POPLA Appeal Stage - NTK Validity

SwankyKumquat

Hello back for update as operator has submitted evidence back for comment. To summarise their response:

1) Signage Prominence - Signage is present and it meets BPA COP. Repeater signs are present.

2) Visitor Bay Signs (responding to image submitted in appeal seen above in thread) - The blank bay signage is not to do with enforcement and just visitor bay signs. Our evidence shows ample and clearly visible signage.

3) Landowner authority - Provided 'evidence' of landowner authority

4) Compliance with Code of Practice - see below:

"The new single code of practice requires all new parking operations to adhere immediately, while
existing sites are granted until December 2026 to achieve compliance. Gloucestershire College
currently operates under the previous code and will be updated later this year to comply fully with the
new code.
The appellants' vehicle was parked in the car park without having registered electronically. The
appellant has not identified as the driver and as the PCN has been issued in compliance with POFA
2012 we will pursue the keeper for liability"

In terms of my planned comments

- Will firstly clear up the nonsense in point 2), confirming my evidence is not alleging the blank signs are related to enforcement. 

- RE 1) They have provided the same pictures of the 'P sign' as in their original response, but failed to show any further clear images of the PCN signage itself in situ. They have provided a PDF scan of the sign, but this is clearly not the same one as at the entrance where the parking charge figure is NOT in red as seen below. Weirdly they have highlighted the size of the text in the 'P sign' but didn't do so with the 'PCN' 

- They have uploaded the following below in Parking Enforcement Service Agreement to prove landowner authority:

This provided a good giggle as the parking charge amount on the agreement (£80/£40) does not match what is being enforced (£100/£50). Furthermore, the Enforcement Type (Patrols) does not allow for the ANPR enforcement in this case. One would hope this is a sizeable enough own goal in itself to convince POPLA?

- RE point 4) it seems a bunch of waffle where they seem to admit their own potential noncompliance with the latest code. Not sure if anyone else can advise as to the legitimacy of this claim about COP compliance by end of 2026?

Think that should be enough to comment back with? Will try to get submitted over the weekend if I haven't missed anything else major. Many thanks

Coupon-mad

I would ONLY reply with this:

"This parking charge amount on the agreement (£80/£40) does not match what is being enforced (£100/£50). Furthermore, the Enforcement Type (Patrols) does not allow for the ANPR enforcement in this case."

One would hope this is a sizeable enough own goal in itself to convince POPLA?

Should be.

Unless you get a male assessor (sorry to all the guys reading this but there is a pattern of incompetence seen 99% of the time, from male assessors, going by their names).

SwankyKumquat

Perfect they really have shot themselves in the foot as much as suspected! Will update when outcome is received, won't lose any sleep over it in the meantime. 

James_Poisson

That's a strange agreement; so the landowner is responsible for installing and maintaining signage.

The signage does not conform with the contract.

Their comments about the Joint COP are correct, but the signage requirements were still contained in the previous BPA COP where a specific entrance sign was stipulated, so that is a fob off.

There are no repeater signs adjacent to the parking bays, and their rubbish excuse about blank signage makes it worse.

Those entrance signs are too wordy to conform but the overall impression a driver will get is Welcome in, what a bunch of dingweeds!

Previous COP:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf

Signage pictures the right way up:

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't go on about the signs. POPLA can see that for themselves and you already made that case. Keep it on point.

The important thing is that the landowner authority doesn't allow them to issue £100 PCNs. End of story.

James_Poisson

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't go on about the signs. POPLA can see that for themselves and you already made that case. Keep it on point.

The important thing is that the landowner authority doesn't allow them to issue £100 PCNs. End of story.

I assume that the dates are under the redacted area, but they cannot say that the terms have changed since as they have submitted that as current for evidence.

SwankyKumquat

Not the end of story yet! Popla rejected appeal - will post on the main Popla decision thread, with logic that reads like operator fan fiction. Thanks to this forum, without the clear guidance would probably be a lot more in a tizzy about not succeeding at this stage. Next thing to be expected at some stage is a LBC? (along with potentially some bogus debt collection letters) Many thanks

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81907844#Comment_81907844

How the heck did a so-called trained 'assessor' decide that £100 PCN was 'properly given' if all the signs are blank (except at the entrance) and the landowner authority doesn't allow them to issue £100 PCNs?!

