Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 4:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 8:29 AM.
Page 177
    • Dane1980
    • By Dane1980 20th May 19, 8:00 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Dane1980
    Unsuccessful appeal
    A disappointing decision on my part as the lighting at the site is poor and evidence provided I believed highlighted this. But hey ho - its only ECP so Im not admitting defeat. Plus in the extremely unlike event that they were to pursue me in court, the lack of advertising consent card is up my sleeve.

    Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    Alexandra Roby

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised to park.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The appellant has provided evidence to support her appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

    The terms and conditions of the site state: “Staff parking only. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice: staff members must have registered their full and correct vehicle registration”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked without authorisation. Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 17:36 and exited at 19:45 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and nine minutes.

    A screenshot of its registration system has also been provided, showing that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered for a staff permit to park. In response, the appellant states that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked. 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 upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which advises private parking operators: “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… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    Further, Appendix B states: “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.” The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site along with a site map showing the distribution of the signs throughout the site.

    Upon review of this, it is evident that the site is well lit and many of the signs are located in close proximity to sources of light. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the parking charge to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park.

    The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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”.

    In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided me with anything to suggest otherwise.

    The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the ANPR cameras. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning or advertising application or lack thereof. Furthermore, I do not consider that this would have affected the motorist’s ability to comply with the site’s terms and conditions.

    As the motorist parked without authorisation, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

    Full thread here:
    hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75830268&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_me dium=Email&utm_term=14-May-19
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th May 19, 8:31 AM
    • 23,707 Posts
    • 37,926 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Bad luck, but as you say, it's only ECP.

    Plus in the extremely unlike event that they were to pursue me in court, the lack of advertising consent card is up my sleeve.
    Don't hang your coat on that one. County Court Judges routinely refuse to deal with it as it is a criminal issue which only the local authority can prosecute. It is far from a showstopper in the civil court.

    If you want to cause ECP some reverse grief, you go for the local authority and try to push them towards a prosecution. Come back you're the first one to persuade any LA to do so.

    Otherwise, put it all to bed, and down to experience.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • GAJPER
    • By GAJPER 20th May 19, 12:03 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    GAJPER
    Successful Appeal
    Hi All,
    I did try to upload this as an attachment but couldn't find a way to do so. If I have placed this post in the wrong area my apologies, but I wanted to share my appeal information with others in the hope that it may help in the future.

    I pursued a POPLA appeal on behalf of my wife and the text of my appeal, sorry no photographs, is as follows:

    [CENTER][/CENTER]PARKING NOTICE APPEAL

    Registered Keeper:
    PCN: 7XXXXXX
    POPLA Appeal Number: 6XXXXXXXXX


    My husband and I parked our vehicle SXX XXX in the Kings Head Public House Car Park, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1NW, at approx. 12:15 on Tuesday, 13th February, 2019..

    The above referenced PCN was issued to me on 20th February, 2019 purporting to advise me that we had parked between 12:18 and 15:46 and that the unpaid duration of our parking was 3h:27m.

    Immediately on receipt I went to the Premier Park Ltd website and completed their online Appeals process in which I explained the circumstances of why we exceeded our parking time and attached copies of parking tickets showing that we had paid for a total of 3 hours parking.

    The PCN and the relevant timed car parking tickets are inserted below.

    Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a copy of the text I entered into the Premier Park Ltd website, as their online appeals process does not allow a copy of the text entered to be retained by the originator!

    In summary, the situation that occurred was that, on arrival at the car park my husband went in search of the payment machine and, on discovering its location, in an area of the car park surrounded by commercial waste bins, he realised he did not have sufficient change to pay for our expected parking duration.

    As neither of us is familiar with Melton Mowbray, we had gone on a day trip from our home some 30 miles away, my husband tried to obtain change from the public house, which was closed at the time we were visiting, so he went to obtain change from a shop.

    On his return at 12:31 he immediately paid for 2 hours parking but, as I explained in my online appeal, the Premier Park Ltd payment system does not give any opportunity to pay for any elapsed car parking time so we could not pay for the approx. 15 minutes we had already parked for, despite our best intentions to try and do so.

    Furthermore, and whilst we were out in the town, we mislaid our car keys and, rather than risk getting a parking ticket, my husband returned to the car park and paid for a further 1 hour of parking at 14:36, which was 5 minutes after the previous ticket had expired.

