POPLA Decisions

beamerguy · 1 March 2019 at 7:12PM

Nuddmann wrote: »

"The operator has provided a copy of the contract agreed between themselves and the landowner. Upon review I can see the contract started on 6 September 2016, which expired after 24 months from this date. The date of the event was 21 November 2018, due to this I am satisfied the agreement was valid on the date of the event."

Is it my poor maffs or should this say " the agreement was invalid on the date of the event", seeing as how 21/11/18 is 26 months and two weeks after the contract t was signed?

POPLA is a dead donkey, a dinosaur, a Dodo

A child of 10 could work this out, not rocket science. Sums up the POPLA assessors.

I would ask POPLA about their intelligence

Edna_Basher · 1 March 2019 at 7:42PM

Hirers – beware of POPLA assessor roulette (Part 1)

Here are details of a recent POPLA case where the assessor failed to deliver a professional, independent and impartial service. This concerned a standard ParkingEye PCN for a hire vehicle. Although the PCN referred to Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA, it was not accompanied by copies of any hire documents or by a copy of the original Notice to Keeper.

Nonetheless, POPLA assessor Mr. AP determined that the PCN had been issued correctly.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states the operator has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule of the Protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA). The appellant states they are not liable for the PCN. The appellant states they are not appealing this PCN on behalf of the driver. The appellant states that the operator has no standing authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers. The appellant states the car park signage was inadequate. The appellant states the operator is in breach of Paragraph 21.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in respect of its’ [sic] obligations under Data Protections legislation.

Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision

The appellant has been identified as the keeper of the vehicle, as such I am considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. The PCN was issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and no driver has been named, therefore liability for the PCN remains with the registered keeper of the vehicle [Really? Then why have you decided that the hirer was liable?].

…… standard copied and pasted comments regarding signage………………..

I understand the appellant has challenged the operator’s application of POFA in respect of the transfer of liability for this PCN. However, on review of liability trail provided by the operator, I am satisfied both the original notice to keeper and subsequent notice to the hirer (following a transfer of liability request from the lease company) were issued within the relevant period [err... what about the hire documents and copy of the original notice to keeper that should have accompanied the notice to hirer?]. In this respect I have considered the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper [err.. the "appellant" was the hirer not the registered keeper]. Whilst, it does appear this is a works vehicle potentially carrying out official business activity [we made it clear in our initial submission that the driver was not on company business], there is no requirement for me to assess any other form of liability in this case.

The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue PCN’s on this land, in response the operator has provided a signed witness statement [signed by a Customer Services Assistant Manager, not a director of the company] relating to the management of parking at Aldi Oldbury. In this regard, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place, and in accordance with my role I will base my decision on the principle of assessing if the PCN was issued correctly, against the advertised terms and conditions of the site.

…………more copied and pasted comments…………

As the operator has shown there is adequate signage on site, I must consider it has demonstrated the contravention and that it issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Edna_Basher · 1 March 2019 at 7:54PM

Hirers – beware of POPLA assessor roulette (Part 2)

Here are details of a second POPLA case where the assessor has failed to deliver a professional, independent and impartial service – again concerning a standard ParkingEye PCN for a hire vehicle.

In this instance POPLA assessor Mr. AT determined that the PCN had been issued correctly. Although the outcome was the same as the case in Part 1, Mr AT’s rational (sic) contained some subtle differences.

Assessor summary of your case

The appeal is being handled by a third party on behalf of a company that is the registered keeper [Err... no, the "appeal" was being handled by the hirer in its own right, not in any capacity on behalf of the registered keeper]. As such I must consider whether liability for the charge has been successfully transferred to the company as the driver details have not been given at any stage throughout the appeals process.

The appellant states that POPA is unable to hold the company liable for the charge under Agency Liability and as the operator has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it cannot continue to pursue the charge.

They have stated that the operator is not authorised to issue or pursue a PCN for a breach of contract at the site in question and that the signage at the site in inadequate.

The appellant has also stated that the operator has failed to comply with Section 21.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. To support the appeal, they have submitted; a copy of the Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information and a more detailed letter of explanation for their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. Once it has satisfied the burden of proof, it then passes to the appellant to show any inaccuracy in the operator’s case file [Isn't this the sort of argument that the IAS uses?].

In this case the operator has issued a PCN of £70 for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the site for longer than permitted or failing to register the vehicle on the given terminal.

The appeal is being handled by a third party on behalf of a company that is the registered keeper [this is not correct – the “appeal” made it very clear that the “appellant” company was the hirer, not the registered keeper]. As such I must consider whether liability for the charge has been successfully transferred to the company as the driver details have not been given at any stage throughout the appeals process.

The appellant states that POPLA is unable to hold the company liable for the charge under Agency Liability and as the operator has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it cannot continue to pursue the charge.

……… standard copied and pasted comments regarding signage………………

The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with POFA 2012, however the operator has shown that it received a statement of liability and that a new notice was issued to the correct party within the 21 day relevant period following the day that the liability statement was received. I note the appellant has advised that it did not include the liability documents with the notice [err - that’s because ParkingEye didn’t send them], however the operator has clearly referenced the correct sections of POFA 2012 in its notice and as the appellant has not shown that the hire documents were not received [see note below]. I consider the operator to have complied with the requirements of POFA 2012. As such, I find that liability for the charge has been successfully transferred to the appellant as the party hiring the vehicle in question.

