Parking Eye POPLA Appeal, 7 mins over

Umkomaas

Do us a favour. We read dozens upon dozens of posts every day and night - please put some paragraphs into that gigantic wall of text and to some of the other large blocks, then someone might read it.

Thank you.

Smiler97

I thought the exact same thing when I was reading it from the POPLA website. I have attempted to format the POPLA response below for easier reading.


Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the free time permitted and failed to pay for parking.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:



• The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a grace period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.



• They say that the signage on the site does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice 18.3 and that the entrance signs are not lit and inadequate. • They state that there is no evidence of landowner authority.


• They advise that the images of the vehicle on the PCN have been tampered with In response to the operator’s case file the appellant has reiterated their comments regarding grace periods.

The appellant has provided a PDF document detailing their appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.



The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the free time permitted and failed to pay for parking. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states:” Parking tariffs apply”,”2 hour free stay”,” Up to 12 hours £2.00”,”All tariffs include the first 2 free hours”,” Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”, Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 18:40 and exiting at 21:42 on the day of the incident. The operator has provided evidence which shows that no payment had been captured for the vehicle on the day of the incident. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the motorist and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached.


I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a grace period which is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In response to the operator’s case file the appellant has reiterated their comments regarding grace periods. I note the appellant’s comments however, ANPR systems are used to take images of vehicles entering a site and exiting. The operator then uses the times of these ANPR images to calculate the total duration of stay on site. As the site permits motorists to two free parking time, I am satisfied that the free parking period would begin from the time the vehicle enters the site. This is because motorists do not need to obtain the free parking period; all they do is park their vehicle on site and agree to comply with the terms and conditions. In this case the motorist had indicated that they had accepted the operator’s terms and conditions by remaining on the site for two hours and 10 minutes. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if a vehicle has not paid, a PCN is issued.



The appellant says that the signage on the site does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice 18.3 and that the entrance signs are not lit and inadequate. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “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.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “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.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”



The appellant has stated that the signage is not lit however as the vehicle entered and exited the site during daylight hours, I have not considered this statement in this assessment.


The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant says that they have seen no evidence that the operator has written authorisation from the landowner (or their appointed representative) to operate on this site. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” Further to this, section 7.3 states, “The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.” The operator has provided an abridged version of the contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information.



The appellant advises that the images of the vehicle on the PCN have been tampered with I note the appellant’s comment and I refer to Section 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice which states “ When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” Independent research from the Home Office and Asset Skills has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. However, POPLA will on occasion, receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been an error with the ANPR. When considering such appeals, POPLA must consider if there is any evidence to cast doubt on the ANPR’s accuracy. This can come from either the appellant or be included as part of the parking operator’s evidence pack. The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant’s explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. In this case the appellant has not provided any evidence to support their statement and I am satisfied that the images provided by the operator are compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.



Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The motorists chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum free time permitted and failed to pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Redx

The Newbies sticky thread tells everyone to complain to the landowner and get it cancelled , this should have been done at the start of this saga , not now

But it's never too late to complain , so get it done

Also complain by email to John Gallagher at popla about the grace period decision etc

Find all the failures in that assessor decision and point them out

Umkomaas

Thanks for paragraphing the wall of text. It will have saved some of us an overnight migraine.

Sorry you lost this, but you seem not to have broken down your grace period argument into two phases (as advised by Redx) - part of the 10 minutes to enter, find a parking space, read the signs and decide whether to remain or leave. Then there’s the grace period at the end of parking - a BPA minimum of 10 minutes. Had you laid out your appeal thus, POPLA would have had much more difficulty in pushing the argument aside.

However ......

According to the POPLA decision, PE have provided evidence that suggests your car was in the car park for much longer that 10 minutes over, from that it looks like a 61 minutes overstay - way beyond any grace period.

Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 18:40 and exiting at 21:42 on the day of the incident.

So, which is it ...... ?

Redx

good point


over on page 1 it says 7 minutes alleged overstay , then its 11 miutes , but Parking Eye are saying 61 minutes in their evidence to POPLA


there is no way to justify 61 minutes alleged overstay on a pay and display car park , even if 2 hours are free to park


check your facts before complaining , because it seems that PE are correct in their statement and as keeper they have held you to be liable under POFA

Smiler97

Hello,


Once again thank you for your replies. The overstay provided by parking eye is 10 minutes and 24 seconds. I am sorry for any confusion as when I made the original thread for some reason I stated 7 minutes this is not accurate.



In the POPLA decision they have stated parking eye have provided them a 61 minute overstay which is incorrect they have also provided incorrect times relating to my parking ticket.


In my appeal I attempted to split the 10 minute 24 second overstay into two by phrasing:


All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and
• Decipher the confusing information being such as park in the marked bays which there are clearly none.
• Decide to park and find a ‘marked bay’ therefore entering into a contract.
• Return to car and safely leave the car park.





So it looks like either Parking Eye have provided POPLA with incorrect information regarding my Overstay or there has been a mistake by POPLA.



Also, how am I able to contact John Gallagher at POPLA?

Umkomaas

Also, how am I able to contact John Gallagher at POPLA?

General POPLA email address, subject title ‘For the personal attention of Mr John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator - Procedural Error’.

You need to think very clearly about what it is you’re going to complain about. If you’re going in with a general gripe that you don’t like the POPLA decision, and you don’t agree with it, forget it. You have to have a specific, targeted reason why the decision is unsound, and you need to document it very carefully, articulately and surgically.

Just be aware that JG is unlikely to see this, but adding his name to the subject line will get your complaint a bit further up the food chain than just a general email complaint to POPLA.

Redx

check the NTK and see what the in and out times are , SAR PE if you have to , meanwhile check their POPLA evidence pack for this , because you should have picked this up at the rebuttal stage , its very important if complaining to J G

twhitehousescat

sorry , late reading post

you stated new system , was free before?

did you enter your VRN into machine to claim your free parking period?

Johno100

Smiler97 wrote: »

In the POPLA decision they have stated parking eye have provided them a 61 minute overstay which is incorrect they have also provided incorrect times relating to my parking ticket.

So how did you seek to rebut that when you got sight of Parking Eye's evidence?