Secure Parking DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

Pcngone said:

Are you talking about the pofa breach section 4?

Yes, as per my penultimate reply above.

it will win. You need to spoon-feed it to POPLA. 

Pcngone

Hi guys

really depressed about this now. Got my popla appeal decision today and it was unsuccessful. It seems like the popla assessor didn’t really give attention to what I wrote especially my comments on the evidence pack submitted by the operator. I don’t know what to do now. Where do I go from here? I really thought I would beat this but now I have a £100 pcn hanging over my head. 

POPLA assessment and decision

04/12/2023

Verification Code

8452793013

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Rebecca Appleton

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice due to unauthorised parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • Consideration and Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance • There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary of the venue. • Non-compliance with POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)e • No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice • The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate • No signs to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. Appeal document. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and the driver has not been identified. If the driver has not been identified the keeper can be held liable, providing the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) have been met. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN in its evidence pack. I have reviewed the PCN and I am satisfied that it does meet the requirements of POFA and therefore the appellant, as the keeper of the vehicle is liable. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. 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 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 signage 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.” Section 19.2 of the BPA code of practice states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use” Having reviewed appendix B also, this refers to entrance signs and when there may be impractical reasons to display them, such as, when the car park is very small. Having reviewed the signage within the case file, I am satisfied that the signs have met the requirements of section 19.2. this is because the operator has shown that there is an entrance sign displayed on the entrance of the car park, which the driver had the opportunity to see on entry to the car park. This sign advised them to read the further terms and conditions within the car park. Therefore, it was down to the appellant to read the further terms and conditions within the car park itself. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. 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, I am satisfied that the driver was afforded this opportunity. In regards to the consideration period and grace period. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 13.4 states: “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 such in this case there is no parking allowed, therefore the driver was not entitled to either a grace or a consideration period. Section 22.1 of the BPA code of practice states “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent, and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for” In this case the operator has provided photos of the signs, the information on the bottom clearly outlines the use of ANPR and how/why this will be used. As such I am satisfied the operators signage complied with section 22.1 of the BPA code of practice. The site in questions operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. ANPR cameras capture vehicles entering and exiting the car park to calculate the time a vehicle has remained onsite. Studies have shown ANPR technology to be generally dependable. POPLA will occasionally receive appeals from motorists who claim there has been a fault with the ANPR. When considering these appeals, POPLA must first consider if there is sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the ANPR system. The evidence can be provided from both the appellant and the operator. The operator provides evidence of the images, supporting its version of events. The appellant would then provide evidence or a version of events casting doubt on the validity of the ANPR technology. Our role is to then judge if the evidence is adequate enough to show the technology was not working on the date in question. In this case, whilst I recognise the appellant’s evidence, they have not provided enough sufficient evidence or an adequate explanation as to why they feel the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. I am therefore satisfied the evidence provided by the operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. Although I note that the appellant has commented on how the operator has handled their initial appeal; when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator directly. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The vehicle in this case entered the site parked in a no parking area and as such a PCN was issued. Our role is to determine if the terms of the site have been complied with, as such I conclude the terms of the site were breached and a PCN was issued. I note the appellant makes mention of the inconsistencies regarding calling the site a car park. however this would not make a difference as to whether the driver complied with the terms of the site on the date in question. As such if the appellant would like to raise this further they would need to raise a complaint with the operator directly. The matter of parking charges was considered in the Supreme Court (ParkingEye vs Beavis 2015). The judgement ruled that parking operators can issue PCNs to motorists who breach the terms as long the signage is clear on the charges and the charge is in the region of £85. In this case, the charge is appropriately prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable. If the appellant wishes to read more about this case, it can be found here ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) - The Supreme Court Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

We are confident that you already know not to pay when people lose at POPLA as this is all over the forum including in the NEWBIES thread and POPLA Decisions, where you need to post this outcome, please.

Pcngone

Posted the decision in the decisions thread. If I don’t pay, I’m guessing I will start to receive debt letters which I will keep ignoring. Will I end up having to go to court? I just want this to be over with now especially if this is hanging over my head for the next 6 years. Can I ask, if ultimately you do not pay under any circumstance, what is the point of going through the appeal hassle when I could have just ignored them from the beginning? Do they eventually give up with the debt letters, and what is the likelihood that they will escalate this?

Coupon-mad

The point was a fair % are won at POPLA (over half of the cases we deal with) so had that worked, it would have ended it now, which is what you wanted.

So it was worth trying.

Landowner complaint can still get it cancelled of course.

I've never seen a court claim for Secure Parking Solutions Ltd.  Small fry. Highly UNLIKELY to ever lead to a small claim and even less likely, once the new DLUHC statutory regime and framework kicks in next year.

The Government are looking to really crack down on rogue and unfair conduct and are nearly there. I am personally involved.

I can predict that much what currently feeds through to court (mainly claims from much bigger PPCs) will be far less likely to see the light of day again after 2024.   I think Judges will find it easier to kick out claims that get that far. I think we will hopefully (eventually) get a new 'parking pre-action protocol' and a fair ADR to act as buffers against court.

I think many old, pre-regulation PCNs will die a death or be stopped by ADR which the courts want to be in place to deal with cases fairly.

POPLA is not an ADR so means nothing. 

Sit on your hands. Laugh at the £170 demands. You will not be paying.

Change is coming. This one from this little company is almost certainly never going to see a court claim and will die away.

Coupon-mad

Pcngone said:

Posted the decision in the decisions thread. If I don’t pay, I’m guessing I will start to receive debt letters which I will keep ignoring. Will I end up having to go to court? I just want this to be over with now especially if this is hanging over my head for the next 6 years. Can I ask, if ultimately you do not pay under any circumstance, what is the point of going through the appeal hassle when I could have just ignored them from the beginning? Do they eventually give up with the debt letters, and what is the likelihood that they will escalate this?

What happened next?

I was just re-reading this decision and realised that you should have complained to POPLA. The Assessor was wholly wrong to find that NTK was PoFA compliant.  It is not too late.  Email a complaint now and state that you need POPLA to admit that the Assessor was wrong when saying that this NTK was "POFA compliant" when it very clearly is not.

Pcngone

Coupon-mad said:

Pcngone said:

Posted the decision in the decisions thread. If I don’t pay, I’m guessing I will start to receive debt letters which I will keep ignoring. Will I end up having to go to court? I just want this to be over with now especially if this is hanging over my head for the next 6 years. Can I ask, if ultimately you do not pay under any circumstance, what is the point of going through the appeal hassle when I could have just ignored them from the beginning? Do they eventually give up with the debt letters, and what is the likelihood that they will escalate this?

What happened next?

I was just re-reading this decision and realised that you should have complained to POPLA. The Assessor was wholly wrong to find that NTK was PoFA compliant.  It is not too late.  Email a complaint now and state that you need POPLA to admit that the Assessor was wrong when saying that this NTK was "POFA compliant" when it very clearly is not.

Hi coupon, 

sorry I just read this now. I still haven’t received any debt letters just yet. I have read your message about complaining, shouldn’t I still do this?

Pcngone

please let me know @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

Yes why not? They got it wrong.

Pcngone

Coupon-mad said:

Yes why not? They got it wrong.

Sent a complaint, got a response. Will update in due course

Thank you for your contact.

We are sorry that you are unhappy with our service and would like to reassure you that we take all complaints seriously.

The information has been escalated to our complaints team and the details will be reviewed.

You should receive a response within 21 days depending on the complexity of the information provided.

 

Kind regards

 

Matt 

 

POPLA Assessor