Popla decision unsuccessful: To pay or not to pay?

Ynot0691

Hi thoughts appreciated this is my first input on the subject and is a copy of my Popla decision just received:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to purchase a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They inadvertently parked 15 minutes early for the free 30 minute session. • The operator did not provide a means of payment as the signage states to pay at the machine or by phone. • There are no machines, and they do not have a smart phone. • Their mental health contributed to them parking too early. 

The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states the machines shown in the evidence are a good distance away from where they parked and not visible. There should be directions to the closest machine. The closest machine according to the map is in another car park. I am unable to respond to new grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • An image of a university sign and a Parking Eye sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. 

Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided of an image of a university sign and a Parking Eye sign. It’s clear from the Parking Eye sign, and university sign that parking is free, but this only applies to the first 30 minutes of a motorists stay. If motorists wish to remain for longer, they must pay to do so. I note the appellant confirms they were aware of the need to pay, but no payment machine was in the vicinity and they could not pay using a smartphone.

 I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided date stamped images of signs throughout the site and upon entry which make the terms clear, and motorists must pay if remaining for longer than 30 minutes. The operator has demonstrated the appellant remained for 58 minutes and provided a list to demonstrate they searched for the appellants vehicle and found no payment for their stay. 

I acknowledge the location of the payment machines in relation to the area the appellant parked and accept the site is very large and spread over several areas. It’s unclear if the appellant was aware of the lack of machines at the time of parking, but if they were, it’s reasonable to expect them to exit before their free time had elapsed. If not, then the signs do advise how to pay using an app/online or by phone. 

Whilst I accept the appellant doesn’t have a smartphone, they could have called the number on the sign to make payment over the phone, without the need for an app. I note the appellant believed this was just an instruction to download the app, but that is not the case and there is no evidence the appellant tried to call the number to pay. It’s always the responsibility of the motorist to review the signs in full and comply with the terms. 

Again, the signs clearly advise of the need to pay and how to pay, if the appellant knew they could not make payment, they should have left within the free stay period. POPLA must assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. I empathise with the appellant and appreciate their mental health may have contributed to the breach. Perhaps they may be better served in speaking with the university to see if they can assist with the PCN. 

After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the appellant broke them by failing to pay for their stay. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Many thanks.

prowla

The statement "we are impartial and independent of the sector." is a bit of a joke.

Their endorsing of a requirement for being able to pay by phone is whole-heartedly supporting an unreliable mechanism and therefore acting in the interests of the parking operator.

Why do I say "unreliable"?:

• There are publicised cases of fake QR codes being displayed.
• It can take longer than the grace period to download a phone app.
• A person's phone (eg. a company phone, or insufficient storage) may not allow apps to be installed.
• A phone need not be a smart phone.
• A phone could have run out of charge.
• The driver may not have a phone with them.
• There may justifiably be reluctance to give out one's phone number to an unverified third party.
• There may be technical issues with the phone service.

That said, I've been to a car park where the machines weren't working and thus the option was to pay by phone, but I've elected not to agree to their stipulations and got back into my car and driven off (having taken photos of the faulty machine and signage, just in-case needed).

kryten3000

Of course you don't pay just because POPLA says so.  Only a judge can rule on the validity of a PCN.

Half_way

Whos car park was this?
where is it?

Ynot0691

Half_way said:

Whos car park was this?
where is it?

Hi it was in our town of Lampeter at the University  campus which ceased to be this summer. 

Coupon-mad

Please edit the thread title heading because there is no question of paying after losing at POPLA and the thread title should read:

PARKINGEYE: CASE LOST AT POPLA. NOW IGNORING

However, this is MADNESS by that Assessor (he is the worst one, going by the POPLA DECISIONS thread). He repeatedly demonstrates a lack of common sense/contract law knowledge and blinkered decisions:

"The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states the machines shown in the evidence are a good distance away from where they parked and not visible. There should be directions to the closest machine. The closest machine according to the map is in another car park. I am unable to respond to new grounds of appeal."

