IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

POPLA Decisions

1270271273275276455

Comments

  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    He could have put "not applicable" "A.N. Other", "M Mouse" or something similar.


    However, in this instance, the adjudicator seems to have misdirected himself.


    The more of these errors adjudicators commit, the less credibility has PoPLA. This should go back for reconsideration.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • jorge_gills
    jorge_gills Posts: 27 Forumite
    edited 5 September 2017 at 2:50PM
    Original thread: hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5667651
    PPC: WY Parking
    Location: Bradford

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a permit in the vehicle.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. She states that there was neither contract nor agreement on the parking charge and that there was no opportunity to read the terms involving the huge charge. The appellant has raised the Beavis case, stating that the signage should display the charge in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background, and that the terms should be legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. The appellant has said that there are no entrance signs displayed and that the signage at this site was unclear. The appellant has also said that there is no evidence of landowner authority and that the notice to keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore when deciding to park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with these when deciding to park. The signage at this site states, “WARNING PRIVATE PROPERTY, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY… CONTRACT TO PARK”. Additionally, it states “A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED TO ALL UNAUTHORISED VEHICLES USING THIS SITE. A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE MAY BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY OR BY POST… PARKING CHARGE £90”. This car park is patrolled by a parking attendant. The parking operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in this car park on the date of the event. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for failing to display a parking permit. Whilst I am aware that the appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal. I will focus solely on the appellant’s concerns regarding the landowner’s authority to operate on this land and issue charges. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Well done @OP :T
    As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
    As POPLA has stated this, complain to the BPA that the PPC is operating without authority on this land and therefore sanctions should be immediately applied.

    Ask that they investigate and report back to you on what they discover and what actions they now propose. Time for you to put the PPC through similar sh*t to what they caused you!
    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.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • Guys_Dad
    Guys_Dad Posts: 11,025
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Umkomaas wrote: »
    Well done @OP :T


    As POPLA has stated this, complain to the BPA that the PPC is operating without authority on this land and therefore sanctions should be immediately applied.

    Ask that they investigate and report back to you on what they discover and what actions they now propose. Time for you to put the PPC through similar sh*t to what they caused you!

    Don't agree. The PPC probably does have authority but failed to produce it. If they are threatened with sanctions and possible restrictions on their KADOE, they just might make more effort with future appeals.

    Let sleeping dogs lie and others can continue to benefit from their tardiness.
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Guys_Dad wrote: »
    Don't agree. The PPC probably does have authority but failed to produce it. If they are threatened with sanctions and possible restrictions on their KADOE, they just might make more effort with future appeals.

    Let sleeping dogs lie and others can continue to benefit from their tardiness.

    Why do they not show it then?

    One cannot assume anything in this game. There are too many of them not showing their (supposed) landowner authority, to be just written off as tardiness on their part. They will quite happily produce reams of copies of signage, of site maps, VRM plates, of a tyre slightly on a white line, of a missing ticket/permit/BB, yet never a landowner authority. Why?

    Even if they show it, there will likely be other appeal points to win on. If it was such a slam dunk for them, you'd be certain it would find its way into an Evidence Pack. But why shouldn't posters, who've been through the mill dealing with this crap, return a bit of the misery?

    Even if 90% of them come back and start showing them, 10% will be caught out and hopefully sanctioned. Unless we fight back (via those who have had a dodgy PPC attempt to scam them), who ever will?
    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.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • So POPLA rejected my appeal for a parking ticket I got for parking IN MY OWN SPACE in my office car park. What do I do now?

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameAlexandra Wilcock
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The appellant failed to display a valid parking permit in his vehicle.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the signage on the site is not clear from all the parking spaces. He says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant advised that the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate landowner authority. The appellant states the charge is unconscionable and is a penalty. He says the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease, as decided by Jopson V Home Guard Services.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state “Vehicles must clearly display a valid permit fa e up in the front windscreen at all times. If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant failing to display a valid parking permit in his vehicle. The operator has provided time and date stamped photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site. The evidence provided illustrates that the appellant parked on site without clearly displaying a valid parking permit in his vehicle. I can see that the appellant supplied the operator with an image which shows that his permit was obstructed by other documents on his document. This confirms that at the point of issuing the PCN the appellant could not see the permit. The appellant states the charge is unconscionable and is a penalty. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, 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. The Act then moved on to define “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 independent assessment 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 is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. The appellant states the signage on the site is not clear from all the parking spaces. He says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. In response to this the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. The evidence provided illustrates that there is clear signage located around the site in question. As previously stated I am satisfied that the signage on site complies with Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant advised that the operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has the appropriate landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a landowner contract which confirms that the operator has the appropriate landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question; and complies with Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. He says the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease, as decided by Jopson V Home Guard Services. I note the appellant’s comments however, Jopson was a tenant of the premises on site and had provided a lease agreement which confirmed that she had the appropriate authorisation to park on site. In this instance, the appellant was parking on his works car park in which he is not a tenant for and does not own a lease agreement. Therefore, he is not exempt from the terms and conditions and should comply with the parking restrictions displayed on the signage. Furthermore, POPLA is an evidenced based service and we access appeals based upon the evidence provided. The operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant parked on site without displaying a valid parking permit however, the appellant failed to provide a lease agreement or any evidence to demonstrate that he was exempt from displaying a valid permit. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that a valid permit must be displayed. As the appellant remained on site without displaying a valid parking permit, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    o POPLA rejected my appeal for a parking ticket I got for parking IN MY OWN SPACE in my office car park.

    You didn't come soon enough to the forum to get the advice to be able to put together a strong enough POPLA appeal it seems.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5702432
    What do I do now?
    Well, there's no obligation on you to pay it as a result of an unsuccessful appeal. So you just ride this out for 6 years. Come back (in plenty of time) if you get a LBA or MCOL claim.
    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.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • tdtm500
    tdtm500 Posts: 10
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Yeah, first mistake was identifying myself as the driver in their online systems.

    I had assumed that one I showed evidence of a permit in my car on the day of issue that the ticket would have been withdrawn and appealed immediately without seeking advice. Hope this serves as a lesson to future appellants! :)
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,634
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    tdtm500 wrote: »
    Yeah, first mistake was identifying myself as the driver in their online systems.

    I had assumed that one I showed evidence of a permit in my car on the day of issue that the ticket would have been withdrawn and appealed immediately without seeking advice. Hope this serves as a lesson to future appellants! :)
    It's only MET though, looking at your thread. No court history and not a big player.
    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
  • Splad
    Splad Posts: 7 Forumite
    Original Thread See: Cedar Lane Car Park Frimley

    Decision Successful - CEDAR LANE CAR PARK FRIMLEY

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXX7573.

    Civil Enforcement 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.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards