POPLA Decisions

So I lost my appeal

The appellant has not identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. In this case, the appellant is a company, Healthcare Matters, and the driver of the vehicle is using the vehicle as a company car. Companies are responsible for the actions of their agents. As this is a company car provided to the driver for the purposes of carrying out their duties, I will be considering whether Company XZY is responsible for the charge as principal on behalf of their agent, who was driving the vehicle and is not known When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. HOSPITAL PATIENTS AND VISITORS (INCLUDING BLUE BADGE HOLDERS) MUST OBTAIN A PERMIT ON A TOUCH SCREEN AT RECEPTION. If you breach the above terms you will be charged £75”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 11:47, and exiting at 12:26, totalling a stay of 39 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not register for a permit. The appellant explains that the operator has provided no evidence that they have authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question. I acknowledge the appellants comments and have reviewed the operators evidence pack. The operator has provided a signed statement to show it does have authority on the land in question. It states the land and is signed by the land-owner themselves. I will acknowledge that there is no end date but usually this does not matter as the contract will continue rolling until the land-owner advises it has been terminated. On the balance of probability, I find that the document is sufficient to show that the operator does have authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question. The operator has also provided an exemption list to show that the appellants vehicle did not register for a permit on the day of the breach. POPLA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN, as the appellant did not register for a permit, I must advise that the PCN was issued accordingly. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. Whilst I appreciate the appellants grounds of appeal, I must refuse the appeal for the reasons stated above. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to register for a permit. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal in the motorist comments, as these were received after the initial appeal, I cannot take them into account.

The authority was not signed by two people, it was signed by one person, with no job title and no expiry date. How did I lose?

Civil Enforcement

Okay, a new thread.

Any chance of some paragraphs please. The wall of text is impossible to read.

Thank you for all your help,
Here is the last appeal letter below sent by email:
OF PARTICULAR NOTE IS THE LAST POINT UNDER 7.2
One final point all in Bold
do not miss this point.
I think it was the clincher!!

Merry chirstmas everyone


Dear Madame or Sir,

Thank you for sending the multiple attachments.

In making their assessment it is asked the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of the original POPLA appeal as submitted via the Popla Website within the timeframe originally given.

In response to the "evidence pack" Spring Parking have submitted:
Spring Parking have submitted an un-numbered summary of claims in the ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. Each and every point cannot be addressed as they are un-numbered and their submission is clearly a quickly hashed, much of which neither pertains to nor addresses the claims made in the original appeal.

1. On page 1 of the 'evidence' checklist page one of the items 'Images, Plans Etc..' has been checked as present but the number of pages field is blank. No 'plans' or 'etc' items have been provided despite the field being checked. This is either inaccurate, misleading, incomplete or all of the above.

2. On page 1 of the 'evidence' checklist page, one of the items 'Original representations and notice of rejection' has been checked as present and the number of pages field is '3'. Within the 'evidence' attachments a different number of sheets in total is present. This again shows the 'evidence checklist' is either inaccurate, misleading, incomplete or all of the above and shows inattention in the creation of the 'evidence' by Spring Parking.

3. On page 6 of the 'evidence' pack the title reads 'Spring Parking Response' and goes on to show one of the pages from the representation sent by the 'Keeper of the Vehicle' via Popla. This title is wholly inaccurate for the content of the page and adds to the emerging confusion of this 'evidence' pack.

3.1 Further to this page being mis-labelled and misleading, the content actually shows appeal statements which have been wholly ignored e.g. "If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner." This statement has not been addressed and the requested evidence has not been given

4. On Page 2 of the 'evidence' pack, the original PCN and all further correspondence the vehicle location given is "XXXX GATE, XXXX WALK, LONDON, XX 3XX". From the images and maps submitted as evidence in the original evidence given to Popla and statement made in support document 'XXXXXX.pdf' it is clear that the vehicle in question was at a different address on a different road. Please see the documents, maps and photos supplied for the actual location of the car. This point has been wholly ignored by Spring Parking and invalidates the PCN from the outset.

5. On page 2 of the 'evidence' pack submitted by Spring Parking under Case Summary it is stated that '- An email appeal was received from the driver.' As stated in the original appeal, on the first page of the appeal text file name: "appeal popla spring parking 20a19.pdf" in the representation uploaded by the Keeper of the Vehicle via the Popla webiste, it is stated that the driver has been neither named nor proven via proper evidence.

5.1 This above false claim by Spring Parking must be treated as inadmissible 'evidence'.

6. On page 2 of the 'evidence' it is stated "There is a contract in place at the above location." A full copy of the contract was requested in the appeal. Only one single page of a document titled "XXXXX.doc". No copy of the full contract or supporting pages or amendments have been supplied.

6.1 This document "evidence pack.doc" is dated 26/04/2013. It states no start date nor end date. Although clause 11. states 'This agreement is for an initial period of twelve months and will continue thereafter until terminated by either party upon four week written notice.' A termination between either party may have been served at any time between 26/04/2013 and the present date. No evidence of the current continuation of the contract has been supplied where requested in the Popla appeal.

6.2 An unredacted copy of the contract was requested in the appeal. No document entitled 'contract' has been received. Until this point is addressed the evidence should be deemed inadmissible and the appeal invalidated also.

6.3 One of the signatures on the "evidence pack.doc" has been applied digitally or otherwise obscuring the background design of the 'Agreement' design. The signature is pixellated and illegible and seems to be of a questionable level of clarity, legality and potentially fraudulent nature. The EU regulations eIDAS e-signatures states "electronic signatures must: be offered by a qualified trust service provider; meet the specific requirements for an advanced signature; be created using a qualified creation device; and be supported by a qualified certificate. The requirements for advanced and qualified electronic signatures are set out in article 26. They must be uniquely linked to an identifiable signatory who has sole control of the data used to create the signature. They must also ensure that any changes made to the signed data can be detected."

The signature in question on the proposed document has clearly been tampered with or has been made in a manner not sitting with the EU eIDAS regulations. This is NOT a new grounds for appeal, but a response to the misleading 'evidence' supplied by Spring Parking.

6.4 None of the signatories names are printed or present or legible on the 'agreement'.

7.1 None of the images supplied by Spring Parking in the 'evidence' pack of the signage depict a sign in viewable or legible distance from the vehicle.

7.2 The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Spring Parking have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP. Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged was to agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

One final point to add to the confusion and inaccuracy of the response to the appeal:
On the Popla website, in the Track Appeal section, the date given reads "Operator Information and Evidence Submitted 01/01/0001" This date seems highly unfeasible and seems to coincide with the period of the birth of Jesus Christ. As the keeper of the vehicle, the appellant, was not alive on that date, nor did any combustion engine vehicles at all exist, it is impossible to enforce a parking restriction on a combustion engine vehicle in a time when the parking of congestions vehicles did not exist. This date is also not in keeping with the date representing the much more recent period in which the PCN was received.
(see timed and dated attachment Screen Shot 2019-11-25 at 22.57.42.png)
Although there is an element of humour in this final point it is indeed a fact that the date is totally inaccurate and contributes to the confusion that runs through the 'evidence' pack and brings into question not only the date that it was submitted but also the method in which it was submitted, and, subsequent invalidation of the PCN.

many thanks for your time

Hi

PPC is Local Parking Security
They responded on 18th November