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, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 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 MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 144
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 9th Jan 18, 12:49 PM
    • 2,654 Posts
    • 3,334 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    Jed57 ... I am glad to see that you are getting advice from some of the most informed in the country ...
    do the research they suggested and come back for further help if needed ...

    It would help the forum and yourself if you started a new thread when doing so ...

    if you follow this link to the main start / landing page

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163http://

    you will see the new thread button .......

    it will help keep all your details in one thread ... this one is for reporting POPLA results .... and as such would tend to bury your postings ...

    hope that explains things ...

    and good luck from me ...

    Ralph
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Jan 18, 1:41 PM
    • 9,493 Posts
    • 9,252 Thanks
    The Deep
    How about getting the Daily Mail interested, they love this sort of thing.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Jed57
    • By Jed57 9th Jan 18, 1:48 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Jed57
    Re: Eurocarparks and POPLA
    Ralph - many thanks for the tips and info - I'm new to all this!
    • NorwichCommuter
    • By NorwichCommuter 10th Jan 18, 4:41 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    NorwichCommuter
    Initial Thread
    hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5757183&highlight=ncp

    Decision
    Successful Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Safoora Sagheer

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments detected.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the dash app failed to process his booking correctly on two occasions. He was informed by the website that both the bookings had gone through successfully. He understood and believed he complied with NCP’s requirement to pay for parking, upon examination of the booking it stated it had been made for four hours parking time. The issue was reported to Dash by email, he received a response advising that the bookings were erroneous and the money will be refunded to him. He says the text on the sign was small and it was dark when he arrived on site. The appellant has provided evidence of the payments made.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions at the site state “For the avoidance of doubt, if you choose to pay the parking tariff by using the pay by mobile service, the payment must be made at the time of parking your vehicle in the car park and in any event, before you leave you’re your vehicle in the car park.” There are signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. There is helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant as the appellant parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments detected. The appellant states the dash app failed to process his booking correctly on two occasions. He was informed by the website that both the bookings had gone through successfully. He understood and believed he complied with NCP’s requirement to pay for parking, upon examination of the booking it stated it had been made for four hours parking time. The issue was reported to Dash by email, he received a response advising that the bookings were erroneous and the money will be refunded to him. He says the text on the sign was small and it was dark when he arrived on site. The appellant has provided evidence of the payments made. I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. I further note that the appellant was a genuine visitor to the site on the date of the event. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant states he experienced some faults using the Dash app to purchase parking, however, the operator has provided evidence that there was no valid payment made at the time the parking attendant issued a PCN. The onus is on the appellant to ensure a valid payment is made before leaving the vehicle parked. The appellant also had the opportunity to make a payment using the payment machine, therefore, the appellant could have purchased a valid payment if he was having an issue with the Dash app. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 18.3 “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. 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.” Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage advertised at the car park. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By remaining parked the appellant has accepted the terms and conditions offered but failed to adhere to them. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.


    My View
    POPLA has completely ignored the fact that I was informed by the Dash booking system that my booking was successful and that I left my car in the car park believing that I had paid correctly. Any errors in this case were the fault of NCP's payment partner Dash. Not sure how much more of an open and shut case there could have been as they were presented with evidence that they seem to have accepted but then ignored. Almost as if they are in bed with the PPCs.
    Let's see what an impartial person thinks if this ever gets to court.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Jan 18, 4:57 PM
    • 7,539 Posts
    • 10,033 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thus proving once again that POPLA don't live
    in the real world and use assessors who do not
    have a clue.

    POPLA is getting very close to the IPC/IAS scam
    Nearly a kangaroo court

    It's all becoming very "Mickey Mouse" stuff now
    Last edited by beamerguy; 10-01-2018 at 5:01 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Button_Moon
    • By Button_Moon 11th Jan 18, 8:01 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    Button_Moon
    Local Parking Security (LPS) in Straford Upon Avon

    DecisionSuccessful

    Assessor Name *** ***

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant states that a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served, the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking Spaces, there is no evidence of calibrated machinery and that they do not believe that the operator has authority from the landowner is issue PCNs on site.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    I note the appellant’s grounds of appeal in relation to this PCN. However, the operator has failed to provide any evidence for my consideration. Because of this, the operator has failed to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant’s grounds of appeal do not require any further consideration.

