IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

POPLA Decisions

edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
4.2K replies 904.6K views
1231232234236237419

Replies

  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    magikmarky wrote: »
    hi there , its great to read your success story but i was one of those people who read the OLD advice to ignore with clear messages to stop asking the same question over ad over. i received a an inital fine back in june from UKPC for parking one hour over (4 hours limit) in a free metrocentre car park - i wasnt the driver but have been getting the lovely letters from DRP and now iv got back from hols and seen them quoting beavis vs parking eye and got the fear as the original £30 is now up to £120 ......
    i have spent hours researching different approaches but it is unclear what the best approach should be!
    can anyone advise what i can do now as at this stage i believe it is too late to appeal to popla. any help will be much appreciated.

    thx in advance mark

    P.S. Photos on their website show lts of empty spaces if thsts relevant so customers werent been preventd from shopping

    Search 'Debt Recovery Plus landmark Beavis'. Covered endless times, that silly letter. Desperate hot air.

    Always search a forum for keywords, and read the sticky threads, such as post #4 of the NEWBIES thread which is all about 'ignore the debt collectors' stage. If you pay you've been mugged. DO NOT contact them.

    The reason this thread says 'take no action' is not confusing, nor a reason for looking for something different ...it's because there are NO STEPS to take and you do not need help to ignore this trashy blizzard of letters:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5035663

    Come back and start your own thread if you get court papers or a solicitor's letter. If you are in Scotland there is next to no chance of a court claim, and in E&W, possible but cross that bridge if you come to it. No bridges need crossing just because you are getting the same daft letter chain we've all laughed at (and ignored ourselves) for a decade.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • A win against APCOA no stopping PCN. The POPLA appeal was uncontested. APCOA know there is no keeper liability for "offences" at Luton Airport and do not issue the PCN under POFA2012. :beer:
    Background:- Car stopped at the dreaded roundabout and someone opened the car boot whilst the car was waiting at the junction to enter roundabout. Our appeal to APCOA stated that their PCN was out of time for ANPR under the POFA 2012 (Well past the 14 day limit). They kindly clarified that they were not issuing under POFA 2012 and so had 28 days. The appeal to POPLA stated that since they were not issuing the NTK under POFA 2012 there was no registered keeper liability and since we hadn't provided the name of the driver the keeper was not liable for the charge. (Also added stuff about photos not showing a parking event, but 14 seconds of stopping at the junction of the roundabout; no ability to read signs at driving speed; no chance to form contract; DVLA had been incorrectly asked to supply vehicle information since no parking charge had been unpaid)


    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 0512186027.

    APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.:T

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team :rotfl:

    ET6116/001
  • Umkomaas wrote: »
    Absolutely. Any newbie reading this who hasn't had an acknowledgement of their initial appeal within 14 days should read Gadfium's thread, linked in post #2289 above, where a scan of the WHOPLA decision is there for copying and pasting into your POPLA appeal.

    Was your appeal posted? If you appeal to APCOA by email you get an immediate holding reply which gives them a month to respond properly.
  • edited 6 September 2016 at 8:51PM
    UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 6 September 2016 at 8:51PM
    Was your appeal posted? If you appeal to APCOA by email you get an immediate holding reply which gives them a month to respond properly.

    It wasn't my appeal. I've never had a PCN, never had to appeal anything, never dealt directly with any of this rubbish. I read the signage and take note of the conditions. I avoid parking in any of the IPC car parks and any of the litigious BPA PPCs, like PE, UKPC, CEL and their ilk. If everybody did this, the PPCs would go bust in no time.

    I merely picked out a chink in the armour (albeit WHOPLA rather than POPLA) and advised anyone who has not had acknowledgement within 14 days to quote the 'precedent' created by WHOPLA - who after all are merely delivering 'the brand', as is the Ombudsman Service delivering the same brand.

    So, if 'the brand' provides relief to the appellant for non response within 14 days, we should push that all deliverers of the brand deliver the same result, and the BPA should oversee and ensure they do so.

