Three parking fines at Tesco Hove by Horizon

dahliafield_d11

Thanks a million for the detailed analysis! I certainly can't do what you do here!! Amazing job!! My POPLA appeal did request them to show landowner authority, but this topic is untouched in their case summary. I also tried to add photos of the blue banner from a far distance, to emphasise it was properly hidden, but no pictures can be attached. This is not fair. Horizon can provide their case summary with all photos attached, but we can't. 

Coupon-mad

Let us know the outcome and no paying, if POPLA get this wrong.

I am assisting a friend with a PCN at the same store and I've just seen the evidence pack.

In their case, the evidence does include an old, generic landowner witness statement talking in general terms about all Tesco sites in England & Wales and with the date it was signed redacted:



Others may spot something that I've missed but I can tell for starters (in my friend's case which included the above) that this generic 'Tesco authority' emanates from 2022/23, due to the wording we've seen many times before. This is not 2024 Joint CoP wording.

Also attached is a supposed 'site specific' list of contraventions but in fact it's a generic list of all contraventions that might ever apply at any Tesco site in the whole country and with no date that this new regime went live, and no site specific terms for Hove Tesco at all:



They've then attached a lengthy Word doc or PDF site list (again undated) with Tesco Hove now added, and every other store redacted. Here's one page of it:



So they've tacked a meaningless word doc list of stores under an old pre-signed UK wide Witness Statement, to make it look like the signed WS relates to this new site.

Shame for them that it doesn't meet the Joint CoP requirements for landowner authority.

And being a new site for Horizon, they have to immediately fully comply with the Joint CoP. They haven't!

Odd that this stuff is missing from your evidence pack, given that you say your appeal did include that point. Maybe the person who signed yours off didn't think of cobbling together this 'cut & shut' effort that the other staff member concocted for my friend's case!

Neither of you will pay.

dahliafield_d11

Thank you for sharing the above. My appeal does include the request for landowner authority, but maybe they did not read it carefully, so they only focus on the signage issue. Given the misleading evidence pack provided by Horizon, I think it is relatively easier to win for your friend's case? I will let you know the result when I hear back from Popla. 

Coupon-mad

As long as your comments have pointed out that Horizon failed to rebut your assertion in your appeal of no landowner authority, I'd say yours is easier to win!

dahliafield_d11

Hi Coupon-mad,

You are spot on again! Please see below comments from Popla. Thank you for helping me make the appeal successful!

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • the appellant has referenced received another 2 PCNs from the operator for the site in question; • they’re the registered keeper of the vehicle and the drivers identity hasn’t been provided and the PCN issued didn’t comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; • the operator doesn’t have proprietary interest in the land, they require they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner; • the signage is totally inadequate to alert people to the changes in restrictions within the car park, so the operator is in breach of section 19.10 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice; • the operator changes the restrictions in September, 2 material changes were made but there was little or no warning of the reduced maximum stay and the reintroduction of the validation process; • there is now no entrance sign at all as the old operator signage has been removed and it hasn’t been replaced; • there were no prominent signage inside the store to warn anyone about the changes to the terms; • they were advised by staff that providing receipts to the operator would be valid evidence to get the PCNs cancelled; • they’ve since discovered after speaking with staff that a lot of customers are facing the same issues; and • they request that POPLA uphold their appeal on the grounds raised. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has also provided an image from google maps, 2 images showing the entrance of the car park, 2 images showing other PCNs cancelled and 3 Tesco receipts 1 from the date in question and 2 from the other parking events. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Before I begin my assessment, I can see the appellant within their appeal, it would appear that the appellant has made referenced the BPA Code of Practice. However, at the time the PCN was issued, The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) was in place. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. As such POPLA will assess points raised by the appellant which will fall within the standards set out in The Code which came into force on 1 October 2024, as well as discussing the points raised by the appellant which will fall within the standards set out in version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN as there is no record of a payment made for staying longer than the free period. The appellant has argued as part of their grounds for appeal, that the operator doesn’t have proprietary interest in the land, they require they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. In order for the operator to show that it has correctly issued the parking charge, it must demonstrate to POPLA that it has considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal in accordance with the guidance set out within Section 14.1 of the Code. The Code sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this instance I would expect the operator to provide information or evidence on whether this is the case. I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator and there is nothing to evidence that they have landowner authority. As such, there is no evidence to suggest they were authorised to issue PCNs on the date of the parking event. In this case, the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds and I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

kryten3000

This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022.

Which actually means "we took the bits we like and discarded the bits we didn't like to make a code that benefits our members"

Coupon-mad

The assessor is also wrong: this is a new regime for Horizon who took over from APCOA, so the Joint Code applies to everything immediately, including signage. The old BPA CoP doesn't apply.

But hey, you got the desired result!

I also won the case I helped a friend with (which is what alerted me to the scam and how I got all the photos). See my post in POPLA decisions. My case was won on lack of 'new material changes' entrance signage, in a garbled way!

Have a look at my post about it from last week, when you post your outcome in POPLA Decisions.

😋

Coupon-mad

Over 30 changes were made.

I pointed them all out to the MHCLG so they wouldn't be taken in.

dahliafield_d11

If Horizon hadn't forgotten to raise the point on Landowner Authority, I may have lost the case based on the assessor's view on the signage. It has been a lengthy journey, but thanks again for Coupon-mad and everyone who posted their invaluable advice here!