POPLA APPEAL Mulberry Walk, Mere Green, Sutton Coldfield

Coupon-mad

AND - please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

Stefano123

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided documentation supporting their appeal and the issues they have raised, in which they list the following grounds of appeal with a fair amount of detail. I have assessed each point made when reviewing this information. The appellant states that: • The operator has no right to charge for ‘overstaying’. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority, which the operator must provide strict proof of in full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice • The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. • Insufficient Grace Period and/ insufficient information has been provided for either the operator or car users to understand when the parking event/ grace period actually begins or ends.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. I have to assess the appeal on the reason that the PCN was issued. The operator has issued the PCN, as the driver parked on the site for longer than permitted. The appellant has highlighted that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act (2012) when it comes to pursuing the driver. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle is therefore, I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The evidence provided shows me that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. As such, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle, to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states that “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. This continues to state in Section 13 (2), “The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Followed by section 13 (5) “The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must be given by- (a) Handing them to the creditor; (b) Leaving them at any address which is specified in the notice to keeper as an address at which documents may be given to the creditor or to which payments may be sent; (c) Sending them by post to such an address so that they are delivered to the address within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph”. (d) From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a Notice to Hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that they then provided the relevant documents to the hirer, as required in PoFA 2012. The operator has issued the initial PCN to the hire company, who then passed over the appellant’s details , so that liability could be transferred accordingly. However, the operator has not provided evidence of any hire documentation to demonstrate that they were sent to the appellant/hirer. As such, the operator has not shown that they have followed the PoFA 2012, section 13, “Notice to Hirer”. In this case, I can only conclude that PoFA 2012 was not followed and therefore, the PCN has not been issued correctly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal that the appellant has raised. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done. I've commented on your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky. Have a nice, PPC worry-free Christmas break. 🥂👏

D_P_Dance

They often struggle with hired cars.  despite the fact that the procedures are hardly rocket science.

In view of the amount of your time that they have wasted, read this.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Finch2022

Hi @Stefano123 I'm expecting a ticket through the post from this same car park - I was new to the area and had no idea it would be such a trap! Although my car isn't a hire car, do you think I could still pursue the same argument? I'm not actually the registered keeper on the vehicle. I really want to fight it but it seems like such a lot of work :-(