POPLA Decisions

This was a very good spot by Sophie Taylor:

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.

Thanks to everyone on the forum for their help and advice!

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They state that the operator had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act( PoFA) 2012. They say that in the case of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued in respect of a hire vehicle, in order to have the right to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, the creditor must: 1) as per POFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 14(2)(a), the creditor must have given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper and the operator did not provide a notice to hirer. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge • They say that they were not allowed a Grace Period. • The appellant states that the entrance signs are 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. • They advise that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. and the vehicle Images contained in PCN are non- compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. • They say that the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate and the signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras. The appellant has provided a PDF document detailing their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states; ”Charges apply at all times”, ”Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice”. The operator has provided evidence to show the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 17:53 and exiting the site at 22:13 on the day of the incident. The operator has provided evidence which shows that a payment of £5.50 was made on the day in question. The appellant states that the operator had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 regarding a hired vehicle. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), it states that liability for unpaid parking charges can be transferred from the registered keeper to the registered hirer if “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper”. The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I cannot confirm that PoFA 2012 has been complied with. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Hello everyone, first off thank you greatly Coupon-Mad for your help you have supported me through the process seeing as I have never actually gotten a parking charge before so was unfamiliar with the whole process.

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Sarah-Jane Dolman

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the stay authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided these grounds of appeal:
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, the entrance sign is inadequately positioned and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself.
No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
No evidence of period parked – the NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The failure to comply with the data protections ‘ICO Code of practice’ applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) a serious BPA CoP breach.
Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. The appellant has provided additional evidence for the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant.
I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The signs state: “90 minutes maximum stay” and “If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged: £100”. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 01:27, and leaving at 03:27. They have remained in the car park for 1 hour 59 minutes.
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, the entrance sign is inadequately positioned and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. I am satisfied that the operator has provided reasonable opportunity for the motorist to read the terms and conditions before deciding to remain. It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms and conditions. I am also satisfied that the amount of the parking charge is clearly displayed on the signs.
No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a copy of their agreement with the land-owner. I am satisfied that at the time the motorist parked the contract was in place to allow the PCN to be issued, and that it was specific to the area the motorist parked.
No evidence of period parked – the NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. I am satisfied that the time noted on the PCN are the times the motorist entered and exited, and shows an accurate representation of the time spent in the car park. While all of the time in the car park may not have been spent parked, I am satisfied that the motorist was utilising the car park during this time.
The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. While I appreciate that the appellant states that the cameras are not accurate, they have not provided any evidence to show they are not. I am satisfied that the images and information provided by the ANPR is accurate.
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The operator has provided a copy of the signs and it confirms on the sign what the ANPR data will be used for.
The failure to comply with the data protections ‘ICO Code of practice’ applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate) a serious BPA CoP breach. It is not for POPLA to be assessing the operator’s compliance of the Information Commissioner’s Office’s Code of Practice. This is something they will have to raise separately with the ICO.
Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance. I am satisfied that the images provided by the operator show that it the appellant’s vehicle. No evidence has been provided to show that it is not.
I note in the additional comments provided to the operator’s evidence, they have raised a point regarding the night time signs. While I appreciate this, the appellant has provided photos of the signs in the car park and I am satisfied that the images shown during the day by the operator are the signs and terms in the car park at the time the motorist entered the car park. I am also satisfied from the evidence provided by the appellant that the signs were adequately lit.
After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has not remained in the car park for longer than the maximum time allowed. As they have exceeded the stay authorised or without authorisation, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Hello, it is not my typo, that is copy paste from POPLA word for word and that confused me too when I saw it but apparently cant appeal POPLA anyway so what can I really do?.

They provided a 2010 contract and the below 2016 letter to confirm that the contract is still in existence, I pointed out that the letter is 3 years old but that was disregarded by the operator.

Operator seems to have sided with MET heavily and ignored even the fact that there was a discrepancy in the photographs which MET provided of their signage LOL. They provided different nighttime and day time signage, the night time signage did not show a penalty charge of £100 visible on it anywhere yet the operator decided to go with the daytime signage and say that she is confident that the signage was the daytime one on the time of my entry even though I was in the car park in the middle of the night just because the daytime signage had clear visible font of £100.

What an absolute joke

ttp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=64281

Yep - you can ignore MET.