    Having finally found our keys we returned to the car park, knowing that we were overtime and left the car park at 15:46, some 10 minutes after our extended car parking had expired.

    Having explained all of this to Premier Park Ltd and asking that they would accept this explanation in mitigation and, having demonstrated that we had actually only over-stayed by a total of 27 minutes and not the 3h:27m they claimed, we had hoped that they may have been more understanding.

    As were going on holiday during the duration of the appeals process, I had also explained to Premier Park Ltd that it would be prudent for them to contact us by email rather than post, as we were going to be away from home for nearly 2 months and would be unable to respond to them if they wrote to our home address during this period.

    My appeal was logged online at 23:23 on Sunday, 24th February, 2019, and I received an emailed acknowledgement from Premier Park Ltd to advise me that they would carefully consider my appeal and would respond to me within 35 days regarding the outcome.

    Furthermore, their acknowledgement advised me that I could pay or view the photographic evidence by visiting? There was no link or website identified to visit!

    On Tuesday, 26th February, 2019, (just less than 2 days) I received an email which advised me that ‘we have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason: Your vehicle overstayed your paid parking period by 27 minutes. Please be advised that as the vehicle remained on site in excess of the paid parking period then further payment was required to authorise the additional time spent on site. Extra time could have been purchased at the machine before leaving site or via the pay by phone service RingGo. The signage on site states that parking charges apply at all times.’

    In their reply Premier Park Ltd clearly state that extra time could have been purchased at the machine. However, there is no facility and no instruction in their signage to enable extra ‘elapsed’ time to be purchased.

    This therefore makes a mockery of their appeals process as it states that we can do something which is patently not possible.

    I do not believe that Premier Park Ltd even considered my appeal properly, they simply looked for a way to impose a £100.00 penalty which is entirely disproportionate to the overstay.

    All they have realised is that, in their original PCN they inferred that we had parked for 3h:27m and this they have corrected in the text of their reply to 27 minutes.

    Further, my husband is particularly incensed at the issuance of this Parking Charge Notice as he believes that Premier Park signage at the car park is deliberately designed to cause maximum delay to anyone unfamiliar with its layout before they realise that they run the risk of receiving a Parking Charge Notice and a £100.00 penalty within 5 minutes of entering the car park.

    On our return from a short break last week, we returned to Melton Mowbray to revisit the Kings Head Car Park, and photograph the site to support my husband’s view.

    Please refer to the photographs and text which follow:

    1) Approach to car park.

    The signs merely indicate the presence of the car park, there is no indication that ANPR cameras are in operation or what the charges are.

    2) Entry into the car park

    If you are entering the car park you are concentrating on making the left turn into the car park off a main thoroughfare and manoeuvring into the entrance way. You could not simply stop, read and assimilate the contents of the sign until after you have parked so, there is no way that prior to entering the car park, you know that your vehicle is being photographed by ANPR cameras or, what the terms and conditions are for parking.

    Furthermore, do Premier Park Ltd actually expect motorists to stop on double yellow lines at the entrance to the car park to read the notices before entering?

    3) What do the signs actually say
    2 photographs uploaded.

    These are close-up photographs of the signs at the entrance to the car park. The first is taken from approx. 4 feet away, the second about 1 foot away. Do Premier Park Ltd really believe that these signs adequately inform a motorist of the contract they are entering into as they drive into the car park?

    Photographs later in the sequence will show exactly what the smaller sign actually reads.

    4) Views around the Car Park
    15 photographs showing location of signage and how it is blocked by parked vehicles.

    Please note that there are only 4 signs I was able to photograph within the main car park.

    All of these signs are posted at a height of approx. 8 feet from the ground and none of them, with the exception with those attached to the side of the public house (which I have not photographed) are at normal eye level.

    Also, with the exception of the signs near to the entrance of the site and one on the side of the public house building, there are no other GDPR signs displayed apart from the one adjacent to the yellow clothing receptacle.

    5) Signs nearest to our parking position

    Photo 1 - Approx. 20 feet away
    Photo 2 - Approx. 4 feet away

    6) What the signs actually say.

    GDPR sign
    This sign is the directly in line of sight and naturally you are drawn to read this first.
    This takes approx. 2 minutes to read.

