IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

POPLA UNSUCCESSFUL - PAYING UP - NOT WORTH THE TORTURE

Options
24

Comments

  • Thank you Coupon-mad , will change that now.
  • Disabledrights
    Disabledrights Posts: 16 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 24 April 2022 at 2:34PM
    Fruitcake - have elaborated on your point about address on PCN being landowner
    below

  • Disabledrights
    Disabledrights Posts: 16 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 24 April 2022 at 1:43PM
    I have re-written my response below - would welcome any eyes to look over and see if it makes sense, Thank You.
    (Character Count 2000 Exactly)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operator has failed to address 2 points, they must concede these

    1.No map indicating Zone A and B is provided anywhere in the vicinity. Without which a driver cannot make an informed decision where to park 
    2.Highways register drawing clearly show's that Matisse Road is an adopted carriageway 

    The operators response states, the address on the PCN is that of the landowners business, not the actual relevant land itself. Schedule 4 of the POFA para 9(2), requires the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked to be specified, it clearly has not.  The response also states, "it is evident that the appellant did not park on the road, but on the land we manage". They clearly have identified that the vehicle was parked on Matisse Road, in a parking bay, which they refer to as 'private land'. The Highways register drawing shows that Matisse Road is an adopted carriageway and that the lack of clear signage does not indicate otherwise. I would suggest you refer directly and robustly to the fact it is public land over which the ppc has no authority to operate.

    The actual signage is clearly not visible from edge of the pavement.  Operator has submitted a blown-up, close up. Signage does not comply with the BPA COP, is not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.  The DLUHC's , Private Parking COP 4.2 states, It is particularly important that parking operators make clear to drivers where the rights available to Blue Badge holders on public roads do not apply e.g. prominent, readily visible (i.e. low-placed) signs (including repeater signs) indicating clearly that within this land Blue Badge holders are not permitted to stop or park .

    Signage is forbidding in nature. A motorist cannot form a contract by doing something that is forbidden. For a contract to be formed there must be three elements: offer, consideration, and acceptance. The signs make no offer to park, there is no consideration offered, therefore there can be no acceptance, therefore no contract can be formed.

  • HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS SPENT RESEARCHING DRAFTING REDRAFTING ASKING FOR HELP AND IT COMES TO THIS!



    Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Rebecca Appleton
    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have authority to issue parking charges on this land. They say the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA) and is not prominent enough to form a contract with a motorist. They say the operator has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice with regards to Grace Periods and Consideration Periods. They say the parking charge notice has been made out for Zone A + B Holloway Street when the vehicle in question has been photographed at Matisse Road, which they say is an adopted carriageway. They say the evidence provided of the images captured by CCTV showing the vehicle at the location of the incident does not match the timing stated on the PCN. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal. POPLA Appeal containing points raised further elaborated. Appeal includes images of signage with is fixed to the wall on site. Photographs taken from the parking charge notice of the appellants vehicle parked. Google map image showing car was parked on Matisse Road. Highway register showing Matisse Road which shows as an adopted carriageway. Copy of the parking charge notice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFa. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have reviewed the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signs within the car park which state: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME. THIS AREA IS MONITORED 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. By parking on this land, you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge.” The operator has provided photographic evidence, taken by the parking attendant on site. of the vehicle parked between the hours of 13:13 and 13:21 . A total time of 8 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that a parking contract was entered into between the appellant and the operator. On the face of the evidence, it appears that the terms of the contract have been breached. I will now assess the appellants grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. All evidence provided by the appellant has been reviewed and considered when assessing the appeal. The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have authority to issue parking charges on this land. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant says the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA) and is not prominent enough to form a contract with a motorist. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have looked at the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. When an operator has terms and conditions at its site, the driver is bound by those terms and conditions if they wish to use the site and as such has entered into a contract with the operator. The terms and conditions of the site are set out in the signage. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the 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.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied the signage does comply with The BPA Code of practice and the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity to view this. The appellant says the operator has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice with regards to Grace Periods and Consideration Periods. It is important to consider whether the operator has acted appropriately before taking enforcement action. I refer to section 13.1 British Parking Association Code of Practice “The driver 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”. Signage on the site in question clearly states motorists must not park, at any time. Therefore, I feel it is also important to refer to the following: 13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc” As the motorist can be seen parked, unauthorised, in a no parking area, when referring to the BPA 13.4 the operator is not required to offer them a consideration period. In regard to grace periods, The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 13.3 states: “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. As the vehicle was parked in a no parking area, they have breached the terms and conditions listed on the signage therefore a grace period does not apply. The appellant says the parking charge notice has been made out for Zone A + B Holloway Street when the vehicle in question has been photographed at Matisse Road, which they say is an adopted carriageway. The operator has provide a site map confirming the area in which the appellant has parked is controlled by them. This is further confirmed in the images taken of the vehicle in question. Signage can be seen on the wall next to the parked vehicle which informs motorists not to park on site. By parking on this land, the driver has breached the terms and conditions displayed, therefore a parking charge notice was issued. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these this as part of my decision. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver parked in a no parking area , 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
    Umkomaas Posts: 43,347 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Any chance of inserting a good few paragraphs to make that wall of text readable?  I know that's how you received it, but trying to read it will just bring on a migraine. 
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS RESEARCHING AND DRAFTING AND REDRAFTING AND ASKING FOR HELP AND REDRAFTING AND THEN REDRAFTING AND THEN TAKING PICTURES AND THEN REDRAFTING AND ALL FOR WHAT ........


    Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Rebecca Appleton
    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.


    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have authority to issue parking charges on this land. They say the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA) and is not prominent enough to form a contract with a motorist. They say the operator has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice with regards to Grace Periods and Consideration Periods. They say the parking charge notice has been made out for Zone A + B Holloway Street when the vehicle in question has been photographed at Matisse Road, which they say is an adopted carriageway. They say the evidence provided of the images captured by CCTV showing the vehicle at the location of the incident does not match the timing stated on the PCN. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal. POPLA Appeal containing points raised further elaborated. Appeal includes images of signage with is fixed to the wall on site. Photographs taken from the parking charge notice of the appellants vehicle parked. Google map image showing car was parked on Matisse Road. Highway register showing Matisse Road which shows as an adopted carriageway. Copy of the parking charge notice.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFa. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have reviewed the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. 


    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signs within the car park which state: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME. THIS AREA IS MONITORED 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK. Private land, strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time, unauthorised parking will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. By parking on this land, you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge.” The operator has provided photographic evidence, taken by the parking attendant on site. of the vehicle parked between the hours of 13:13 and 13:21 . A total time of 8 minutes. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that a parking contract was entered into between the appellant and the operator. On the face of the evidence, it appears that the terms of the contract have been breached. I will now assess the appellants grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. 


    All evidence provided by the appellant has been reviewed and considered when assessing the appeal. The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have authority to issue parking charges on this land. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. 


    The appellant says the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA) and is not prominent enough to form a contract with a motorist. When parking in a car park that is subject to specific terms and conditions, a motorist who uses the site does so under contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have looked at the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. 

    When an operator has terms and conditions at its site, the driver is bound by those terms and conditions if they wish to use the site and as such has entered into a contract with the operator. The terms and conditions of the site are set out in the signage. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the 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.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. 


    Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied the signage does comply with The BPA Code of practice and the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity to view this. The appellant says the operator has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice with regards to Grace Periods and Consideration Periods. It is important to consider whether the operator has acted appropriately before taking enforcement action. I refer to section 13.1 British Parking Association Code of Practice “The driver 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”. Signage on the site in question clearly states motorists must not park, at any time. 


    Therefore, I feel it is also important to refer to the following: 13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc” As the motorist can be seen parked, unauthorised, in a no parking area, when referring to the BPA 13.4 the operator is not required to offer them a consideration period. In regard to grace periods, The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 13.3 states: “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN”. As the vehicle was parked in a no parking area, they have breached the terms and conditions listed on the signage therefore a grace period does not apply. The appellant says the parking charge notice has been made out for Zone A + B Holloway Street when the vehicle in question has been photographed at Matisse Road, which they say is an adopted carriageway. The operator has provide a site map confirming the area in which the appellant has parked is controlled by them. This is further confirmed in the images taken of the vehicle in question. Signage can be seen on the wall next to the parked vehicle which informs motorists not to park on site. By parking on this land, the driver has breached the terms and conditions displayed, therefore a parking charge notice was issued.

     The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these this as part of my decision. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver parked in a no parking area , 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.

  • There are two instances on this site where people have parked in same location and been successful at POPLA - its a joke! 
  • Trainerman
    Trainerman Posts: 1,329 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    There are two instances on this site where people have parked in same location and been successful at POPLA - its a joke! 
    Which gives one example of why I have such a low opinion of PoPLA and their  ex-hairdressers pretending to have legal skills. Do remember that they can be ignored. You do not actually have any debt until a Judge says so.

    Yes, you will get bombarded with debt recovery letters but they can be ignored. True, the PPC have six years from date of PCN to take you to court, but they may not. Just look out for a Letter of Claim and keep all your evidence/reminders of your appeal.

    You can still win this
    The pen is mightier than the sword ..... and I have many pens.
  • thanks Trainerman - completely agree - POPLA is a joke! 
  • patient_dream
    patient_dream Posts: 3,905 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    I agree with Trainerman

    POPLA is a dinosaur not fit for purpose and just part of the incestuous unregulated parking industry alongside the BPA ?

    Judges are waking up to this incest and are more inclined to listen to the facts.
    In other words judges really take no notice of POPLA

    The new government code of practice and an independent appeals service was done for a reason and that is to stop motorists being scammed

    The BPA predict that the new code and appeals service will BUST many parking companies ....... let's hope their prediction comes true
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.