Gemini Hospital parking at POPLA appeal stage

Mjolnir7

POPLA have rejected the appeal and decided that Gemini were correct in ticketing the vehicle.

Umkomaas

Mjolnir7 wrote: »

POPLA have rejected the appeal and decided that Gemini were correct in ticketing the vehicle.

The POPLA decision is not binding on the motorist. You do not have to pay just because you lost at POPLA. Only if a Judge tells you to pay do you have to.

Come back on this thread if Gemini (or their solicitors) issue a formal Letter of Claim or if you receive a court claim from the Northampton CCBC.

What reasons did POPLA give in rejecting your appeal? If you're going to copy and paste the decision, please insert about half a dozen paragraphs into the slab of text they dump on you. It will make it readable for forum regulars.

Mjolnir7

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Grahame Hill

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for no ticket.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that 1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due the wording used. 2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge 3. 3.The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself 4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 5. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of keeper liability. When entering onto a private land managed car park where terms and conditions apply, motorists form a parking contract with the operator by deciding to park on the land. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of the contract. In this case, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: ‘all vehicles must display a valid ticket’ and that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £60.’ The operator has also provided images of the vehicle, parked in situ with a PCN affixed The appellant has raised a number of grounds that I will address separately or grouped together as appropriate


1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due the wording used.



2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge 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, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice We accept witness statements from operators to confirm they have landowner authority to operate at a site, and we do this because it is only a small part of confirming on the balance of probabilities that they have landowner authority. The fact that they have signs, camera, personnel, etc, at the site also supports that proof. In this case, the operator has supplied a copy of the landowner agreement. As such, I am satisfied they are authorised to issue charges on this site.


5. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance The BPA Code of Practice sets out the requirement for operators to provide a grace period, in which it will not issue a PCN for a breach of any terms of parking which, by their nature, require a grace period in order to be complied with. For instance, any term that a ticket must be purchased must imply a grace period in order for the motorist to obtain the ticket; or a reasonable time in which to leave the car park. There is no requirement that the operator give a general grace period in which any breach of the terms of parking is overlooked simply because it does not occur for very long. As the appellant has not supplied evidence of the vehicle being elsewhere on the day or when the driver arrived or left the car park, I am unable to determine the entry or leaving time and therefore cannot determine a grace period.


3.The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.



The PCN was issued for having no ticket. The appellant has not provided proof of a ticket. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant failed to display a ticket, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due the wording used.



2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge 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, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

Without any shadow of a doubt, the NtK is not PoFA-compliant.

Yet another POPLA failure to understand the specific requirements that PoFA places on the PPC in order for them to transfer liability to the keeper.

You could complain to the Lead Adjudicator (John Gallagher) that there has been a procedural error, insofar as the assessor simply has misinterpreted (does not understand) the statute (law of the land) and has clearly made an erroneous assessment as a result.

But don't hold your breath!

Mjolnir7

Thanks, I'll have a dig around and try and find John Gallagher's email address.

Le_Kirk

Mjolnir7 wrote: »

Thanks, I'll have a dig around and try and find John Gallagher's email address.

Search the forum, it has been posted many times.

Coupon-mad

Could be wrong but hasn't that Assessor made the terrible (untrained and clueless) error on here before? With a Gemini one or maybe a classic non-POFA ParkingEye version...

Search for his name.

Might not have been the same Assessor but I have an inkling it was.

JOHN GALLAGHER: IF YOU ARE READING THIS for the love of God re-train your Assessors and use a Gemini one, and a ParkingEye no-POFA on the back, one, as your pictorial examples of a NON POFA PCN.

This is NOT a 'JUDGEMENT CALL' BY ASSESSORS, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY BADLY TRAINED.

POPLA, SORT IT OUT PLEASE OR WE WILL START ASKING NOT TO HAVE CASES HEARD BY THAT PERSON UNTIL HE UNDERSTANDS THE EASY PEASY LAW.