    Car Parking Charges
    This notice is approx. 8 feet up the pole. Whilst the parking charges are clearly displayed the ‘small print’ is almost impossible to read.

    We could not use the ‘RingGo’ parking service as we could not read on the sign how much the call charges were for connecting to the telephone service.

    Further, the signs state how to pay but, don’t indicate where the payment machine is located.

    7) Where to pay

    On the day that the alleged parking contravention took place the car park was quite busy as it was Market Day in Melton Mowbray so it was not immediately clear where the payment machines were.

    In the 2nd photograph in the views around the car park the above sign is visible. (Please Pay Here)

    It is actually the pay point for a municipal car park which backs onto the Kings Head Car Park so time was wasted looking in the car park for payment machines.

    It was not easily apparent where the Kings Head payment machines are as they are not identified but, they are actually located adjacent to the entrance of the car park by the refuse containers for the public house as the following photographs shows.
    2 photographs uploaded.

    Our Appeal

    The BPA Guidelines - January, 2018.

    We assert that, if Premier Park Ltd are acting within the spirit of the guidelines, then their signage should be greatly improved to comply with those guidelines, so that motorists can make an informed judgement on whether or not they wish to park in the Kings Head Car Park.

    The guidelines actually recommend a minimum 10 minutes grace period for any motorist to reasonably ascertain if they wish to park in a private car park.

    Premier Park Ltd clearly state that they only apply 5 minutes as indicated in the photographs provided.

    The fact that, by the time we were parked, had read the parking and GDPR notices displayed at the site, found the payment machines and made payment, we were already at about 13 minutes since arrival and therefore we were, effectively already in penalty.

    It was only on reading the signage adjacent to the payment machines, which is set at eye level, that I was able to ascertain the following:

    • There are no instructions on how to pay retrospectively for any time already elapsed.

    In their response to our appeal, Premier Park Ltd state we can make a retrospective payment but again, we ask how?

    • The RingGo service, which we chose not to use as we did not know how much it would cost.

    The signage states “Each transaction is subject to a minimum convenience fee of 30p”.

    Therefore, what is the maximum fee payable?

    This is completely open-ended as Premier Park Ltd can effectively charge whatever they feel like for the convenience charge.

    What is the per minute charge for this service as it is not stated anywhere?

    Given that we were most likely going to attract a £100.00 penalty why did we bother being honest brokers and pay £3.00 for our parking, knowing that we could not pay for the expired time retrospectively and that there are no instructions on the Premier Park Ltd signage to indicate how you do make such a payment.

    We could have made the decision not to worry about paying for our parking at all or stayed much longer, if we knew there was a £100.00 penalty coming anyway.

    With regards the other 14 minutes, we accept that the second ticket for a further hour was applied 5 minutes after the expiry of the previous ticket but, the BPA’s guidelines also recommend a minimum of 10 minutes grace at the end of the parking period to allow motorists to depart.

    At the end of the day we are asking Premier Park Ltd to justify why they are charging a £100.00 penalty for effectively a 3-minute over-stay which has been more than mitigated for.

    We would ask that you give this appeal your favourable consideration and that it will be waived for the grounds described above.

    The appeal was submitted on 26th March, 2019 and on 12th April, 2019, POPLA advised us that Premier Park Ltd did not wish to pursue the matter and our appeal was upheld.

    I would strongly recommend anyone who receives a PCN which they want to appeal to go through the MSE advice as it was really helpful and was instrumental in us winning our appeal.

    Best regards,

    GAJPER.
    Last edited by GAJPER; 20-05-2019 at 12:09 PM. Reason: Grammatical error
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th May 19, 12:20 PM
    • 23,707 Posts
    • 37,926 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The appeal was submitted on 26th March, 2019 and on 12th April, 2019, POPLA advised us that Premier Park Ltd did not wish to pursue the matter and our appeal was upheld.
    All the way through your post, in the back of my mind was 'this is going to lose' as much was based on mitigation - not something that POPLA will consider - and PP seem to have a better than average success rate at POPLA. So I was delighted to read your penultimate paragraph. Well done.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 20th May 19, 2:14 PM
    • 11,419 Posts
    • 15,503 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The appeal was submitted on 26th March, 2019 and on 12th April, 2019, POPLA advised us that Premier Park Ltd did not wish to pursue the matter and our appeal was upheld.