This is utter deluded madness from POPLA:

"In this case, I am satisfied it is clear that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN of £100.

I note the appellant has said the parking charge amount on the agreement does not match what is being enforced.The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The New Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

Section 14.1 of the New 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 case the parking operator has demonstrated that they manage the land, and I am satisfied they have adhered to the code.

Should the appellant wish to view it they can do and it is under evidence pack 15-18.

The agreement between the landowner was agreed in 2012 and continues from the first agreement, however the operator has provided images of the site dated 2024 stating that the PCN amount is £100, £50 reduced if paid within 14 days, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage stating the £100 PCN amount if they did not agree with the parking charge amount. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission stating the incorrect terms and conditions so I am satisfied that the charge is correct."

So POPLA actually think that a PPC can put any sign/terms up over the years (with entire rows of blank signs) with any changed t&cs they fancy and any changed PCN level up to the BPA's self-serving (extortionate) cap of £100, and yet produce a 14 year old 'landowner authority' that allows manned patrols (not ANPR) and a PCN of £80!

Not only that, but the New (Joke) Code that this assessor is looking at, requires a specific format of landowner authority set out in an Appendix (that she doesn't even mention) which requires site-specific information, NONE of which would be in a 2012 agreement.

What the actual flip?! POPLA gets worse. This is a joke.

Put in a formal complaint to POPLA.

She needs retraining as she doesn't even look at the Code's Appendix 'landowner authority example' and the requirement for site-specific information.

What's the point of the Code's mandatory signed landowner authority then? A PPC can't just reinvent the t&cs and produce an ancient, years out of date authority letter!

SwankyKumquat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908375#Comment_81908375

To not totally mislead on the signage point, the operator did provide evidence that there are other signs on the site in another area of the car park. In my contention separated and otherwise not clearly showing terms in line with code requirements, but at least I can recognise this as arguable (even if the assessor fails to substantively explain how they have reached a conclusion of signage compatibility and found it undistinguishable from Beavis).

Nonetheless, my mind is equally boggled by the landowner authority matter. Who knew POPLA also provides psychic training for its assessors to be able to guess what landowners and PCOs are 'likely' to be thinking at any one time without any regard to the Code?! Echo your logic: it makes the authority requirement completely redundant.

They've considered my comment RE "Enforcement type" as additional ground of appeal that they have therefore not addressed/conveniently ignored. I hope I would be right to consider this is, rather, essential to my original point RE landowner authority for the managed land, namely correctly stated the PCN amounts they can issue and the means by which they can enforce.

Is it definitely worth a formal complaint on how the 'landowner authority matter' has been misaddressed? Something per your comment that they have not considered the compatibility of the submitted landowner authority evidence with the code and taken this authority evidence from the PCO as gospel?

Coupon-mad

Yes I would refer to para 14 and the Annex G that I mentioned and quote it in a complaint.

The operator had to comply with the following and they didn't but the Assessor ignored these requirements:

Para 14 - Relationship with landowner

'Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner;

and j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.'

They must also comply with ANNEX G: Sample landowner/operator notice. They didn’t bother with that either. POPLA is meant to be an evidence based service yet the Assessor made up her own view about what the landowner had agreed. There is no point the Code requiring all this if POPLA just ignore it and say "the landowner must be OK with it or they'd have removed the signs"!

The operator supplied POPLA with no written authority to issue £100 PCNs by ANPR, so there was no evidence of compliance with Annex G, which the Assessor didn't even look at:

Annex G.1 Purpose

Where a parking operator is to manage parking on privately owned land, it is important that the parking operator and the landowner are both clear about the approach the parking operator intends to take, the terms and conditions they will apply, the regulatory constraints within which they are working, and the respective responsibilities of the landowner and the operator in respect of the management of the land.

Hence, the purpose of this document is:

• to confirm that the landowner has appointed the operator to manage the land;

• to confirm that the landowner has been informed and has properly considered the issues relating to management of the land when appointing the operator including all terms and conditions (e.g. restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the operator to third parties in managing the land;

• to confirm the identity of the landowner;

• to confirm that the landowner has been provided with a copy of the Code and is aware of the obligations of all parties under the Code; and

• to confirm that all provisions relating to the terms and conditions (including restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the operator to third parties in managing the land are complete and accurately and consistently cover the operator’s duties under the contract under which the operator is to manage the land.