Windscreen ticket at train station

vegansaver

Thank you. I'll update the popla thread when I get the outcome, but have a few days before I need to respond

vegansaver

As expected lost at POPLA.  I've updated the POPLA thread. 

Here's the outcome here for anyone who later stumbles upon this thread

Decision  Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the penalty charge as the driver failed to park wholly within an authorised, marked parking bay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal. They advise that the bay markings on the site are not clear with a number of double bays. They repeat this point within their comments. They explain that the site is not relevant land in accordance with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and they dispute that a valid notice to keeper was served. 

They also dispute that the driver can be held liable for the penalty. The appellant disputes that the operator can use Railway Byelaws for claims. The appellant dispute that the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue penalties in this location. The appellant does not believe that the signage at the site is adequate and does not prove adequate notice of the amount of the penalty. In their comments they also dispute that the byelaw being used is displayed on the signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws. 

As the operator is not looking to transfer liability of the penalty charge it does not consider the provisions of PoFA 2012. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The rules and regulations of the site state: “Vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receiving a Penalty Notice, which may be issued either manually or by post… Failure to park within a marked parking bay or causing an obstruction to other users… Charges for breach of these parking conditions: £100”. 

The operator has provided date and time stamped photographic evidence of the vehicle parked at the site. The vehicle was observed parked outside of a marked bay and as such the attendant issued the penalty charge as the vehicle was in breach of the rules and regulations The operator issued the penalty charge as the driver failed to park wholly within an authorised, marked parking bay. 

The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal. They advise that the bay markings on the site are not clear with a number of double bays. They repeat this point within their comments. When considering this appeal I do not need to consider the markings in place throughout the site. Only the markings in the location where the appellant parked. In this case both the operator and appellant have provided photographs showing the markings at this site. On this site the bays are defined by white marking surrounding all sides of the bay. 

One of the appellants images shows a white marking on a curb. When compare to other images this marking does not appear to still be in use but even if it was it would mark the edge of a bay. The operator’s images show that this would have been almost in the middle of where the driver parked showing that this was not a bay, Further to this there was only a white line on one side of the vehicle. I am satisfied that it would have been clear to the drive that this was not an authorised marked bay. 

They explain that the site is not relevant land in accordance with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and they dispute that a valid notice to keeper was served. They also dispute that the driver can be held liable for the penalty. This penalty has not been issued under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 instead the operator has issued the charge under railway byelaws. As such none of the provisions contained within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are relevant to the outcome of this appeal. The appellant has admitted that they were the keeper of the vehicle who can also be assumed to be the owner for the purpose of penalty charges. 

The appellant disputes that the operator can use Railway Byelaws for claims. Railway Byelaws Section 14 (2) (ii) advises that no person may leave or place a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with any instruction given by an authorised person. Further to this Section (4) (i) explains that the owner of a motor vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in the area. As such I am satisfied that the operator has the relevant authority to issue Penalty Notices on behalf of the railway operator. 

The appellant dispute that the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue penalties in this location. Section 7 of the British Parking Association code of practice explains that an operator must have a valid contract for a location which it does not own. Within its case file the operator has provided a copy of the contract it holds with the railway operator which for the purpose of this appeal is considered the landowner. 

The appellant has not provided any evidence to POPLA which renders this contract invalid. The appellant does not believe that the signage at the site is adequate and does not prove adequate notice of the amount of the penalty. Section 14 (4) of the Railway byelaws sets the requirements for displaying the amount of the penalty in accordance with railway bylaws. Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association code of practice sets the requirements for the signage itself. This explains that the signage must be clear, easy to see and read. The operator has provided examples and photographs of the signage at the site. This signage is easy to read and the amount of the penalty is clearly displayed. This signage makes it clear that a driver will pay a £100 penalty if they fail to comply with the signage. I note that this amount is far below level 3 on the standard scale.

 In their comments they also dispute that the byelaw being used is displayed on the signage. I note that within their comments the appellant has miss quoted the relevant byelaw 24 (4) which actually states “that the notice referred to in the particular Byelaw was displayed”. In this case the notice is talking about the signage I have talked about above. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the rules and regulations on a privately operated car park. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the penalty charge has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the penalty charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

I've bolded a bit, which to me shows that POPLA is a bit of a farce.

What other industry can 'fine' people for not parking in clearly marked bays, when their car park has numerous bays that are not clearly marked. What was really disappointng was in APCOA's own evidence they showed a car parked across two bays due to bays being ambiguously marked. But POPLA decided to ignore these facts. 

fuziduck

Hi vegansaver

Looks like I'm a week or so behind you fighting a very similar case. Did you respond with any additional comments on the 7 day deadline about the owner / registered keeper comment?
Your case appeared to continue when POPLA accept that the registered keeper is considered the owner for the purposes of a penalty!
Perhaps there is a way of cutting this short by putting them to proof on this basis?

vegansaver

fuziduck said:

Hi vegansaver

Looks like I'm a week or so behind you fighting a very similar case. Did you respond with any additional comments on the 7 day deadline about the owner / registered keeper comment?
Your case appeared to continue when POPLA accept that the registered keeper is considered the owner for the purposes of a penalty!
Perhaps there is a way of cutting this short by putting them to proof on this basis?

Hi Fuziduck,

Sorry to hear you're in a similar situation.

i did respond with additional comments, but you don't have many characters so it was impossible to respond to all their claims.

I focused mainly on point one as that was my 'strongest' defense. Plus i added that the railway byelaws are not displayed on the site, only their parking terms and conditions which are different. 

