POPLA Decisions

I was unsuccessful vs ECP at Gatwick Airport. Spitting wasps...:wall:

Honestly, I don't feel the assessor addressed my key challenge that the entrance sign was located in a box yellow no parking area, that the vehicle was not in the segregated car parks which were closed off, not that there were no signs in the actual forecourt or between the forecourt and the shop. Here's the map ECP provided:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17jKr_ykN6fPSmj_rFRgJAy2uYYNqqAF4
(If anyone has a better place to host images then please advise?)

And the POPLA judgement was: "Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Also interested by their firm grasp of the law regarding ANPR: "While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, they have not provided any evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR."

So, guilty until proven innocent...

I also don't think they bothered to address a number of other challenges raised.

So, I guess I'm now onto ignore, or pay.

Full background here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74765135#post74765135

And my 2000 word rebuttal:

Refs below are ECP pages (P) & timestamps XX:YY:ZZ
Signs
Evidence dated xx/yy/zz is not proof of signage present on aa/bb/cc.
Map provided proves that no signs are visible from within the forecourt area where vehicle was located,nor between the forecourt & the shop (see vehicle in parking bay alongside shop in image 15:40:41 & 25:42:02 far left).No signs visible in 15:42:02.All operator signs are located away from forecourt & in the segregated parking areas,closed at time of visit.
P30 shows No Parking & hatchings before the forecourt.15:42:02 shows these hatchings are not present on the forecourt
P23,24,25,28,29,30:Text illegible
15:40:10:Unlit entrance sign,unreadable at night without camera flash, or on arrival considering direction of travel.Unclear if sign applies to traffic passing to right or left of the bollarded island-contrary to COP 18.2.Sign does not state fee.Disproportionately small compared to nearby Shell signs
P29 shows lit signs.These are located in the segregated car park (see 15:41:37) & were behind a closed barrier so irrelevant to this case.
Payment
P13:ECP state “all drivers are required to purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the duration of their stay.”ECP provided no means for the driver to pay. By definition driver was unable to outstay the period paid for
ANPR
P12 Images show a license plate and shadows of a car-nothing that proves where that image was taken (no background recognizable as the garage in question).
P13 Item 6 states “data produced”,indicating ECP HAVE BROKEN THE LAW through breach of GDPR & breached COP.
NAAS compliant proves equipment will reliably identify registrations.It is not evidence of accuracy of date/time system.ECP have failed to prove accuracy of estimated duration vehicle was on site.
Contract
ECP refuse to provide full contract & only show 1 Appendix.ECP have failed to prove landowner authority as key terms and information is missing (eg precise boundaries).All breaches of COP are in breach of contract.