    forum link below:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5731266&page=3
    • hodplc
    • By hodplc 12th Jan 18, 4:03 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    hodplc
    Operator Name Smart Parking
    Operator Name Smart Parking

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameSafoora Sagheer
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to insufficient paid time.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the correct fee was paid and a ticket was displayed in the vehicle. He states while entering the vehicle registration, his wife got confused and entered the second bit of the registration incorrectly. The appellant has provided a receipt of the ticket purchased.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, was captured entering the site at 4:42 and exiting at 5:00. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 18 minutes. The terms and conditions at the site state “Parking tariff applies 24 hours a day, Monday- Sunday. Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when sing the payment machine. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” There are signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. There is helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to insufficient paid time. The appellant states the correct fee was paid and a ticket was displayed in the vehicle. He states while entering the vehicle registration, his wife got confused and entered the second bit of the registration incorrectly. The appellant has provided a receipt of the ticket purchased. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event. I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. I further note that the appellant was a genuine visitor to the site on the date of the event. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant purchased parking time, however, this was under the vehicle registration “XXXX XXX” rather than the correct registration “XXXX XXX”. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage advertised at the car park. When assessing appeals we determine whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract offered. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. By remaining parked the appellant has accepted the terms and conditions offered but failed to adhere to them. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

    Why I am not happy
    I am not happy with the decision as it is clear that correct parking fees has been paid and it has been acknowledged both by the PCN issuer and the accessor, but accessor have still declined my appeal purely because an honest mistake was made while entering the registration.

    Seems like POPLA is just a rubber stamp and just validating the operator's decision. Can somebody tell me how to appeal against POPLA's decision or what happens if i dont pay the fine as I think any unbiased court will accept my appeal.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Jan 18, 4:58 PM
    • 36,801 Posts
    • 83,276 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Why I am not happy
    I am not happy with the decision as it is clear that correct parking fees has been paid and it has been acknowledged both by the PCN issuer and the accessor, but accessor have still declined my appeal purely because an honest mistake was made while entering the registration.

    Seems like POPLA is just a rubber stamp and just validating the operator's decision. Can somebody tell me how to appeal against POPLA's decision or what happens if i dont pay the fine as I think any unbiased court will accept my appeal.
    Originally posted by hodplc
    This is how the scammers make their money.

    Your next step is to ignore anything and everything now unless you get real court papers. If that happens, start back at the NEWBIES thread and learn how to beat this in court.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Jan 18, 6:00 PM
    • 9,493 Posts
    • 9,252 Thanks
    The Deep
    PoPLA think that this has damaged the PPC to the tune of £100. Judges usually take a different view.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jan 18, 6:13 PM
    • 7,539 Posts
    • 10,033 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The fly in the ointment at POPLA is ....
    Assessor Safoora Sagheer

    See post 2864 above, the same happened with NorwichCommuter

    It would appear this assessor is useless and needs to be
    retrained or explain how he/she reached such a ridiculous
    decision.

    Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19
    Sir Geg Knight is heading this one

    https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

    Another member on here contacted him with a complaint
    about POPLA and his reply was very positive.

    Sir Greg needs to know that POPLA appears to be acting
    on behalf of parking companies and that POPLA is not
    in the interests of the public
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Jamboross
    • By Jamboross 13th Jan 18, 2:54 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Jamboross
    POPLA appeal unsuccessful
    I have been sent a PCN by Smart Parking in Carlisle on Lowther Street. I was visiting as I stopped to grab a quick bite to eat at McDonalds as I was attanding a golf event through my work in Newcastle. I entered the car park and parked at the Iceland car park and paid a £1.00 at their machine which entitled me to an hours parking.
    I returned 35 minutes later and left through the only exit in that car park and unfortunately I had tidied out my car on my return to Scotland and threw out the ticket unbeknown to me that they would then send me a PCN. It quite clearly says "No Exit".
    I appealed the charge and it was thrown out by a Chris Markey who has also lied "saying that I arrived over an hour after" on the POPLA assessment and decision and never mentioned anything to do with the Iceland car park, machine nor my two witnesses in the car with me. This week I received a notice to pay £160 to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and it had an option to call and speak to someone if I didn't think I am liable for the charge. I sent an e-mail to say I'd call on Saturday (today), but low and behold their office is now closed despite saying they are open until 4pm and I have until the 19th of January to reply. Now I have sent them two e-mails the last one I have photographed. My wife doesn't want this to go to court, and I very much doubt it will as an independent adjudicator would surely listen to the two witnesses that I had and check the Iceland parking machine as well. Ticket or no ticket, I paid £1 in a car park within theirs, have two witnesses who saw me doing it and I am not paying another pound to a company who are a downright scam.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jan 18, 3:00 PM
    • 7,681 Posts
    • 7,393 Thanks
    KeithP
    Jamboross, the best advice for you can be found in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Have a read of that and if you still have questions then please start your own thread.