    I would strongly recommend anyone who receives a PCN which they want to appeal to go through the MSE advice as it was really helpful and was instrumental in us winning our appeal.

    Best regards,

    GAJPER.
    Originally posted by GAJPER
    Good news

    Premier Park Ltd were scamming you in the first place.

    They are after all a BPA scammer ..... ????
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Mr_Mash
    • By Mr_Mash 21st May 19, 8:44 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Mr_Mash
    Dear X



    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



    An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxx



    One Parking Solution Ltd 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
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st May 19, 8:53 AM
    • 11,419 Posts
    • 15,503 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Dear X



    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



    An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxx



    One Parking Solution Ltd 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
    Originally posted by Mr_Mash
    Good news for you

    Just another day in the office for a BPA scammer
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • GAJPER
    • By GAJPER 22nd May 19, 10:48 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    GAJPER
    Just a couple of other things that have come to mind in light of the successful appeal.

    1) Am I within my rights to ask Premier Park to delete all my or my wife's personal information?
    2) How do I ascertain the circumstances under which DVLA released details of my wife to Premier Park? and
    3) Should I complain to DVLA about them releasing this information?

    I would appreciate an opinion on this.

    Many thanks

    GAJPER.
    • Dane1980
    • By Dane1980 22nd May 19, 7:27 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Dane1980
    I have been fighting two PCNs one received by myself and one for my mum. Both PCNs received in identical situations (date/time/location) but with different outcomes..... Mine wasn't successful but hers was. Note: I used the same appeal points, images and rebuttals.

    Her POPLA decision is below. Mine can be viewed in link or at top of page

    hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75830268&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_me dium=Email&utm_term=14-May-19

    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Paul E Walker

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that no contract was formed with the driver by way of the signage on site as it is not lit at night. She states that signage on site generally is insufficient or inadequate. She states that there is no evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. She states that the operator does not have relevant planning permission for either the signs or cameras on site.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. All of the photographs were taken during daylight hours. Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that “signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.

    This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”.

    The appellant has provided photographs of signs on site taken at night and it is clear that the signs are neither directly or indirectly lit, made of retro-reflective material or in any way clearly visible at night. I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage on site meets the requirements set out by the BPA.

    I am not satisfied from the evidence that the signs on site are sufficiently visible during the hours of darkness and it is clear that it was dark when the vehicle was parked. I am not satisfied therefore that the driver can be considered to have breached the terms of the site detailed on the signs, nor am I satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

    I note that the appellant raised additional grounds of appeal, most of which were without merit, however on the basis that her appeal has been allowed, I will not consider each of the grounds raised.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd May 19, 7:51 PM
    • 73,405 Posts
    • 85,498 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So Paul E Walker gets it right, yet your Assessor says no. What a lack of consistency! Lucky this is only Euro Car Parks, time wasters to be ignored.



    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75829443#post75829443

    Decision
    Unsuccessful


    Assessor Name
    A R

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised to park.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver.
    The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage.
    She states that it was dark when the motorist parked.
    The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority.
    The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.
    The appellant has provided evidence to support her appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational(sic) for decision
    In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

    The terms and conditions of the site state:

    “Staff parking only. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice: staff members must have registered their full and correct vehicle registration”.

    The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked without authorisation. Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 17:36 and exited at 19:45 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and nine minutes. A screenshot of its registration system has also been provided, showing that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered for a staff permit to park.

    In response, the appellant states that no contract was offered to or accepted by the driver. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage. She states that it was dark when the motorist parked.

    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 upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which advises private parking operators: “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… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Further, Appendix B states: “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.”

    The operator and the appellant have both provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site along with a site map showing the distribution of the signs throughout the site.

    Upon review of this, it is evident that the site is well lit and many of the signs are located in close proximity to sources of light.

    Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the parking charge to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park.

    The appellant states that there is no evidence of the operator’s landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided me with anything to suggest otherwise.

    The appellant states that the operator does not have any advertising consent for the signage or any planning consent for the ANPR cameras. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of a planning or advertising application or lack thereof. Furthermore, I do not consider that this would have affected the motorist’s ability to comply with the site’s terms and conditions.

