POPLA appeal rejected!! What should I do next?

tjj_devon

Hi everyone,

I'm stuck in a situation I had hoped to avoid, and would appreciate anyone's knowledge and expertise on my options going forward!

I received a Parking Charge Notice from Total Parking Solutions, stating an apparent 'overstay' of the 180 time limit in a free retail car park (Exebridges Retail Park). This came as a shock to me, as I had every intention of adhering to the 180 time limit, but unfortunately timed the beginning of my stay from the moment I parked and not the moment I entered the car park, thereby overstaying by 15 minutes. I appealed the ticket (mistake #1?) on the grounds that the T&Cs in the car park were unclear as to what defined a 'stay' in this location, and the placement of the ANPR cameras did not allow for adequate movement through the complex. Anyone who has been to this car park can probably agree that it's an absolute nightmare moving around this place at the best of times!! I didn't mention this in my appeal as I thought it would be going too far into 'mitigating circumstances', but I also chose to wait for a parent/child stall to become available. I appreciate this was a choice made my me, and not something that TPS would take responsibility for, so left this detail out of my appeal (mistake #2?)

My appeal to TPS was rejected, at which point I submitted an appeal to POPLA. I unfortunately did not do enough research on this process (definitely mistake #3!), and based my appeal on the same grounds as my appeal to TPS. This has now also been rejected, and I've received the first email notification from TPS stating I need to pay the £70 'fine' in 7 days.

My question is....what can I do from here? I'm tempted to approach the land owners directly to ask for this PCN to be cancelled on the basis that I was a recorded customer (have a receipt, which TPS also asked for), as well as the fact that the recorded 'overstay' was minimal - perhaps this was something I should have done immediately upon receiving the PCN. However, I'm unsure whether I should be approaching one of the shops I visited in the retail park, or the land owners themselves (who it looks like are an investment management company?? Not sure how sympathetic they will be to this!).

I realise my other option is to completely ignore all correspondence from here on in as others have suggested, and be brave in the face of court threats, but am unsure if this advice applies to a situation where POPLA have rejected an appeal.

I'm guessing it's far too late for me to demand POPLA 'reconsider' my appeal based on a much more thorough understanding of the guidance on this website

Any advice on what I can do next will be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks for your time

Coupon-mad

My question is....what can I do from here? I'm tempted to approach the land owners directly to ask for this PCN to be cancelled on the basis that I was a recorded customer (have a receipt, which TPS also asked for), as well as the fact that the recorded 'overstay' was minimal - perhaps this was something I should have done immediately upon receiving the PCN.

However, I'm unsure whether I should be approaching one of the shops I visited in the retail park, or the land owners themselves (who it looks like are an investment management company?? Not sure how sympathetic they will be to this!).

Complain NOW, by this weekend, no delaying it, to both the Store Manager and the site managers (likely to be a property management firm - not the landowner, the site managers). You can Google to find them out and probably get a name and an email/phone number for them in the morning. Start with them and complain.

Insist on cancellation, because you don't want to be fighting a small claim about an overstay on a retail park (far too similar to the Beavis case).

POPLA will not reconsider.

You are right with your other points, and if the retailer/site management will not cancel it then read TPS defences and learn in advance what to do.

nigelbb

You are extremely unlikely to be taken to court by TPS http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Total_Parking_Solutions.html

tjj_devon

Thanks very much for the advice! Having spoken with the store manager and they seem to agree that the charge is unreasonable. They've written to TPS to cancel, but have warned that because they don't employ TPS they may not do anything. I'm going to ask the store manager who the site manager is, as I can't seem to find this information online. It seems the location is up open for investment so will be contacting the company advertising this investment as well.

Guys_Dad

What was the wording of the adjudicator re your overstay point. Can you reproduce it for us.

Reason? here is an extract from the latest POPLA annual report and if the adjudicator has gone against the bit in bold, then a robust complaint to the Head adjudicator is in order

http://www.popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla-annual-report-2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2

In addition to a grace period at the end of the parking period, we would also expect parking
operators to offer a period before the parking contract commences in which to consider the parking conditions and decide whether to park. We have seen appeals on which appellants believe that this is a period of 10 minutes, in addition to the period at the end of the parking
session. It is not. The time it takes to consider the terms and conditions is dependent on the car park and the person. Once a person has parked and taken the decision to leave their vehicle in the car park – the time to consider the parking conditions ends.

