POPLA Unsuccessful - Despite contract date between Operator and Owner had expired

danny_dom

Hi,
    I had my POPLA appeal uncessufl despite the following
a) I was not the driver but a registered keeper.
b) Operator blocked all evidence requested by me.
c) Provided outdated photos of the signage and the site 
d) The contract date between Operator and Savill had expired last year ...
e) The image provided by the Operator was unclear and does not cover any otehr details of the site and the regulation ...

I am confused on the outcome .

/******************************************************/

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Anita Burns

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant requests the operator complies with the provisions of Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They say there is no evidence of the driver of the vehicle during the incident. The appellant says there is no evidence of Landowner Authority, and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In response to the operator’s evidence the appellant says the operator’s contract with Saville expired on 20 August 2021 and it issued the PCN on 23 January 2022 illegally and the operator had no right to issue it issue PCN post contract expiry date. They say the evidence was blocked by the operator in the internal review with misleading information. They say they will also be taking the matter up with their local MP. The appellant says they were not the driver of the vehicle when the PCN was raised, and they do not even recognise the place. The appellant says the operator has not provided any photographic evidence of the parking signage, terms and conditions and other required evidence in the appeals to help identify the location. The appellant says they have also asked to share any contractual agreement to understand the validity of the PCN, but their request was refused with vague responses stating that sufficient signs exist and asked them to refer to the operator’s appeals portal. They say this contains a black and white and unclear image of a car and it is difficult to recognise the details of the car, location or any adjoining signage. They say there is no signage photographs of the location at the time of parking. They say after the second appeal, they are not even allowed to view any image or evidence in the portal as it says that appeals have been exhausted, which contradicts with the appeal response stating all photographic evidence may be viewed online. They say the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates that the operator did not share any of the images of the location in the internal appeals process and they cannot be validated or verified. They say the date of the images covering signboards and locations do not correspond with the date of the incident, either the images are recent or outdated as there is no date time stamp on the image. They say the side note stating the image is dated 19 November 2019 cannot be verified and validated with the PCN date of 23 January 2022. The appellant says they hope POPLA conducts an unbiased and neutral investigation based on the evidence which is now available to POPLA and was blocked to them during the internal appeal. The appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s appeal response as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence has been considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle. Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the registered keeper is now liable for the charge. When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state, “Permit Holders Only” and “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING … TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES … Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge … A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked at the site on 23 January 2022 at 15:57. The images show that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit. As such, the parking charge notice has been issued for this reason. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The appellant says the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant requests the operator complies with the provisions of Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They say there is no evidence of the driver of the vehicle during the incident. There is no requirement for the operator to identify the driver as it is pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant had the opportunity to provide the drivers details but chose not to do so. I have already concluded above that the notice to keeper complies with the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, liability has transferred to the registered keeper. The appellant says there is no evidence of Landowner Authority, and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In response to the operator’s evidence the appellant says the operator’s contract with Saville expired on 20 August 2021 and it issued the PCN on 23 January 2022 illegally and the operator had no right to issue it issue PCN post contract expiry date. They say the evidence was blocked by the operator in the internal review with misleading information. They say they will also be taking the matter up with their local MP. The British Parking Association (BPA) paragraph 7.1 outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract, confirming that it has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. While I note the appellant says the contract had ended prior to the date of the contravention, the operator advises that if no party terminates the contract it will continue on a rolling basis. I have also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ and the evidence suggests the signage and equipment has been there for a long time in conjunction with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the contract is no longer in place. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. I am therefore satisfied on the available evidence that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. The appellant says they were not the driver of the vehicle when the PCN was raised, and they do not even recognise the place. The appellant says the operator has not provided any photographic evidence of the parking signage, terms and conditions and other required evidence in the appeals to help identify the location. The appellant says they have also asked to share any contractual agreement to understand the validity of the PCN, but their request was refused with vague responses stating that sufficient signs exist and asked them to refer to the operator’s appeals portal. They say this contains a black and white and unclear image of a car and it is difficult to recognise the details of the car, location or any adjoining signage. They say there is no signage photographs of the location at the time of parking. They say after the second appeal, they are not even allowed to view any image or evidence in the portal as it says that appeals have been exhausted, which contradicts with the appeal response stating all photographic evidence may be viewed online. They say the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates that the operator did not share any of the images of the location in the internal appeals process and they cannot be validated or verified. They say the date of the images covering signboards and locations do not correspond with the date of the incident, either the images are recent or outdated as there is no date time stamp on the image. They say the side note stating the image is dated 19 November 2019 cannot be verified and validated with the PCN date of 23 January 2022. The appellant says they hope POPLA conducts an unbiased and neutral investigation based on the evidence which is now available to POPLA and was blocked to them during the internal appeal. While I note the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the operator’s appeal process, The operator’s internal appeal process is outside of our remit as it did not impact on the driver’s ability to comply with the parking contract on the date of the contravention. POPLA is not responsible for evidence gathering and can only take into account evidence freely provided by both parties. Further, we accept all evidence in good faith unless proven otherwise. While I acknowledge that the appellant says they were unable to identify the location from the evidence provided. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) provides the full address including postcode of the location and contains a date and time stamped image. Having viewed the additional images that are date and time stamped of the appellant’s vehicle and the signage taken on the date and time of the contravention, I am satisfied that the operator has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant's vehicle was parked in this permit holders car park, without a valid permit on display. Further, the additional images of the signage supplied by the operator do not need to be taken on the date of the contravention. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the driver parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit, these terms and conditions were not met. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Trainerman

What a load of badly written, repetitive tosh. Even the way they communicate proves that PoPLA are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Losing here is to be expected, but is not binding on the defendant. 