    As the motorist parked without authorisation, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 22nd May 19, 8:27 PM
    • 3,004 Posts
    • 3,795 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    it would help the cause .... I hope.... by passing on your experiences to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP asking them as to how any appeal companies/bodies/ADR ..... systems will be implicated under the new review should be set up



    Ralph
    • SaXoN_UK1
    • By SaXoN_UK1 30th May 19, 3:14 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    SaXoN_UK1
    Success !

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Michael Pirks
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle exceeded the one-hour maximum stay.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that he is the registered keeper of the vehicle and he is appealing as the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) regarding keeper liability. The appellant says that there is no evidence to support that the driver exceeded the maximum stay time. The appellant explains that 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 The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority, allowing the operator to issue parking charges. The appellant has provided evidence of the Notice to Keeper and a detailed document about the appeal, in support of the appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the landowner agreement as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant exceeded the maximum stay time of one-hour. The appellant has highlighted as part of his appeal that he does not believe the operator has landowner authority to issue parking charges. As the appellant has questioned that the operator has landowner authority, I need to ensure that the operator manages the land that the appellant was parked on. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 failed to provide me with a copy of the landowner agreement. I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the contract and clear boundaries, which have not been provided. As such, I cannot determine if this meets the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice, and if the appellant was parked on the operator’s land. As I cannot establish that the operator has sufficient authority, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

    Thanks for all the help on this forum.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th May 19, 3:39 PM
    • 23,707 Posts
    • 37,926 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done SaXoN-UK1, a monkey off your back!

    In view of this quite clear statement from POPLA, why not give the PPC a dose of their own medicine by making life uncomfortable for them?

    Write to the DVLA and complain that POPLA has grave doubts that the PPC has authority to operate at this site. Ask that the DVLA investigates and reports back to you. In particular they should calculate how many charges have been issued, and should there be no valid landowner authority, the PPC should be required to cancel all charges for that site and repay motorists who have been misled and paid. Email in the first instance:

    ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

    If you get a fob off from that approach, follow it up with a full blown Freedom of Information request. It will be more difficult for them to hide under FOI.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • Starwalker
    • By Starwalker 30th May 19, 4:56 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Starwalker
    Decision Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    In this case the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100 for either not purchasing the appropriate parking period or remaining for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    I acknowledge that the appellant has submitted several grounds of appeal, however due to the information contained in the operators case file I do not need to review this information in order to complete my assessment.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly. To do so we consider the benefit and utility gained from the use of the site and whether the motorist entered into a contract with the operator. The operator must show what terms and conditions applied to the parking period and how the motorist was made aware of the terms. Once this has been established it passes to the appellant to show any circumstance or inaccuracy which would prove the charge was issued incorrectly. In this case the operator has issued a PCN of £100 for either not purchasing the appropriate parking period or remaining for longer than permitted. The appellant states they were not the driver of the vehicle, as such the operator must have complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 in order to transfer liability of the charge from the driver to the appellant. The PCN was issued on the thirteenth day following the day the contravention occurred, due to a weekend was then presumed to be given on the sixteenth day following the day on which the contravention occurred. As such, the PCN has not been issued correctly in compliance with POFA 2012. For this reason I allow the appeal, with no need to review any other information or evidence provided.

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5967668
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th May 19, 5:07 PM
    • 73,405 Posts
    • 85,498 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The PCN was issued on the thirteenth day following the day the contravention occurred, due to a weekend was then presumed to be given on the sixteenth day following the day on which the contravention occurred.
    POPLA starring in a ''Wow - this Assessor can add up and understand keeper liability!'' shocker!

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • ilbrec
    • By ilbrec 1st Jun 19, 10:18 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    ilbrec
    Success
    Put together an extensive appeal using the info in the newbies thread for an incident involving the Mrs car at Lincoln staion. Smart parking ran away and didn't offer any evidence to POPLA
    • Artegal
    • By Artegal 2nd Jun 19, 10:58 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Artegal
    Great news, thank you for sharing your success.
    • Starwalker
    • By Starwalker 4th Jun 19, 8:40 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Starwalker
    POPLA starring in a ''Wow - this Assessor can add up and understand keeper liability!'' shocker!

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Ha ha lol!

