fall within POPLA's remit because the Annual Report talks about 'no stopping areas' which this would be. And the OP will win at POPLA anyway, if they word the appeal strongly as per the linked examples.

nigelbb

It's not parking so is outside POFA & thus no attempt can be made to pursue the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges.

It would be interesting to know what reasonable cause they presented to the DVLA for obtaining the driver details when there was no parking crime involved.