Lost at POPLA against Parking Eye - what next?

Umkomaas

C4WRX wrote: »

Hi all.
I am awaiting a response from FOI regarding the contract with Parking Eye, but they have acknowledged receipt of my email.

I have had a response from POPLA. It seems to be the same amateur that assessed my case originally that has responded yet again. She hasn't even bothered to escalate it as I had requested.

Here is her response:



So what is my next course of action?

Letter of complaint to the ISPA. And you might as well throw one at the BPA while you're at it, that PE have failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice - and what are they going to do about it. Let the DVLA have a copy too - every bit of pressure that you can muster.

beamerguy

C4WRX wrote: »

Hi all.
I am awaiting a response from FOI regarding the contract with Parking Eye, but they have acknowledged receipt of my email.

I have had a response from POPLA. It seems to be the same amateur that assessed my case originally that has responded yet again. She hasn't even bothered to escalate it as I had requested.

So what is my next course of action?

With regards to POPLA, yes, they are now an amateur setup akin to the IAS.

A complaint should be handled by a professional within POPLA and not as you suggest, the same assessor who is an amateur.

Stinks of corruption in favour of PPC's

POPLA now need to prove beyond doubt they are not corrupt as do the BPA. Would love the media to explore, they will and watch out for the new series of BBC Watchdog

salmosalaris

C4WRX wrote: »

Hi all.
I am awaiting a response from FOI regarding the contract with Parking Eye, but they have acknowledged receipt of my email.

I have had a response from POPLA. It seems to be the same amateur that assessed my case originally that has responded yet again. She hasn't even bothered to escalate it as I had requested.

Here is her response:



So what is my next course of action?

The fact the driver is not informed that the ANPR data is used as the start and end point of a timed "stay" is highly relevant and impacts the ability to adhere to the t@c , payment or not !

Coupon-mad

salmosalaris wrote: »

The fact the driver is not informed that the ANPR data is used as the start and end point of a timed "stay" is highly relevant and impacts the ability to adhere to the t@c , payment or not !

Point this ^^^ out back to POPLA and require them to invoke their complaints procedure and not refer it back to the same Assessor which is clearly an unfair process. A Consumer is entitled to a complaints procedure which refers the matter to the Lead Adjudicator or at least, another person other than the Assessor who has not sjown consistency with recent POPLA ParkingEye decisions. She appears to have missed the very valid point that not being informed that ANPR will time a car from the point of entry (contrary to expectations) is very clearly impactful upon any alleged overstay/non payment calculation. The usual expectation by an ordinary motorist in possession of the facts would be - unless clearly informed otherwise - that the contract starts only when you park and pay (case law authority: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking).

You could cite this POPLA appeal although I don't know the POPLA code it was from the first week in Feb and was about ParkingEye.



DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name: Lauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked for longer than permitted.


Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is inadequate. He states that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. Further, the appellant states that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is a breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008. The appellant has questioned the accuracy of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology and what that data is used for.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

Within his grounds for appeal, the appellant has raised ANPR usage.

The appellant has quoted section 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice that states motorists must be ‘informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’.

As such, I must consider whether the signage at the location is sufficient to inform motorists that ANPR technology is being used and what it is used for.

Further, within Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it is stated: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Within its response, the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the location. Having considered this, while I note that it advises that the “car park monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras for”, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.

As it does not advise motorists that the parking time begins immediately upon entry, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to meet the minimum standards set out within Sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and so while I note the appellants other grounds for appeal, these do not require further consideration.

Ralph-y

one possible LB


Hello, my POPLA appeal was upheld (search for thread "Luton Airport PCN - draft POPLA appeal letter" for background - it won't let me post a link). It was against APCOA at Luton Airport. Here's POPLA's decision:

Operator NameAPCOA Parking
Operator Case Summary
Terms and conditions of parking are signposted throughout restricted areas and on the entrance/exit of private grounds; stating vehicles must be parked in a valid car park or bay.
No stopping to drop off/pick up OR waiting is allowed outside of the said areas which includes bus lanes/stops, laybys etc, at any time.
Any driver parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions will be issued a Parking charge notice containing evidence from our on-site CCTV enforcement equipment.
APCOA are an approved operator of the BPA; under which guidelines the notice will be issued

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameLauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a restricted area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to establish keeper liability. The appellant has stated that the signs at the site are not clear. Further, the appellant has stated that the landowner does not have the authority of the landowner to operate at the site. The appellant has stated that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system does not show a parking event.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As a result, the appellant is being pursued as the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the PoFA 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that: “(1) This schedule applies where – (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”. It is from my reading of these sections of PoFA 2012 that I conclude, if statutory provision exists that imposes a liability in respect of parking on the land, PoFA 2012 cannot be used to transfer liability for any charges incurred from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. I note, from the operator’s response that it does not work, issue or seek payment under PoFA 2012 as the airport is covered by Byelaws. As a result, I have had to consider the relevant Byelaw information that the operator has provided. The operator has quoted Section 3.6 “No person, other than an authorised person acting in the course of his duty, shall wait, leave or park a vehicle: (c) in any area not specifically allocated for the parking of vehicles”. As a result, I consider that the Byelaws applicable on this land, impose a liability in respect of parking vehicles on the land. As such, the operator is not able to use PoFA 2012 to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle. As the Byelaws only relate to the person contravening the Byelaws as quoted above and in the absence of any further mention in the Byelaws of who can be held liable for a contravention of the Byelaws in place, I do not consider that any other person than the driver of the vehicle can be pursued for the parking charges currently outstanding in relation to this parking event. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.


did not know if to post it all or not .....

Ralph:cool:

nigelbb

Again the POPLA assessor is mithering on about whether the Byelaws allow the keeper or owner for driver to be pursued when it's utterly irrelevant for the purposes of a private parking ticket what the Byelaws state. The fact that they exist to regulate parking therefore this is not relevant land as per POFA 2012 therefore there can be no Keeper liability is the important message.

DollyDee_2

Post #1952 to #1960 in the POPLA Decisions thread is User BJ63's successful outcome - Assessor's name Emily Chriscoli.

Would that be any good to quote?

dazster

What an utter idiot that assessor is.

Umkomaas

To me, a number of these Assessors are looking more like call-centre graduates who think they've made a good move up the career ladder. Unlike London Councils' Assessors, none of the decisions (positive or negative) appear to have been penned by anyone with serious legal training/expertise.

For transparency and public confidence (especially in light of the bizarre decisions currently emerging), I believe The Ombudsman Service should publish the relevant qualifications and experiences of each Assessor.

Edna_Basher

Also, for transparency and public confidence, the Ombudsman Service Ltd should publish a POPLA organisation chart to show exactly who is in charge of managing the overall appeals / complaints process, including details of the person who is ultimately responsible for the current sorry mess.

Whilst POPLA may have put its team of named assessors directly in the firing line for their mistakes, it's absurd that POPLA has not yet revealed the identity of its Lead Adjudicator (at least, not to my knowledge).

Although it's easy to have a pop at individual assessors, it's very apparent that they've been chucked in at the deep end and have not been given appropriate training and instruction. As Umkomaas points out, there is little evidence of any serious legal training or expertise.