    Thanks again Coupon, and others - a donation to Cancer research done as promised.
    • LaserMan
    • By LaserMan 5th Jun 19, 9:37 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    LaserMan
    Unsuccessful appeal
    Dear ***********
    Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your appeal.
    We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the Parking Charge Notice number; ************ 
    The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.
    If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful and the operator should cancel the parking charge.
    When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.
    POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the operator.
    The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused 
    The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:
    Assessor summary of operator's case:
     The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for either not purchasing a pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted or by not entering your registration details via the terminal. 
    Assessor summary of appellant's case:
     The appellant’s case is that there is a lack of signage that clearly states that the car park belongs to the Prince Rupert Hotel and that only guests using that particular hotel are eligible for free parking if the driver enters the vehicle details at the Prince Rupert Hotel reception.
    The appellant entered their details into the log of the adjoining hotel ‘The Lion’. They state that the signage is inadequate to differentiate the two car parks. They only became aware of the issue when they returned to ‘The Lion’ to question them after the PCN was issued.
    The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal. 
    Assessor summary of reasons:
     The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability.
    The operator has provided a site map photographic evidence of the signage on the site, which states: ‘hotel guest must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception’ and ‘Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100’
    The operator has also provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at14:08, and exiting at, 15:43: totalling a stay of 1 hours 34 minutes
    The operator has provided a printout showing that the motorist’s vehicle registration number does not appear in their systems on the date of the event.
    When parking on a private land car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the car park for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park.
    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 parked but did not keep to the parking conditions.
    The appellant states that this car park is virtually adjacent to the Lion Hotel; and whilst this may be the case, I will consider only this car park in this assessment.
    The appellant states that the signage is inadequate to differentiate the two car parks. Section 18. 2 of the British Parking Association (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.
    From the supplied operator evidence, I can see there is the required entry signage at the entrance and that it is adjacent to a sign stating Prince Rupert Hotel PRIVATE CAR PARK.
    I note the appellant’s photographic evidence of the same spot but as it is not date stamped, I cannot consider it.
    - I was informed by Hotel staff that the entrance sign was removed about a year ago by Parking Eye "to encourage more public use"
    It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity.
    I am mindful that this car park may adjoin another car park belonging to a different hotel, but the evidence supplied for this is not conclusive. Regardless, as this is a single entry/exit car park, a motorist would have to leave this car park and walk past the entrance signs; No - there is a pedestrian exit at the other end of the car park to then walk to any adjoining car park and thence into any adjoining hotel. Consequently, I would have expected the appellant to have confirmed with the hotel that they were parked in the correct car park. There is no evidence that the appellant did this until after the PCN was issued.
    Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant failed to register their vehicle to stay in this car park, 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. 
    Kind regards
    Grahame Hill
    POPLA Team
    • mjm87
    • By mjm87 11th Jun 19, 11:34 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mjm87
    Another success, thanks for your help everyone!

    Decision: Successful

    Assessor Name: Sophie Taylor

    Assessor summary of operator case:

    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case:

    The appellant has provided a 16-page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • There is no identification of land being under the management of ParkingEye, there is no distinction of it being separate to an adjacent car park. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • There is no evidence of authority from the landowner. • The operator does not have planning permission for its signs or ANPR cameras. • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply. • The operator has failed to comply with the ICO Code of Practice. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision:

    The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the site in question. The operator has provided a document of its agreement to manage the car park. Reviewing this, I can see the tariffs stated are different to the tariffs on the signage. As such, I am not satisfied this is sufficient to show the up to date authority to manage the land in question. While it is possible there may have been amendments to the agreement, I cannot make this assumption. The operator has not provided any explanation as to why the tariffs differ on the agreement to on the signage. As such, I cannot be satisfied this evidence is sufficient to give them authority to impose the terms stated on the signs. As such, I must conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

985Posts Today

6,829Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Channel 4 really screwed up not doing this on the Tory leaders debate last night, just think of the ratings... https://t.co/eYYfAYGdck

  • Teacher/head in a London(ish) senior school? I want film a 1hr ish talk to 16-18 yr olds on student finance (to put? https://t.co/dSsSp1UVDF

  • RT @thismorning: As a ban on rip-off bank fees is announced, @MartinSLewis explains if you can reclaim, and how to cut your overdraft costs?

  • Follow Martin