POPLA Decisions

drD · 8 June 2018 at 12:38AM

There is a thread on Pepipoo with a case about an ALDI ParkingEye in Aldi Crayford.

ParkingEye pulled out when the OP logged an appeal with POPLA.
OP lists the grounds for appeal. They may have been longer than the below, but I quote:

Just to update, ParkingEye didn't bother to contest the case at POPLA when I appealed on multiple grounds: (summarised here)
1. 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
(Explaining that the burden of proof for who the driver was under keeper liability lies with them)
2. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
(Because they did not prove who the driver was in point 1, the Notice to Keeper was invalid)
3. 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 went and took pictures of the signs. There was a space at one point of 9 or 10 bays in between signs, i.e. 24 metres. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that there was sufficient and legible signage under the conditions of the day (night and frosty windows - it was freezing according to historical weather databases at that point in time) and also quoting POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16 that the sizing of the terms and conditions was not adequate enough)
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5. No evidence of validated instruments used to record the vehicle
This was one I designed myself. I wrote:
There are clear documented cases of ParkingEye cameras making mistakes (Guardian links removed as this post won't allow me to)
I therefore put the burden of proof on them to show that the images came from said PE cameras, that the cameras were properly maintained and independently calibrated and that the images could not be tampered with, and that there was no way of telling that the cameras hadn't incorrectly recorded my visit.
6. ParkingEye is contravening the BPA Code of Practice in their appeals rejection letter
I also wrote: "In the appeals letter written to me on 26 March, ParkingEye state that if I chose to pursue the POPLA appeals process, I will not be entitled to pay the discounted amount that they currently are invoicing me. This is a contravention of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires no undue influence, or coercion to be put on the consumer to pay their parking fine."

I don't know which one of these grounds made them back out, but it worked.

One to add to the list!
( I cannot post the link myself as I'm a new user, but the thread is entitled "Parking Eye Violating keeper's POFA?" - OP gets erroneously bogged down in a non-technicality before following the thread's advice I think. It contains the Guardian news article links removed above.)

CankerHarpy · 8 June 2018 at 7:28AM

Probably signage and notice to keeper.

Also reading through these recent posts.... has anyone actually tried denying that they did the thing? O.o

Seems like every post is fighting with a technicality....

Fruitcake · 8 June 2018 at 9:30AM

CankerHarpy wrote: »

Probably signage and notice to keeper.

Also reading through these recent posts.... has anyone actually tried denying that they did the thing? O.o

Seems like every post is fighting with a technicality....

This thread is for PoPLA results. If you have a result that you would like to share, please do so. If you want to learn how to beat his scam, please start by reading the Sticky thread for NEWBIES.

average_joe_blogs · 20 June 2018 at 4:11PM

I recently had a successful POPLA appeal (the private parking company decided not to contest) based on the following. There are a number of points but my guess is that insufficient signage was the one that clinched it.

******************************

1 - There was insufficient and unclear signage at the site. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and the ticket is issued illegally.

1a- The sign at the main entrance states that the maximum time allowed in the car park is X hours. This sign is situated on an intersection where the drivers vision is directed towards the road. It also does not fall in the field of vision for a cars headlights and so it not clearly visible at night when incident took place.

1b- There is no mention of a restricted time period for parking at the site on the main entrance sign (see photo A).

1c- Other signs which state that parking is inside the car park were obscured by the presence of other vehicles.

1d- The other signs in the car parks small print to state that there is no parking outside the times DAY1-DAY6 TIME1 am to TIME2 pm and DAY7 TIME3 am to TIME4 pm. See attached photo B.

1e- The additional signs signs stating that there is not parking outside of the times DAY1-DAY6 TIME1 am to TIME2 pm and DAY7 TIME3 am to TIME4 pm are not illuminated (see photo

. At the time in question it was dark and raining heavily hence visibility was poor.

Taking into consideration the above points the driver cannot be considered to have entered into a contract with the landowner and hence is not liable for for the parking charge.

2- The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable.

2a- The business (XXXXX) was closed at the time of the incident, so clearly there is no commercial loss to the landowner by the presence of the vehicle in the carpark.

3- The parking operator does not have a legitimate business interest in controlling parking on the site at the time of the incident.

4- The parking operator has not provided evidence that they have authorisation from the landowner to issue tickets on the land in question

******************************

Other pieces of advice which may or may not help:

-- Itemise you appeal points so that the parking contractor has to address each one separately

-- The POPLA website only provides a small text box for your appeal. However, you can attach supporting documentation. I would advise writing something like "see supporting material" in the text box and putting the full text of your appeal in an attached PDF or word doc.

I don't know for sure why it was not contested, but hopefully this information will help others sometime.

Umkomaas · 20 June 2018 at 4:17PM

Well done on your win. Could you tell us which PPC please, so we have up to date information on which PPCs are capitulating without contesting?

HaloNerd117 · 26 June 2018 at 12:57PM

POPLA appeal against One Parking Solution was a success. You can find more info about my journey there by reviewing the following thread I made: forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74371010

In summary, the operator did not serve an NTK (because they were so confident that I was the driver) but could never prove it, in fact, no evidence of it was ever given...idiots.

Decision
Successful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist failed to display a valid permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. The first is that the Notice to Keeper was never served, so Keeper Liability cannot apply. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge. The third is that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The final ground of appeal is that 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. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a 10-page pdf file detailing their grounds of appeal. The document includes a tweet from the UK Supreme Court, an example sign, the appeal form, photographs of the signage provided by the operator and links to websites to support their appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. It is clear from the operator’s case file that the PCN was “issued to vehicle” on the date in question. The only way a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of a vehicle, is by using the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). There is no evidence to suggest that the operator transferred liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Therefore, the operator is not attempting to use the provisions of PoFA 2012. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore liable for the charge. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

beamerguy · 26 June 2018 at 1:39PM

How many similar cases go to POPLA and the motorist loses ???

Umkomaas · 26 June 2018 at 1:44PM

In summary, the operator did not serve an NTK (because they were so confident that I was the driver) but could never prove it, in fact, no evidence of it was ever given...idiots.

Nice summation of the case. This is the 'day job' for these outfits, and almost 6 years on, many still do not understand PoFA. As you say..... idiots .....!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74371010

Well done on your win :T

Weasel_Watcher · 27 June 2018 at 12:40PM

POPLA appeal against LPS (Local Parking Security Ltd)

Full details at the following thread; https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5809399

Full (redacted) appeal pdf can be viewed here
https://www.scribd.com/book/382697256/POPLA-Appeal-red-pdf

Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator

Withdrawn on 27/06/2018
Verification Code

3711318005

Withdrawal reasons

Upon looking further into the evidence, we have cancelled the Parking Charge Notice on our system.

Thanks to everyone who helped.

denz1968 · 3 July 2018 at 10:50AM

POPLA appeal V Euro Car Parks

Decision
Successful Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Amy Butler

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, !!!8220;Charges apply at all times; Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue); Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle!!!8221;. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle, DN13 GKD, entered the site on 19 April 2018 at 16:00 and exited the site at 16:25. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 25 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of the system print out. This is an online transaction record showing a search for the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle. From this, I can see that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was not registered against a payment. The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly. Upon a review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. Based on the photographic evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that it is both clear and conspicuous that upon entry to the site the appellant would have been able to establish that there was signage and what the terms and conditions of the site are. Ultimately, it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal

Original thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5845461

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free