You will get silly debt collector letters, which can be ignored but look out for a real Letter before/of Claim, which cannot be ignored.

Read the Newbies, learn the process and be ready

Umkomaas

Impossible to read the wall of text. I know that's how POPLA shove it out, but could you edit and insert at least 10 paragraphs to make it readable, please. 

DE_612183

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle. Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the registered keeper is now liable for the charge.

When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state, “Permit Holders Only” and “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING … TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES … Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge … A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked at the site on 23 January 2022 at 15:57. The images show that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit.

As such, the parking charge notice has been issued for this reason. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached.

I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The appellant says the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant requests the operator complies with the provisions of Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They say there is no evidence of the driver of the vehicle during the incident. There is no requirement for the operator to identify the driver as it is pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant had the opportunity to provide the drivers details but chose not to do so. I have already concluded above that the notice to keeper complies with the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, liability has transferred to the registered keeper.

The appellant says there is no evidence of Landowner Authority, and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. In response to the operator’s evidence the appellant says the operator’s contract with Saville expired on 20 August 2021 and it issued the PCN on 23 January 2022 illegally and the operator had no right to issue it issue PCN post contract expiry date.

They say the evidence was blocked by the operator in the internal review with misleading information. They say they will also be taking the matter up with their local MP. The British Parking Association (BPA) paragraph 7.1 outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).

The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract, confirming that it has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. While I note the appellant says the contract had ended prior to the date of the contravention, the operator advises that if no party terminates the contract it will continue on a rolling basis. I have also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ and the evidence suggests the signage and equipment has been there for a long time in conjunction with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the contract is no longer in place.

The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. I am therefore satisfied on the available evidence that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event.

The appellant says they were not the driver of the vehicle when the PCN was raised, and they do not even recognise the place. The appellant says the operator has not provided any photographic evidence of the parking signage, terms and conditions and other required evidence in the appeals to help identify the location.

The appellant says they have also asked to share any contractual agreement to understand the validity of the PCN, but their request was refused with vague responses stating that sufficient signs exist and asked them to refer to the operator’s appeals portal. They say this contains a black and white and unclear image of a car and it is difficult to recognise the details of the car, location or any adjoining signage.

They say there is no signage photographs of the location at the time of parking. They say after the second appeal, they are not even allowed to view any image or evidence in the portal as it says that appeals have been exhausted, which contradicts with the appeal response stating all photographic evidence may be viewed online.

They say the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates that the operator did not share any of the images of the location in the internal appeals process and they cannot be validated or verified.

They say the date of the images covering signboards and locations do not correspond with the date of the incident, either the images are recent or outdated as there is no date time stamp on the image. They say the side note stating the image is dated 19 November 2019 cannot be verified and validated with the PCN date of 23 January 2022. The appellant says they hope POPLA conducts an unbiased and neutral investigation based on the evidence which is now available to POPLA and was blocked to them during the internal appeal. While I note the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the operator’s appeal process, The operator’s internal appeal process is outside of our remit as it did not impact on the driver’s ability to comply with the parking contract on the date of the contravention.

POPLA is not responsible for evidence gathering and can only take into account evidence freely provided by both parties. Further, we accept all evidence in good faith unless proven otherwise. While I acknowledge that the appellant says they were unable to identify the location from the evidence provided.

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) provides the full address including postcode of the location and contains a date and time stamped image. Having viewed the additional images that are date and time stamped of the appellant’s vehicle and the signage taken on the date and time of the contravention, I am satisfied that the operator has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant's vehicle was parked in this permit holders car park, without a valid permit on display. Further, the additional images of the signage supplied by the operator do not need to be taken on the date of the contravention.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the driver parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit, these terms and conditions were not met.

POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

 

DE_612183

re: the contract continues on a rolling basis - does the contract need to actually say that - and did it?

patient_dream

the appellant says the contract had ended prior to the date of the contravention, the operator advises that if no party terminates the contract it will continue on a rolling basis ?

WHO SAYS ... if this was an open contract signed by the landowner (rolling) why did it have an expiry date ....... there needs to be proof on that.

The requirements for parking companies are very clear regarding contracts

This is just another POPLA mish mash and the so called Assessor clearly does not have the experience. Proving yet again that POPLA is not fit for purpose and and confirms the need for a proper independent appeals service   run by professionals

Yes you will get idiotic debt muppets contact you but the easy to deal with them is IGNORE THEM ..... Powerless circus clowns.

If this does end up in court , the PPC must be able to prove their statement.   No contract to operate renders all signs void.  Then there is the matter of a data breach

Coupon-mad

Which parking firm?

danny_dom

This is the UKPC (Uk Parking Control Ltd).
I am suprised that POPLA ignores an expired contract with the landowner.


UKPC blocked all evidence in the intiial 2 appeals and showed the evidence only during the POPLA appeal .
Nowhere in the 3 page agreement does it mention about a rolling contract or if no one cnacels than the contract exists.Looks like POPLA takes the evidence from the Operator on face value without validation any factual contents ....
I am not sure if POPLA are truly unboased atleast from thsi evidence,.

DE_612183

I wonder what Savills position is on this?

Coupon-mad

You should email POPLA to complain even though they won't overturn the decision. That Assessor should know they have a complaint against their name and not to work on anything except evidence.  A consumer isn't allowed to make bare assertions without backing them up, so why is an operator?

patient_dream

As said, a complaint to POPLA

"The Assessor assumed that there was a rolling contract without proof"