POPLA Unsuccessful Decision

richiespencer1974

Hi, I have had the below response to my appeal for a parking fine.
It seems ridiculous.
Any assistance greatly received.
Thanks
Rich

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without valid payment. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that they were unable to pay for parking despite calling the payment line four times, so they left the site to park elsewhere. The appellant has provided copies of an itemised phone bill and a parking ticket from another site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant accepts that they were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore be considering their liability for the charge as the driver. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 09:33:01 and leaving the site at 09:44:51. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 11 minutes and 50 seconds. The operator has provided mock-ups and photographs of the signs installed on the site, as well as a site map showing whereabouts on site each sign is located. Signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Pay & Display … Terms and conditions apply … See signage in car park for full details”. Signs within the site itself clearly state: “CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES … UP TO 1 HOUR … £0.80 … FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE … DISPLAY A VALID TICKET OR PERMIT” and “TO PAY BY PHONE … 0330 400 7275 OR VIST paybyphone.co.uk”. It is clear from this evidence that the signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are positioned in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking, and are in line with the requirements of British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence to show that searches for the appellant’s vehicle have been carried out against the lists of vehicles for which valid payments were made on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on these lists. The appellant states that they were unable to pay for parking despite calling the payment line four times, so they left the site to park elsewhere. They have provided copies of an itemised phone bill and a parking ticket from another site. I accept from their evidence that the appellant made four calls to the payment line whilst on site, however the operator’s evidence shows that other users of the site were able to make payments by phone on the date in question. Given other users paid by phone without issue, I am satisfied that the appellant’s apparently inability to pay was more likely the result of user error than of any fault with the payment line. I also accept that the appellant seemingly parked free of charge at another site after leaving the site in question, however I cannot accept that this necessarily means that the period they spent on site without payment was reasonable. The BPA Code of Practice states that users “must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.” The evidence shows that the appellant remained on site for 11 minutes and 50 seconds, which I am satisfied exceeded a reasonable consideration period. I am satisfied from the evidence both that the site’s terms were made clear and that the appellant breached them. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

Redx

Nothing else you can do except argue your case in court , within 6 years

Ideally plan A is the best option , a landowner cancellation

Umkomaas

I am satisfied that the appellant’s apparently inability to pay was more likely the result of user error than of any fault with the payment line.

Wow, that's some leap to condemn, with little foundation, just assumption! 

Which parking firm?  Get on with complaining to the car park landowner. 

SayNoToPCN

Popla making stuff up again it seems.  

Nothing you can do about the ppc now, but did you complain to the landowner?

fisherjim

The BPA COP states as POPLA quotes a grace period must be given which "will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.” It does not give a maximum and if I was a judge I would agree that your efforts were quite reasonable and you made every effort to pay. Also no normal motorist would have any idea of any COP or silly made up PPC rules that were not listed on the signage.

POPLA paid for indirectly by the very PPC that sent out the charge are biased, as this quite obviously shows, along with the fact that the PPC as ever unreasonable, greedy and is scamming you.

Coupon-mad

Ludicrous decision. Means nothing, thank goodness.

Ignore it but tell us which PPC this is and what the landowner said...and were those other payments on the log made around the same time?

richiespencer1974

Thanks All.
The Parking firm is Euro Car Parks.
I haven't complained to the landowner, but will do.

Coupon-Mad, You say don't pay, which I am thinking about, but don't want the extra hassle. Happy to ignore letters etc, but is that all i'll get? 
The payment logs were at 08.31, 08.49 & then 20.31. So a big gap.

Thanks again for your help. I want to fight these clowns.

Redx

You will definitely get debt collector letters

ECP may decide to issue a civil court claim within 6 years

Plan A is called plan A for a reason , you did plan B and plan C and completely skipped plan A , so get it done ASAP

richiespencer1974

Redx,
Thanks for the response. I'm checking with Land Registry.
Cheers 

Coupon-mad

The payment logs were at 08.31, 08.49 & then 20.31. So a big gap.

Flipping heck, that is MASSIVE and certainly indicative of a system that was malfunctioning all day since 08.49am!

Personally I would complain to POPLA (John Gallagher) about this conclusion which the Assessor was not entitled to make and is a clear failure to consider the evidence before him. Why else, other than malfunction of the payment system at this site, would you make 4 calls then go and park elsewhere (and you proved that fact) and why the Hell has no-one else paid ALL DAY at a car park that was presumably normally busy-ish?

 I accept from their evidence that the appellant made four calls to the payment line whilst on site, however the operator’s evidence shows that other users of the site were able to make payments by phone on the date in question. Given other users paid by phone without issue, I am satisfied that the appellant’s apparently inability to pay was more likely the result of user error than of any fault with the payment line.

Ask Mr Gallagher, exactly what other evidence could a consumer possibly have given than proving they made 4 fruitless calls then went and parked elsewhere, and why did the Assessor think that a system that took NO PAYMENTS for some twelve hours (all day) was working?  Does the Assessor not understand the 24 hour clock?

richiespencer1974

Thanks Coupon-Mad, my thoughts too.
I will find John Gallagher's details and do just that.
I'll let you know.
Thanks again.