    You mention Scotland. There is a section in post #1 of that NEWBIES thread which discusses Scotland.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jan 18, 4:38 PM
    • 58,434 Posts
    • 71,936 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This week I received a notice to pay £160 to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and it had an option to call and speak to someone if I didn't think I am liable for the charge. I sent an e-mail to say I'd call on Saturday
    OMG slow down!

    This is nothing, don't compound your mistaken appeal stance, by making mistaken calls.

    NO-ONE take DRP letters seriously and NO-ONE PHONES THEM! Promise us you will put that phone away!!

    Your case and the other Smart one, hodplc, are both Smart Parking cases, which would have been an absolute 100% slam dunk WIN at POPLA, if you had just both come here first and used our templates.

    You have to try very hard to lose at POPLA v Smart (sorry but it's true). The way you appealed was doomed, because neither of you appealed as registered keeper, simply pointing out that Smart Parking can't hold a keeper liable if they don't know who the driver was. So easy when you know how.

    Newbies need to learn from this, and not make your mistake.

    Having said that, no-one here pays Smart Parking. Read the NEWBIES thread post #4 about ignoring the debt letters and having a laugh about them.

    Wise up now, please, you and hodplc. Next time do it right!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Mir-kat
    • By Mir-kat 14th Jan 18, 5:03 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Mir-kat
    Parkingeye aire street Leeds, successful: grace period
    Link to thread

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5747313

    Decision Successful

    Assessor Name Jessica Lawton

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failure to make appropriate tariff payment.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
    Further the appellant details that the operator has not applied a grace period.
    The appellant states that the operator has no landowner authority and is therefore in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
    Further the appellant states that the signage on site is not prominent and the operator has made inappropriate use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    I have not been able to confirm the driver of the vehicle from the evidence and admissions provided by the appellant.

    When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.

    The terms and conditions of the site state, “Parking tariffs apply during the hours shown, 7 days a week… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

    It is evident that the operator is seeking to make use of keeper liability provisions as outlined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Therefore, I must consider whether the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant met the requirements laid out within this act.

    Having considered the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on 13 September 2017 does meet these requirements and this was sent within the “relevant period” outlined within PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) also. Therefore, 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 states that the operator has not provided an appropriate grace period as the driver only remained on site for an overstay of 12 minutes. For this reason, I have considered section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.” Further, section 13.2 details “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. 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.” Section 13.3 states “You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.” Further, section13.4 details “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.”

    In this instance, I find it important to review the times in which the driver entered the site, made payment and the time the driver left the site following this, in line with the information displayed on the site regarding when the time for parking begins. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 11.27am and exiting at 15.40pm, which is a total stay of 4 hours 12 minutes. From the point of entry, the driver made payment for 4 hours parking at 11.33am.

    Upon review of the signage, the terms do not explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period. I deem that 6 minutes after entering the car park a reasonable period. Therefore, 4 hours from the point of purchase is 15.33pm on the date of contravention. The exit time of the vehicle is 15.40pm some seven minutes from the point the paid parking expired.

    I am not satisfied that the operator has allowed the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before it took enforcement action and therefore I do not conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I will not review these in further detail.
    • darkwarrior
    • By darkwarrior 15th Jan 18, 6:03 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 80 Thanks
    darkwarrior
    I won my appeal against CareParking who manage a Metrolink car park in Oldham! Thanks for all the help everyone, especially Redx, Coupon-Mad, Umkomaas, and Keith P.

    Do we normally post our appeal docs here to help others or is it unnecessary?

