POPLA misinterpreting PoFA?

Brucella

Having followed your advice, I appealed using the standard template.

The grounds on which I was most reliant were:
1) Non-windscreen NTK issued outside the 14day period:

• Alleged offence 15/08/19

• NTK issued 30/08/19

• Therefore, NTK 'Given' (e.g. received under PoFA) 03/09/19

In other words, she has not taken account of the two working days allowed for the mail.

The assessor has surely misinterpreted PoFA - or have I?

2) Inadequate signage
The £100 charge is hidden in small text:
https://imgur.com/a/Df6O5n9

What do you all think?

It says that you can't appeal a POPLA decision, but surely if she has misinterpreted the law, there must be some way?

===

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Sarah-Jane Dolman

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal: I am being charge as registered keeper of the vehicle but the notice to keeper was not compliant with the Protect of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. I assert that Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated that it has the authority to impose such a charge on behalf of the landowner. The signage was inadequate and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The vehicle was parked in a ‘free’ car park but it is alleged that it was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed but no evidence to prove this has been provided. The appellant has provided additional evidence for the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the driver is unknown, 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 appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The sign states: “Maximum stay 2 ½ hours” and “Failure to comply with the above will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice”. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 12:06, and leaving at 15:08. They have remained in the car park for 3 hours 1 minute.

I am being charge as registered keeper of the vehicle but the notice to keeper was not compliant with the Protect of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The event occurred on 15 August 2019 and the PCN was issued on 30 August 2019. Paragraph 9 (5) of PoFA 2012 states: The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. Therefore, the day after the period of parking was 16 August and the 14 day period from this date allows up to 30 August, the date on which the PCN was issued.
I am satisfied that the PCN was issued within the correct relevant period, and the appellant has clearly been identified as the keeper.

I assert that Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated that it has the authority to impose such a charge on behalf of the landowner. The operator has provided a witness statement to show that they are authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs on that land and that it was in effect on the date of the event. Paragraph 22.16b of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice states: Witness statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within an independent appeal evidence pack and as such these statements must be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent, and not by a member of the operator’s staff. I am satisfied that that the witness statement provided shows they have authority to issue the PCN on the date of the event. The signage was inadequate and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms.

I am satisfied from the images provided by the operator that the terms of the car park and the amount of the PCN are on the signs and that they have provided a reasonable opportunity for the motorist to read the signs. The signs on entrance to the car park indicate that the motorist is entering private land and that they should read the signs in the car park for the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signs were in the car park on the date of the event and it was the motorist’s responsibility to read these before remaining. If they did not agree with the terms or did not understand them, there was reasonable opportunity to leave the car park.

The vehicle was parked in a ‘free’ car park but it is alleged that it was parked for longer than the maximum period allowed but no evidence to prove this has been provided. The operator has provided images of the vehicle from ANPR entering and exiting along with time stamps of the images. I am satisfied that this shows the length of time the vehicle was in the car park. The appellant has not provided any compelling evidence to show otherwise. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has remained for longer than the maximum time allowed.

As the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

The_Deep

IMO the sall print in r is far too small to form a contract, read this.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PE signs leave much to be desired. Many judges might find them insufficiently clear to form a contract, read this;[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If this goes to court emphasize this in your defence, he is a sucessful recent court case.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957364/first-parking-eye-appeal-unsuccessful[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

KeithP

Despite my earlier post you have now started a fourth thread about this incident.

Please copy the above post as a reply on to your substantive thread and then edit the above post to say something like:

Duplicate thread - please ignore

Umkomaas

PE signs leave much to be desired. Many judges might find them insufficiently clear to form a contract, read this;

@TD - PE signs may leave much to be desired, but they are irrelevant to this as the PPC is Euro Car Parks (keep up at the back!).

Another atrocious POPLA decision based on a total lack of understanding of PoFA time limits.

Therefore, the day after the period of parking was 16 August and the 14 day period from this date allows up to 30 August, the date on which the PCN was issued.
I am satisfied that the PCN was issued within the correct relevant period, and the appellant has clearly been identified as the keeper.

The time limit is nothing to do with the NtK being issued, but about it being given and para 9 (6) is crystal clear on it:

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

You have to complain to the Lead Adjudicator (John Gallagher) that there has been an error in the understanding of the law made by his assessor and your case needs to be reassessed and rectified. It is now well documented in the public domain that this is now a consistent failure by POPLA to understand the law on which they are making erroneous decisions.

There are a few recent identical travesties (posters' names escape me), but if you do a forum search on John Gallagher, you'll soon come across them (all in the past 3 or so weeks).

Coupon-mad

I have such a lack of respect for POPLA now.

Time and again this year they have proved that they can't count to 14 and nor do they understand keeper or hirer liability.

ANYWAY DUPLICATE THREAD - NO MORE REPLIES HERE PLEASE!