POPLA draft. Please help

Coupon-mad

No, it's best to just do bullet point comments to ensure the Assessor will read them.

You can't add more info/appeal points anyway and there's no need to repeat the appeal points at all.

spookusofbrin

So after all this waiting we have received a letter from Popla failing the appeal in favour of NCP.

Is there anything we can do now and if so have we actually got much chance of success?
Feeling like we may just have to pay up after all !!!55357;!!!56853;

Umkomaas

The POPLA decision is not binding on you. No compunction on you to pay. NCP aren't litigious.

Can you post up the POPLA assessor's decision transcript please? Please don't simply copy and paste the huge text block, would you be good enough to put some paragraphs into it to make it easier to read. You never know what an expert eye might spot.

spookusofbrin

I hope I have made this easier to read.

The thing that has annoying me the most is that the operator submitted a picture of the signage at the entrance of the car park dated 2017 showing a large sign about the use of ANPR and a smaller sign about parking fees to one side.

I submitted a recent picture of the same entrance which shows that the smaller 'fees' sign had been re-positioned in front of the ANPR sign obscuring the view of the ANPR sign.

I added comments about this but POPLA seem to have completely disregarded it.


DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor Name xxxxx xxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked at the Marlborough Road car park, Banbury where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking without payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the operator has failed to allow a grace period as outlined in the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the individual they are pursuing is the driver who is liable for the PCN.

The appellant states that the signage at the car park is insufficient and is not clear or legible. The appellant adds that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide evidence demonstrating that it has the authority of the landowner to manage parking at the site.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with data protection and the ICO Code of Practice, which is applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems as there is no information in relation to subject access requests, privacy, evaluation to justify that round the clock enforcement of the site is justifiable.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle entering the site at 13:38 and departing at 13:52 on 14 April 2018. From this, I am satisfied that the vehicle was at the site for 14 minutes.
The operator has also provided a system print out, which shows no payment was received for the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle on the day.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, !!!8220;A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued for failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions!!!8221; and !!!8220;Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking!!!8221;. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service.
All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA!!!8217;s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to allow a grace period as outlined in the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states,!!!8221; If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the !!!8216;parking contract!!!8217; with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract!!!8221;.

From the appellant!!!8217;s statement I am determine that 14 minutes is not a reason grace period to review the signage and decide that they did not wish to park at the site. Whereas, section 13.2 states, !!!8220;If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes!!!8221;. This grace period is provided so that motorists can review the terms and conditions of a site before deciding that they wish to park at the site. Additionally, section 13.4 states, !!!8220;You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes!!!8221;.
The purpose of a grace period at the end of a contract is to allow a motorist who encounters circumstances that may prevent them from leaving the car park, within the time permitted, to be able to leave without incurring a PCN. As the driver has failed to register the vehicle, the grace period at the end of the contract cannot be applied.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the individual they are pursuing is the driver who is liable for the PCN.

As the driver has not been identified within the appeal to POPLA or to the operator, I need to ensure that the operator has shown strict compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with PoFA 2012 and as such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.


The appellant states that the signage at the car park is insufficient and is not clear or legible. The appellant adds that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN. Section, 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states !!!8220;Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of!!!8221;. Additionally, section 18.3 states, !!!8220;Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;.

From the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the signage at site meets the BPA Code of Practice and that the terms and conditions of the site are both !!!8220;conspicuous and legible!!!8221;. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that the motorist had the opportunity to see the signage and agree to the sites terms and conditions before parking.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide evidence demonstrating that it has the authority of the landowner to manage parking at the site.

The operator has provided a document from the land registry from this I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show the operator has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with data protection and the ICO Code of Practice, which is applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems as there is no information in relation to subject access requests, privacy, evaluation to justify that round the clock enforcement of the site is justifiable.
The operator states within its signage that ANPR cameras are in operation at the site and that the operator will contact the DVLA for the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle. Additionally, POPLA!!!8217;s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued correctly in accordance to the terms and conditions of the site. Data protection breaches or breaches of the ICO Code of Practice are not a ground of appeal I can consider. When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. By entering into the car park and remaining in this area, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions in place and agreeing to pay the PCN if they do not comply with them. The terms and conditions of the site state that all parking periods must be paid for, by entering the site and remaining for 14 minutes without making payments, the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions in place.

In conclusion, from the evidence provided I can only determine that the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions by failing to make payment. Therefore, I determine that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Coupon-mad

No-one PAYS after losing at POPLA! What on earth makes you think so?

No-one would pay this. Relax, and sit tight.

spookusofbrin

spookusofbrin wrote: »

Excellent. Thanks Coupon-mad.
I!!!8217;ll Keep you posted on the outcome.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No-one PAYS after losing at POPLA! What on earth makes you think so?

No-one would pay this. Relax, and sit tight.

Do we just ignore any letters that come through now then?
And what is likely to happen in the end?

nosferatu1001

Well not ANY letters. Of course, from reading the NEWBIES thread you know not to ignroe
- LBA
- court claim form

Likely? No further real action. Debt collectors are just ignored, they have ZERO powers. IGNORE means IGNORE.

spookusofbrin

A letter from Trace debt recovery has been received today demanding payment of £160 on behalf of NCP.

Should this be ignored?

KeithP

spookusofbrin wrote: »

A letter from Trace debt recovery has been received today demanding payment of £160 on behalf of NCP.

Should this be ignored?

Please re-read nosferatu1001's post immediately above yours.

Particularly this bit:

Debt collectors are just ignored, they have ZERO powers. IGNORE means IGNORE.

Umkomaas

KeithP wrote: »

Please re-read nosferatu1001's post immediately above yours.

Particularly this bit:

Does anyone read advice (let alone accept it) from regulars with high-posts credentials?