I have no need to reply to the allegations of flawed reasoning and application of Agency Liability as I am not assessing the charge under this liability type.

The appellant has challenged the operators authority to issue and pursue a charge for this site. Section 22.16b of the BPA Code of Practice means that POPLA can accept a witness statement as evidence of authority due to the commercially sensitive information included in a full contract. As such, the evidence given is sufficient to meet POPLAs requirements and I am satisfied the operator was authorised to issue and pursue the PCN in question [This was a different Aldi store but the witness statement was signed by the same Assistant Customer Services manager as that in the case reported in Part 1].

…………more copied and pasted comments…………..

Considering the above assessment and the fact that the vehicle remained for longer than the maximum time permitted, I consider the PCN to have been issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

Note: Within our comments on ParkingEye’s evidence pack, we stated that POPLA will note the absence from the Operator’s evidence pack of copies of hire documents – even though it was a requirement under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA for these to be sent in accompaniment to the Notice to Hirer. The reason for their absence from the evidence pack is simple; the Operator did not send these with its Notice to Hirer.

How could ParkingEye have satisfied the burden of proof if its evidence pack contained no hire documents. How could the assessor find reason to state in his assessment that the “appellant” has not shown that the hire documents were not received.

You really couldn't make up what's going on with POPLA at the moment.

Umkomaas · 1 March 2019 at 9:07PM

You really couldn't make up what's going on with POPLA at the moment.

It's about time John Gallagher performed a proper Captain's role by getting a grip of the wheel when his ship is drifting so badly off line.

Coupon-mad · 2 March 2019 at 2:26PM

You are going to have to start filming yourself opening any ParkingEye 'NTH' PCN, assuming you can recognise the envelope.

henrik777 · 3 March 2019 at 9:58PM

Write back and ask for clarification as to who is liable, the registered keeper or the hirer, as you are confused by the response.

cruiser53 · 4 March 2019 at 11:02PM

POPLA appeal successful. I have posted this on my own thread but was asked to post it here as well. We won our appeal at the POPLA stage against ppc NPS north east ltd.
Response from assessor
The appellant has disputed the operator having authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Within the operator,s case file they have provided a copy of written authorisation from the landowner.
Whilst I note this evidence and can see the commencement date,this contract does not contain an expiry date. As such, I cannot be satisfied that there is a valid contract in place for the operator to issue PCNs on site.
Accordingly,I must allow this appeal.
Once again many thanks to all on this forum.

SadOrangutan · 6 March 2019 at 7:17PM

I've created an account to say thanks to everyone who has contributed to the Newbies thread and posted information about the best process for appeal. I've had a successful appeal to POPLA by following the advice and doing a bit of research, and I'd urge anyone who receives a PCN to do the same.

Some context: I am the owner of the car but was not the driver (genuinely) and received a PCN for the car being parked in the residential site where I live. Each property has a designated space which is approx 200m from the front door of the property and there are 'permit only' visitor spaces directly outside the front door which are useful for loading & unloading vehicles. Minster Baywatch are contracted by the management company to operate the car park on behalf of residents.

I've amended some of the formatting below to save it being a wall of text and redacted some details.

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: G******a R***y

Assessor summary of operator case: The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at the XXXX car park, XXXX where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a valid permit was not on display.

Assessor summary of your case: The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in regard to grace periods.

The appellant states that the PCN is incompatible with the rights of the lease as decided by the appeal for Jopson V Home Guard Services.

The appellant states that there are no entrance signage and the signage at the site is not clear or legible.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the person it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. The appellant adds that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

The appellant states that the images contained in the PCN do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide any evidence that it has the authority of the landowner to manage parking at the site as outlined in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The appellant has provided a County Court judgement of Jopson Vs Homeguard Services and a copy of the notice to keeper from the operator as evidence and a document outlining his grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision: The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant to be the keeper of the vehicle. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he/she is the registered keeper, I will therefore be considering his liability as keeper of the vehicle.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site at XX:XX on XX November 2018. From the evidence provided I consider that there appears to be a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms and conditions have been breached. I will now look at the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they a material difference to the validity of the PCN.

POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. When assessing an appeal the burden of proof lies with the operator and it is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence in rebuttal of the appellant’s statement.

The appellant states that there are no entrance signage and the signage at the site is not clear or legible. Section, 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”.

Additionally, section 18.3 states, “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

From the photographic evidence provided I am unable to determine whether the signage at the site is sufficient, clear or legible. The operator highlighted a sign behind a bus to one side of the appellant’s vehicle and two other photographs of signage attached to a fence. From this, I unable to determine whether the driver had a reasonable opportunity to review the signage before parking at the site. As such, I am unable to determine if the PCN was issued correctly.

As such, I will allow this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration In conclusion, the burden of proof lies with the operator and I determine on this occasion the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the PCN was issued correctly.

beamerguy · 6 March 2019 at 7:29PM

Good news :T

Another BPA scammer at large

Jopson V Home Guard Services ????

Minster Baywatch must be on the funny stuff

Umkomaas · 6 March 2019 at 9:11PM

Well done on doing this under your own steam with only reference to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky and no requirement for any regular input to help you through.

A great example to those who, 200 posts in, are still nowhere near doing anything for themselves.

Monkey off your back. MB stuffed! :T

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

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