    After all, the BPA is committed to raising the standards in private parking - so at the base level, consistency of delivery in the appeals process is essential for public confidence.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • edited 7 September 2016 at 9:23AM
    king312king312 Forumite
    43 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker Car Insurance Carver!
    edited 7 September 2016 at 9:23AM
    Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley (Greater Birmingham)
    Silly red route ticket for staff barrier controlled carpark that has no signs for PCNs at all! Opportunistic b****** Bottom line, use common sense and don't roll over

    Operator Name: OCS Group Ltd aka Legion Group
    Decision: Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has not provided any evidence for this appeal.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that he was car sharing and that the vehicle was parked by a colleague in a secure permit only car park and not on a hospital red route as stated on the issue reason. The appellant states there was a valid blue permit on display and other cars with wheels touching the red car park markings were not ticketed. The appellant states additionally cars parked on the grass or obstructing are not ticketed. The appellant states that there are no displayed notices or signage stating that there is Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued to the staff of the car park. The appellant states that he has signed no contract with the operator. The appellant states that the site did not lose any income or profit due to how the vehicle parked.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice (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 responsibility of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA which demonstrates the terms and conditions of the site and how they were breached. On this occasion, no evidence has been provided and the operator has therefore failed to demonstrate the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Accordingly, I must allow the appeal

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70978978
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @king312. Good result, but I think you were lucky that the PPC didn't present any evidence, because the bulk of your appeal (from the POPLA synopsis above) appears heavily based on mitigation - not something that POPLA will involve itself in.

    Anyway, a win is a win, well done.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • Mahone1302Mahone1302 Forumite
    154 Posts
    Fifth Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha! :T

    It worked! :T

    The suggestion of including this in any POPLA appeal, following point #1 'no keeper liability' has worked as planned. If we suggest this every time, it *should* stop POPLA from saying that the appellant is liable because the PPC is 'only' pursuing the driver so POFA 2012 'doesn't matter'.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    Wording in post #25 here in Mahone'1302s thread:


    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5474431

    Deliberately written to replicate POPLA's own words they used in Indigo decisions (until they stayed them) where they used to say that there is no evidence that the appellant is the individual who can be held liable (owner). In Mahone1302's case it was just tweaked to read 'driver' and the heading 'the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge' was chosen so that POPLA would recognise their own words and realise they were previously horribly WRONG.

    It has worked! So pleased.


    Mahone1302, would you mind telling us the POPLA code now please so we can quote this, and the date on the decision?

    This one is a groundbreaking decision to stop POPLA from making this daft error again.

    Apologies, have only just seen this post. POPLA code is 6061796103.
  • edited 11 September 2016 at 2:06PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 11 September 2016 at 2:06PM
    On the subject of template POPLA appeal points, keeping them all in one place, here's a point #1 for a 'not relevant land' argument which relates to Parking Eye at Town Quay/Leisureworld where it can be argued, Port byelaws apply:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71287173#post71287173

    Many thanks to Edna Basher for that one.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 19 March 2018 at 7:14PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 19 March 2018 at 7:14PM
    I reckon a template point on signage could look like this (as usual, deliberately long, to make plenty of PPCs throw in the towel):



    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

    ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''


    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 25 April 2018 at 10:43PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 25 April 2018 at 10:43PM
    Thanks to Mahone1302 for the POPLA code here, which might just stop POPLA making those awful decision mistakes they've made before, where they have said (paraphrasing) ''the PPC is pursuing the appellant as the driver so that's all right then''!

    So KEEPERS ONLY (NOT DRIVER APPELLANTS WHO HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT BY ADMITTING IT) can use this new appeal point as #2, always underneath any point #1 which alleges 'no keeper liability' for whatever reason (either non-compliant NTK, no NTK at all, a 'driver only PCN' like CEL ones, or byelaws ones - or even an appellant who lives in NI or Scotland who parked in England/Wales).


    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'


    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides

NS&I to change Premium Bond prize rate

It will rise to 1.40% from June

MSE News

Compers of the MSE Forum:

Show us the prizes you've won recently

Join the MSE Forum discussion