In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.

Can you check if the signs specify parking commences on entry?

tjj_devon

Hmmm, this is very interesting....and the exact grounds that I tried to base my appeal on (i.e. there was no explicit statement on the signs that stated the parking period begins on entry to the car park)!!! I'm a bit confused by the wording though....when they say that they 'may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract', are they meaning to say that the grace period (usually 10 minutes) in this particularly situation should be extended (or perhaps be treated more leniently?). The use of the word 'discount' is what's tripping me up here (sorry, I'm Canadian so may have my comms wires crossed)!

The adjudicator's response is below (personal info removed):

"The car park in question is a maximum three hour stay site. On this occasion, the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant for exceeding the maximum permitted stay. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site that states: “3 Hours maximum permitted stay”. The appellant states that there was a queue on the way into the car park and on the way out of the car park. He interpreted the time limit was from when he parked his vehicle. While I understand the appellant states there was a queue of traffic on the way in and out of the car park, I have been provided with no evidence that confirmed this. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1 states “your approach to car park management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a Parking Charge Notice. Section 13.2 states “you should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are to stay or go.” Both section 13.1 and 13.2 outline grace periods in the BPA Code of Practice for drivers to have time to read the terms and conditions of the site, and if they cannot agree to those terms, the driver has the time to leave the site without penalty. The appellant in this case chose to stay, and as such, accepted the terms and conditions of the car park that included the three hour maximum stay. Therefore, I can only conclude that the appellant has failed to adhere to the sites terms and conditions by exceeding the maximum permitted stay by 20 minutes."

I've begun drafting a letter to Mr. Gallagher (currently head adjudicator?), will be basing my letter on the points below:

- the parking operator has not provided images of the car park itself (only photos of my vehicle), therefore the decision that the car park was not busy is not based on fact <-- not sure how far I should take this, as I'm also not able to provide photos that the car park WAS busy
- based on the T&Cs at this location, provided by both myself and the parking operator, there is no explicit definition that the parking period begins upon entering the car park (it is simply assumed that the driver is aware of this hidden term)
- the results of my appeal to POPLA go against guidance (or findings?) provided in their most recent annual report
- I am requesting (demanding?) that my appeal be reconsidered on the grounds that consistent judgement by POPLA has not been applied in this case

Does this sound about right? I'll be the first to admit that I struggle to find the balance between too polite and downright ranty!

My last thing to note.....having done a bit more research on this particular parking location, I have found an example of where POPLA have agreed to an appeal based on some non-compliances with BPA signage rules (sizing of letters, heights of signs, etc.). Is this complaint an appropriate time to address this inconsistency?? Or does the fact that I DIDN'T raise these issues in my appeal make them irrelevant?

Thanks again for the help!!

Guys_Dad

Discount in this case means do not count.

Coupon-mad

the exact grounds that I tried to base my appeal on (i.e. there was no explicit statement on the signs that stated the parking period begins on entry to the car park)!!! I'm a bit confused by the wording though....when they say that they 'may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract', are they meaning...

Who knows, it makes no grammatical or logical sense to me either!

It cannot possibly mean that, say, if a person take 7 minutes on arrival to get to the machine and pay after finding a parking spot, that POPLA can merrily deduct seven minutes from the 10 min grace period and leave the person just 3 minutes to get out?! That would clearly be farcical, and could only be a figment of the BPA's nasty PPA-biased imagination. Especially as Kelvin Reynolds clearly said on behalf of the BPA, officially, that the 'observation period' on arrival is ENTIRELY separate from the other 'grace period' - the one allowing reasonable time (a minimum ten mins but can be more) to leave, after paid-for time:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

I'm also not able to provide photos that the car park WAS busy

Who would, unless you happened to have a dash-cam on? It is wholly unreasonable to expect you to prove the queuing in a random car park where you had no idea of any 'PCN' being issued, and indeed it is up to the operator to rebut any points of appeal, or they are deemed to have accepted them, effectively. It would be in the gift of the PPC to show that the car park was not busy, but they have not.