    Here's the outcome anyway and a link to the original thread:

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameEileen Ioannou
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant but failed to supply evidence.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the notice to keeper was not issued in line with the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. As such, the appellant says that the operator has not shown who they are pursing as being liable for the charge. They state that the operator does not have the authority to issue PCNs at the site and that the signage is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
    Last edited by darkwarrior; 15-01-2018 at 6:20 PM.
    • Jo W123
    • By Jo W123 16th Jan 18, 4:46 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Jo W123
    I won my POPLA appeal against total parking solutions for "driver leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained on the premises". For those in a similar position looking for help please see a link to the thread and POPLA decision below. Thanks for all your help!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73726311#post73726311

    Decision: Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant vacated the site.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: !!!8226; The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant. !!!8226; She states there is no evidence the driver left the site. !!!8226; The appellant explains the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is the driver. !!!8226; The appellant has questioned the operator!!!8217;s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. !!!8226; She explains that the signage was not adequate and therefore no valid contract was formed.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state !!!8220;Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections are regularly carried out!!!8230;By failing to comply with the above terms of use you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £70!!!8221;. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant vacated the site. Within the appellant!!!8217;s response, she states the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has not provided Notice to Keeper; as such I cannot determine the operator has met the requirements of the PoFA 2012. . In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I must allow the appeal
    Last edited by Jo W123; 16-01-2018 at 5:07 PM.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Jan 18, 5:25 PM
    • 7,539 Posts
    • 10,033 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I won my POPLA appeal against total parking solutions for "driver leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained on the premises". For those in a similar position looking for help please see a link to the thread and POPLA decision below. Thanks for all your help!

    In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I must allow the appeal
    Originally posted by Jo W123
    Well done ...... the driver leaving site (Lo que un mont!n de mierda)
    they cannot prove ?
    Well these parking whallies could not
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • TheDoctor0124
    • By TheDoctor0124 16th Jan 18, 5:37 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheDoctor0124
    Should I mention the 14 days notice?
    Hi
    Should I use this for POPLA but also mention that my Notice to Keeper arrived on day 15 after the incident? I beleive that they need to send it within 14 days for the keeper to be liable?
    Thanks in advance!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jan 18, 6:18 PM
    • 58,434 Posts
    • 71,936 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A NTK arriving on day 15 is in time, if you are counting the event as day 1:

    The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 17th Jan 18, 8:52 AM
    • 182 Posts
    • 321 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Parkingeye Aire Street Leeds

    Decision Successful

    Assessor Name Jessica Lawton

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failure to make appropriate tariff payment.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
    Further the appellant details that the operator has not applied a grace period.
    The appellant states that the operator has no landowner authority and is therefore in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
    Further the appellant states that the signage on site is not prominent and the operator has made inappropriate use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    I have not been able to confirm the driver of the vehicle from the evidence and admissions provided by the appellant. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a Parking Charge Notice (PCN); it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case.
    The terms and conditions of the site state, “Parking tariffs apply during the hours shown, 7 days a week… Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

    It is evident that the operator is seeking to make use of keeper liability provisions as outlined within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Therefore, I must consider whether the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant met the requirements laid out within this act.

    Having considered the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on 13 September 2017 does meet these requirements and this was sent within the “relevant period” outlined within PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4) also. Therefore, 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 states that the operator has not provided an appropriate grace period as the driver only remained on site for an overstay of 12 minutes. For this reason, I have considered section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.” Further, section 13.2 details “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. 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.” Section 13.3 states “You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.” Further, section13.4 details “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.”

    In this instance, I find it important to review the times in which the driver entered the site, made payment and the time the driver left the site following this, in line with the information displayed on the site regarding when the time for parking begins. The operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 11.27am and exiting at 15.40pm, which is a total stay of 4 hours 12 minutes. From the point of entry, the driver made payment for 4 hours parking at 11.33am.

    Upon review of the signage, the terms do not explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry. As such, I must assume that the parking session begins upon payment, if this is done within a reasonable period. I deem that 6 minutes after entering the car park a reasonable period. Therefore, 4 hours from the point of purchase is 15.33pm on the date of contravention. The exit time of the vehicle is 15.40pm some seven minutes from the point the paid parking expired.

    I am not satisfied that the operator has allowed the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before it took enforcement action and therefore I do not conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I will not review these in further detail.
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5747313
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

229Posts Today

2,190Users online

Martin's Twitter