Fined while parked in my own bay

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

Beautiful-Moose

I shall upload this all today to POPLA and the pictures.

Beautiful-Moose

Hi well I had a decision and they said my appeal was unsuccessful. I am fuming!!

What can I do now?

nigelbb

Did you receive the PPC's evidence pack so you could rebut their evidence?

Please post the POPLA decision. If the driver was not identified then lack of an NTK should be fatal to the PPC case.

Beautiful-Moose

Here is the POPLA decision:

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameEmily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without clearly displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant feels the signage displayed on site is insufficient and poorly lit. The appellant feels that the operator has applied various surcharges, including a premium rate telephone number on its signs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. However, after reviewing the operator’s case file, it is clear that the operator is not seeking keeper liability and therefore, PoFA 2012 does not apply. In this case, the operator is seeking the driver’s liability. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Parking notice. For the health, safety and enjoyment of all residents and visitors to West 3, you are politely advised that your vehicle may be issued with a ticketed excess charge when: Parked without displaying a valid permit”. The operator has also provided photographs of a sign in comparison to the appellant’s vehicle on the date of the contravention, which I note is in close proximity. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that signs must be “easy to see, read and understand”. After reviewing the evidence of the signage, I am satisfied that these meet the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. While I appreciate the appellant’s comments that the telephone number provided is a premium rate number, I feel it is important to note in this appeal that POPLA’s purpose in an appeal is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly, taking into consideration the BPA Code of Practice, the terms and conditions of a car park and PoFA 2012, where applicable. During the assessment of an appeal, we may deem the operator to have breached parts of the BPA Code of Practice. Although the breach may be reported to the BPA, it may not be sufficient to allow the appeal if it did not affect the circumstance in which a PCN arose. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle from the date of the contravention, where it is clear that no permit has been displayed. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing PCNs. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, which I am satisfied meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant’s comments that she is a resident of the property in question and does possess a valid permit, however the signage is quite clear in that this permit must be displayed at all times. As this was not done, the appellant’s vehicle was issued with a PCN. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the driver was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the driver accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the driver has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

I am fuming!! I honestly don't understand how after proving the signs were out of date, their was no clear signage around my car or on my permit and the fact I am a tenant and have kept all my payments up to date for that bay and have the authority to park there that they can still say I am to pay the PCN.

Beautiful-Moose

Also I noticed this bit

The signs state “Parking notice. For the health, safety and enjoyment of all residents and visitors to West 3, you are politely advised that your vehicle may be issued with a ticketed excess charge when: Parked without displaying a valid permit”. The operator has also provided photographs of a sign in comparison to the appellant’s vehicle on the date of the contravention, which I note is in close proximity.

I don't live in anything called West 3. My car park is called Campbell Court. They have supplied the wrong evidence have they not in which case I would have grounds to appeal again?!

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

Did you receive the PPC's evidence pack so you could rebut their evidence?

If the driver was not identified then lack of an NTK should be fatal to the PPC case.

As above. Did YOU get the evidence pack too? Did you comment on it?

However, after reviewing the operator’s case file, it is clear that the operator is not seeking keeper liability and therefore, PoFA 2012 does not apply. In this case, the operator is seeking the driver’s liability.

Your case is worth a complaint to POPLA and then to ISPA. POPLA cannot say a keeper is liable for a 'driver's charge under driver liability' if the parking firm have not evidenced that the individual they are pursuing, IS the driver.

Same as all the other threads you need to read like yours - POPLA keep making this terrible error on liability! Search the forum for 'ISPA' and 'complaints@popla.co.uk' to find all the threads about this stage.

Beautiful-Moose

As above. Did YOU get the evidence pack too? Did you comment on it?

I did receive the pack but didn't make any comments on it. All the evidence I had was in my appeal so I had nothing more to add. Also maybe I wrongly assumed that all my evidence outweighted P4 Parking and so I didn't make any additional notes.

nigelbb

This requires a very strong complaint to POPLA to get this flawed decision reviewed. You need to copy the complaint to ISPA the POPLA oversight body http://ispa.co.uk POPLA have recently committed to re-hear cases where there are procedural errors.

It is not possible to hold a registered keeper liable for a driver's PCN in the absence of a Notice to Keeper under the POFA and in the absence of any evidence that the person appealing (keeper only) is the individual who can be liable (driver only) - so POPLA should re-hear the case as the Assessor has misapplied the relevant law. They acknowledge that the driver has not been identified but then illogically say that as the PPC is not using keeper liability then the keeper is liable! It's nonsense.

Address the complaint to Mr Gallagher (Lead Adjudicator).

Coupon-mad

This is the same issue as we've seen before so you will find other people's complaint examples in the other threads you will find when you do the 2 searches I suggested already. There have been 3 or 4 - or more - on here with the exact same error re liability.