POPLA DECISION
DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name: REDACTED
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a parking charge notice for exceeding the maximum stay permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, as follows; 1. The entrance signs are both inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself 2. BPA code of practice, non-compliance to guidelines 3. 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. 4. Land owner authority 5. Observation points 6. Grace period 7. No evidence of period parked 8. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will therefore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle, REGISTRATION. The terms and conditions of this site state: “Maximum stay 20 minutes, cameras in operation at all times”. Further, the terms state: “This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice. (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue)”. “Parking limited to 20 minutes”. The operator has issued a parking charge notice for exceeding the maximum stay permitted. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 22:18 and exiting at 23:06, which is a total stay of 43 minutes. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, as follows; 1. The entrance signs are both inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself 2. BPA code of practice, non-compliance to guidelines 3. 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. 4. Land owner authority 5. Observation points 6. Grace period 7. No evidence of period parked 8. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. I note that the appellant has questioned the signage at the site. As such, I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. In response, the operator has provided copies of its signage. It has also provided a site map. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states the following: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. Furthermore, 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.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The legal basis for the charge stems from the signage that the motorist has agreed to when parking their vehicle. By parking the vehicle on site, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions of the site. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. 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. The appellant says that there is no keeper liability as the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper as I have confirmed above, I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, I can only conclude that the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, which entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified. The appellant has also asked POPLA to consider landowner authority. The operator has provided confirmation of landowner authority signed on 10 April 2018, on behalf of the landowner Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd and the operator Euro Car Parks. The operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement at the Gatwick site. The confirmation of landowner authority includes instructions from Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd for the operator to pursue parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographs of its signage at the Gatwick site. I am of the opinion that had the landowner ended the agreement with the operator between 10 April 2018 and YY July 2018 (when the PCN was issued to the appellant) then the operator’s signage would not remain in place. I accept on review that based on the balance of probabilities, Euro Car Parks does have authority from the landowner to operate on the Gatwick site. The appellant questions the accuracy of the ANPR system, POPLA is evidence based service and I can only make an assessment on the evidence that has been provided. The operator has provided ANPR evidence in the form of time and date stamped photographs in order to demonstrate that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly. I am satisfied that the operator’s evidence proves that the appellant entered and remained on site for over 43 minutes which is an over stay of 23 minutes. The burden of proof therefore passes to the appellant to provide some evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of the ANPR evidence. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, they have not provided any evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR. I must therefore work on the basis that it is fully accurate. I must clarify that in an ANPR camera-controlled site such as this one, there is no requirement to show the vehicle parked, only the entry and exit time. As the appellant’s vehicle remained on site the driver of the vehicle was making use of the facilities provided by the operator regardless of whether the appellant considered the vehicle to have been parked for the full duration of stay. The appellant has raised grace period as part if his appeal. With regards to any grace period being permitted The BPA Code of Practice section 13.2 states; “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.” I am satisfied on review of the site map that 10 minutes is a more than reasonable grace period for this particular site. As the appellant remained on site for 13 minutes beyond this, I can only conclude that the parking charge has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Anyway, pushing these very poor assessors behind you, it's onwards to prove to the court your case.

Not that likely at the moment, but they do have 6 years to try.

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

Ignore anything you get now unless you do get court papers.

And the one court case was probably not even a driver, as ECP do not sue people over PCNs!

Because of that, it was almost certainly a business v business claim, like ECP suing their paper-clip supplier or something!

Hi folks, i have successfully seen off 2 previous parking tickets using the wonderful advice provided by this forum, many thanks for all your very valuable contributions. This latest ticket however has recently been rejected by Popla despite a robust defence i felt in relation to grace periods specifically.