If you said in your appeal that it wasn't clear that it was pay & display, then observing and nudging the Assessor to notice that the operator's evidence pack shows a machine in ANOTHER CAR PARK is not 'new grounds of appeal'! In any event, the Assessor should have observed that themselves and upheld the appeal, whether or not the appellant mentioned it in their comments. This is fundamental to a case where the issue is lack of prominent & obvious P&D rules.

What is the point of POPLA comments stage if the appellant can't comment on the evidence and help the Assessor to look?

I would complain to POPLA (please don't ask how; the email for complaints is what you'd expect it to be and it's on their website).

Ynot0691

Hi Coupon-mad that is reassuring to know I should win should it get to court. It did not seem right that there are lots of little car parks dotted about the campus and that you are supposed to be aware of the machine locations out of sight over 100 metres distant. I will lodge a complaint with Popla then (are they likely to overturn his poor decision ?).

This is some of what I stated in the appeal to Popla highlighting what PE had said in their rejection of my appeal to them:

The images did not show up on my text document software (open office) could provision be made by Parking Eye for those of us who choose not to pay for Microsoft Word. With assistance I was able to view these on another device.

Note: on the satellite map of the campus provided on the document the car park I used is situated in the bottom left corner (by the museum) - note you need rotate the view into the correct position. Relevant signage for this particular car park (the most accessible to the town centre) being as you enter the campus and also within or besides said car park. The signage plan on the PE document states 'number 4' in the key to be 'machine stickers' however these neither seem present on the satellite map nor in reality on the ground?

Payment Options: 2

Number of Paid Parking Machines: PAYBYPHONE:

There are no ticket machines within or adjacent to this car park used which is close to the campus entrance at the main road through the town and therefore the most accessible. I see that the satellite view shows that there are 2 machines elsewhere on campus, however these are located a good distance away from the car park used and are adjacent to completely separate parking areas and are not visible from it and so how are people to know of there location? There surely should be an indication within all parking areas on the campus (which is quite large and spread out) directing to and locating these machines perhaps by providing suitable maps. Locating and travelling to these machines at the end of a stay may well be problematic to the disabled especially with the campus areas being on differing levels.

As noted in my appeal I do not possess a smart phone and therefore it was not possible to PAYBYPHONE as this requires internet access in order to download the app or visit paybyphone.co.uk which is instructed on the car park signage. Having studied the signage images in the document it can be seen that some of them provide a number to call but the way it reads is as an instruction to download the app in the first instance. It should be noted also that mobile signals are poor with certain networks in our area and so calling this number may be impossible for some.

Please be advised the motorist was able to manually select the amount of time they would need to pay for parking, in relation to time spent on site. It is the motorist’s responsibility to purchase the correct parking to cover the duration of their stay.

How can the motorist do this there is no machine in that car park?

Our records confirm that no vehicle registration details were entered on the date of the event.

Again how would this even be possible in the absence of a locatable ticket machine?

The appeal was rejected on the basis that the terms and conditions as outlined on the signage were breached.

The signage is incorrect as it states the presence of a ticket machine that is non existent in that particular car park. It could also be seen as discriminating against those that do not possess a smart phone as I don't.

Please find attached payment machine guide.

I am able to view this PDF document however it is irrelevant as there is no machine present where there should be.

In any event I feel that for the trivial time allegedly over- stayed (under 15 minutes) leeway should be allowed by PE in addition to the usual 10 minutes grace given at the end of a stay especially in this case that requires people to walk a good distance to find one of the 2 machines that are located in different parts of the campus....

Coupon-mad

POPLA doesn't overturn decisions. That's not the point. Please make the complaint or they'll never improve. He needs re-training. Use the words I wrote.

Please edit the thread title which is jarring to us regulars and will worry newbies!

Ynot0691

Don't seem to be able to amend my thread title.

Coupon-mad

You will once you post a few more times.

Ynot0691

Ok thanks.