It is completely unreasonable to expect a driver/keeper to prove a car park they were in six weeks ago or more, was busy!

the results of my appeal to POPLA go against guidance (or findings?)

...disregard published POLICY in the 2016 annual report (quote it).

Or does the fact that I DIDN'T raise these issues in my appeal make them irrelevant?

Sadly so. The truly awful thing about POPLA is that, even if they know from other appeals that the signage is wanting, unless the appellant in the next case knows to mention that, they will not look at it. And they say that every case is considered 'on its own merits' and not compared to other ones (where is the consistency, then?).

tjj_devon

Thanks, those explanations are really helpful! I've drafted up a letter of complaint to the lead adjudicator, and would appreciate anyone's thoughts prior to me sending this off:

FORMAL COMPLAINT – ATTN: MR. JOHN GALLAGHER
REF: XXXXXXXXXXXX


Dear Mr Gallagher,

I recently appealed a Parking Charge Notice through the POPLA service, for which a misapplication of POPLA policy has resulted in an inappropriate refusal of my appeal. This is a matter of utmost importance to both myself and the integrity of POPLA as an Ombudsman Service. I expect a thorough investigation into this case.

Your assessor, Mark Yates, recently denied my appeal, which was based on my firm belief that the contravention did not occur. This was due to a perceived ‘overstay’, during which I had assumed a duration of stay began upon parking, as there was no explicit definition stating otherwise on any signage. There are two issues of misapplication of POPLA policy in this situation, which I would like addressed immediately.

1) The decision to deny my appeal has been based solely on the fact that there is lack of evidence on the issue of the car park being busy upon my arrival. The assessor quotes information on section 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice, outlining the definition of a ‘Grace Period’. While I appreciate that I have not been able to provide adequate evidence for the car park being extremely busy (it is quite unrealistic to expect a driver to be able to reproduce evidence for this, unless they are in possession of a dashboard camera), the parking operator have also failed to provide evidence to the contrary, as they have not submitted any time-stamped images of the car park itself. Therefore, the issue of whether or not the car park was busy should not be the deciding factor in this case.

2) The assessor has clearly disregarded published policy in the POPLA 2016 Annual Report, which states the expectations that POPLA holds for ANPR controlled car parks:

“… we would expect parking operators to make it clear to motorists that the car park is monitored by ANPR cameras. Similarly, we would expect operators to make it clear that the parking contract commences upon entry to the site and not from the time printed on the ticket (if a ticket has been purchased).” Page 11, paragraph 1

“In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.” Page 11, paragraph 8

It is unclear how my appeal, which is based entirely on the fact that I was not aware of the parking period commencing upon entry to the site and therefore timed my stay from the moment I parked, would be denied when POPLA policy is to expect this information to be provided clearly by the parking operator. I would like you to look at this case in detail to ensure that the correct decision is given and that POPLA policy is now correctly applied and followed.

If this complaint is not taken seriously then I will have no choice but to log a complaint against POPLA to ISPA due to how my case has been handled."

Guys_Dad

Not sure what The UK's Trade Association for providers of internet Services ( ISPA) can do to help!!

If you mean the old scrutiny board, then bad news

It is with great regret that the ISPA board is announcing that a decision was taken at an emergency meeting of ISPA on 13 September 2016 that the board would cease its work on 23 September 2016.

The board did not take this decision lightly as it feels since it was formed in February 2014 it has done some very good work to help to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the appeal service known as PoPLA. It has done this despite having none of the formal powers oversight bodies would normally expect to have, operating on a limited budget and working in a climate of uncertainty which meant it was never able to be sure how long it would be funded.

In recent months, however, the board has faced a number of challenges arising out of its lack of powers and its uncertain existence. The board took the view that these challenges were so great that it could not continue to operate and should be wound up.

tjj_devon

Ah, thanks for that, yes I did mean IPSA but wasn't aware they had ceased to exist!! I guess there's no one who holds POPLA to account then?