Verification Code
606226XXXX

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
EilXXn IoaXXou

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
Within their appeal the appellant has identified themselves as the Registered keeper of the vehicle. They state that the driver has not been identified. The appellant has relied upon the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice stating that the operator has breached the following areas. They state that grace period at the site was not adhered to, from that the operator does not have the authority to purchase charges from the landowner. Staying with he BPA Code of Practice the appellant says that the signage is not compliant at the site as it is not prominent enough. On the date of the event the appellant says that a PCN was issued as the vehicle remained at the site for longer than permit, 14 minutes was quoted. The appellant supplied evidence of the signage at the site with their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle who maintains throughout their appeal to POPLA that they were not the driver. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper which I reviewed against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the keeper is liable for the charge. POPLA is an evidence based service, the decision reached is based on the evidence and information supplied by both parties. Firstly, in order to establish if the contravention occurred I must consider the evidence from the parking operator that suggests the contract offered was breached. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of the contract offered. From the evidence supplied by the parking operator I can see that the signage states, “Parking Tariffs, Up to 3 hours £3.00”. “Please enter full, correct registration into the payment machine when purchasing a ticket” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. In addition to this the operator offers a paybyphone facility along with the option to pay for additional parking prior to leaving the site. I can see that each of the signs offers a helpline number for motorists to call for assistance. The operator has supplied a copy of a site map; from this I am able to determine the position of the signage from the entrance and throughout. The entrance to the site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The ANPR cameras record the duration of a motorists stay from the point of entry to the point of exit. To establish a breach the vehicle registration details are matched against the data produced by the ANPR system. Any breaches identified at the site will result in the issuance of a PCN. In this case I can see that the ANPR cameras have captured vehicle registration, XXXX XXXX. The entry time was recorded as 10:05 with an exit time recorded as 12:20. The total stay for this visit was two hours and 14 minutes. In this case and based on the evidence supplied by the parking operator, I can see that the operator issued a PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. From the operator’s evidence I can see that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event as the appellant remained at the site for a period of 14 minutes beyond the time that they had paid for. After reviewing the evidence supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that an offer of a contract was made between the parking operator and the motorist. I will now turn my attention to the appellant and assess their grounds of appeal to establish if there is sufficient information to dispute the validity of the PCN issued by the operator. Within their appeal the appellant has identified themselves as the Registered keeper of the vehicle. They state that the driver has not been identified. The appellant has relied upon the BPA Code of Practice stating that the operator has breached the following areas. They state that grace period at the site was not adhered to, from that the operator does not have the authority to purchase charges from the landowner. Staying with the BPA Code of Practice the appellant says that the signage is not compliant at the site as it is not prominent enough. On the date of the event the appellant says that a PCN was issued as the vehicle remained at the site for longer than permit, 14 minutes was quoted. The appellant supplied evidence of the signage at the site with their appeal. 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 BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims, that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The evidence supplied by the parking operator clearly identifies that a contract is in place and that it was valid at the time that the charge was issued to the appellant. As such, I am satisfied that the minimum requirements have been met by the parking operator. The appellant says that the parking operator did not adhere to the grace period offered at the site. Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice refers to grace periods on private land. A grace period allows a motorist to enter a site and leave, or to enter a site read the terms and conditions and exit if they feel the terms and conditions could not be complied with. However, if a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and the motorist must only decide not to park, and take no other action, whilst at the site. From the evidence given I can see that the appellant purchased their ticket within two minutes of arrival. However, it took 12 minutes to exit the site after the paid ticket had expired. As the appellant has not given a reason for the delay in leaving this site it is not possible to assess if the time at the end of the contract was used correctly. Additionally, as the operator offers an option to buy additional time prior to leaving this was an option for the appellant to consider. Within their appeal the appellant has questioned the signage at the site. 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 the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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”. Having reviewed the signage I am satisfied that it meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. When entering a private car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions and comply with them. If, for whatever reason, the motorist does not feel that they can meet the terms and conditions offered or feels that more suitable parking can be found elsewhere, there would be sufficient time to leave the site prior to entering a contract with the parking operator. By remaining and parking the motorist has implied their acceptance of the contract offered in the signage advertised. Based on the information and evidence presented to me, I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must pay for their parking with additional payments being accepted for any unplanned time at the site. It is my conclusion that the appellant breached the terms and conditions offered and that the PCN was issued correctly. For the time that the vehicle remained at the site a payment of £3 was required. As such, I must refuse this appeal.

grrrrrrrr..

will check on the google location aspect but i do doubt it to be honest. It was the grange road Darlington site, landowner F Peter Robinson Limited

the landowner permission is in the form of a witness statement, signed 10th august 2018, for a 9th feb - 9th august period. the event was on the 20th July. I missed this, may have been relevant to point out at the Popla stage before decision? there is no detail on this witness statement regarding grace or observation periods.

i had pointed out in my defence the combination observation and grace period BPA context, which seems to have been ignored but for me provided a decent defence:

If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. 13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read " observe the signage terms, before paying.
Upon receiving the Parking Charge, the document described the vehicle as merely entering the car park at 10.05.55 and merely leaving at 12.20.00. The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period.

The BPA’s guidance defines the grace period as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

To briefly summarise his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and park.

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the permitted paid period by only 14 minutes in total, containing a period prior to making payment (finding a bay to park, check the vehicle was parked correctly, secured correctly and then to find a pay machine, read the instructions, enter a registration number on the machine, find the means of payment and make said payment, read any available signage; which I also believe to be unclear as there is on site a combination of inadequately positioned notices and illegible small print) and a period after the paid parking period had ended (to get in the car, carry out any safety checks on the vehicle and then navigate around, make way for other vehicles and leave the car park safely).

By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable and are well within the MINIMUM of both grace periods added together. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 12/13/14 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

Again, it is undeniably clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park following the “alleged” contracted period.


should i start a new thread with this or wait for any further action?
cheers again for your formidable assistance guys.