I didn't respond with additional comments about the owner/registered keeper comment as I wasn't sure it would get me anywhere

EDIT
Seen you have started your own thread, so edited mine from this point as you've covered it and removed the parts that are already addressed in that. 


It may be useful to know that once I had submitted my additional comments, it took around 25 days for POPLA to give a decision.

Wishing you better luck than I had, but from my experience and another case a month before mine with Apcoa, I don't have much faith in POPLA being independent or impartial.

I think this review sums up POPLA 

18 Jul 2022

Absolutely useless appeal process and…

Absolutely useless appeal process and investigator. The appeal was adjudicated purely on the process and failed to take into account the reasonableness of actions and any mitigation - a completely flawed, biased, and useless appeal process.

The investigators need to look up what an 'independent adjudication' means. My investigator was anything but independent and I am now forced into paying a £100 fine when I had already paid £10 (verified!) for overnight parking.

An appeal should be based on the information presented, mitigation, evidence, and reasonableness of the actions taken. The investigator of my case simply looked at the process (not compliance) and ignored all other evidence, which included proof of payment.

Update in Response to POPLA reply - I do not wish to come across as overly critical but my case (even from a development perspective) needs to be reviewed. I am a Magistrate, and if I adjudicated cases in the manner POPLA investigated mine, then there really is no need to present or listen to a defense. One would simply hear the CPS's version of events and then decide. That is how poorly my case was dealt with by POPLA.

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/popla.co.uk

Still obviously worth going through the process. But just lower any expectations of it being a fair process and you're less likely to be disappointed. 

What i'd be interested in knowing, is if a court finds in the favour of an individual over the parking firm and a court rules POPLA decision is 'wrong', is there a process to take this further against POPLA?

I guess what i'm saying is who holds POPLA accountable? It appears that many of their decisions are 'overturned' by a court, but POPLA seem able to just continue to come to the same poorly reasoned conclusions, putting far too many people through months of stress, anxiety and sleepless nights unnecessarily.

It's seems crazy that we have such a situation that allows threats and harassment to go on for months with little comeback when a court rules the ticket shouldn't have been given in the first place. 

Coupon-mad

We always win cases where POPLA failed.  It's 'normal' at the moment (because POPLA is not great) and it's why things are changing with the new Government regulations coming in for 2024.

Mitigation will be considered in future but personally it really wouldn't surprise me if POPLA/Ombudsman Services get to run the 'new version' of an Independent appeals service.

I say that with no knowledge.

Just a pragmatic guess because it needs to be an 'oven ready' and fairly cheap service with people that understand (a bit) about parking appeals and have the ability to make independent decisions based on set policy.

It would surprise me no end if the new Appeals Service is set up from scratch.

I would be utterly gobsmacked if the IPC's horrific 'IAS' get awarded it.  They have not demonstrated any fitness to run it, IMHO.

Anyway - both if you can ignore POPLA's decision and it will time out after 6 months.

PLEASE PLEASE stick around to do the Public Consultation and also, please could one of you mention it on POPLA's Trustpilot reviews page with a link to the DLUHC code of practice Gov page so people can find it when it opens later this year?

vegansaver

Coupon-mad said:

We always win cases where POPLA failed.  It's 'normal' at the moment (because POPLA is not great) and it's why things are changing with the new Government regulations coming in for 2024.

Mitigation will be considered in future but personally it really wouldn't surprise me if POPLA/Ombudsman Services get to run the 'new version' of an Independent appeals service.

I say that with no knowledge.

Just a pragmatic guess because it needs to be an 'oven ready' and fairly cheap service with people that understand (a bit) about parking appeals and have the ability to make independent decisions based on set policy.

It would surprise me no end if the new Appeals Service is set up from scratch.

I would be utterly gobsmacked if the IPC's horrific 'IAS' get awarded it.  They have not demonstrated any fitness to run it, IMHO.

Anyway - both if you can ignore POPLA's decision and it will time out after 6 months.

PLEASE PLEASE stick around to do the Public Consultation and also, please could one of you mention it on POPLA's Trustpilot reviews page with a link to the DLUHC code of practice Gov page so people can find it when it opens later this year?

Thank you Coupon-mad, appreciate the added information and your thoughts.

I do plan on sticking around to do the Public Consultation and I'd also be happy to mention it on POPLA's trustpilot reviews page with a link to the DLUHC code. 

It will be good to be able to give a little something back after the support I've received and also do my bit to help bring about much needed change. 

Coupon-mad

I tell you what, it DOES feel great to be listened to (as I have a direct input to Government, being on the Steering Group for the new code).  Making a difference to ensure change in the ugly World of private parking feels brilliant but it will be a group effort overall.

It certainly needs high numbers responding sensibly and with evidence, to the final Public Consultation.  Last time, in 2021, some of the drivers among my family and friends responded individually (not coached by me on what to put, but encouraged by me to do it!).  I know other posters here also ensured their families took part too.

This time there is an extreme danger of a new DLUHC Minister or SoS unpicking the good work of Neil O'Brien MP.  It is always possible because the PPCs are plausible with their dross and two Judicial Reviews and lots of money is being thrown at it.

vegansaver

I'm delighted you are on the steering group, it is just what is needed having someone like you who puts in so much of your time to make that difference, not just for wider change, but taking the time to support individuals who you don't know, many of which will simply pass through, but at least in doing so they are so much more informed. 

I will encourage those I know to take part too. Most won't have a clue how immoral the parking firms and their practices are. But i'd rather they didn't find this out in the same way. 

But things need to change and the last thing anyone needs is things getting worse.