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 149
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 26th Feb 18, 1:05 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Popla complaint
    Will someone be so kind to comment on this before i send. Thanks.

    Dear Mr Gallagher,
    I am writing to complain about the handling of my case xxxxx.
    There has been a procedural error which is highlighted in the assessors comments which state “In assessing this appeal I have considered the evidence provided by the operator to be true as the appellant has failed to rebut their claims”
    I did rebut the operators claims as on the whole it was contradictory and irrelevant to the issue of the PCN in question.This was posted on the Portal on 11/2/18 and was shown to have been received.
    Why has this not been taken into account?
    Furthermore I believe decisions are based on factual evidence presented by both parties and application of the BPA Code of Practice and relevant law and are not open to interpretation by an assessor.
    Because of the above my case has been compromised and has not allowed a factual and impartial assessment.
    Thank you for your time
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 26th Feb 18, 1:09 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    Pdmum, why have you posted that here?
    I read it elsewhere earlier today.
    .
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 26th Feb 18, 1:44 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Sorry, wasnt sure where it would be relevant so posted on both.
    • FredaGrey
    • By FredaGrey 27th Feb 18, 2:18 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    FredaGrey
    Appeal vs Euro Car Parks invoice for £90 for alleged overstay in free car park: DecisionSuccessful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to ;Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has provided a nine-page document listing the grounds for appeal in this case, which I have summarised as follows. The appellant states that: The operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and so they cannot be held liable as the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has not provided evidence of its authority to issue PCNs on the land. !!!8226; The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces and she feels that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The signs do not warn motorists that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are in use, nor what the data captured will be used for. She queries the reliability of the ANPR cameras. The operator has not provided a grace period. The appellant has provided evidence of a sign.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has queried the operators authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association 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 provided evidence of an authorisation instruction. However, reviewing this document I am not satisfied it is sufficient to show the operator has authority to issue PCNs as it does not give me the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. As I cannot ascertain that the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the land, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. 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.
    Last edited by FredaGrey; 27-02-2018 at 2:21 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Feb 18, 3:48 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    Well done FredaGrey.

    For anyone interested, here is a link to her thread to show how she did it with very little direct help from forum members:

    .
    • MouseTrap
    • By MouseTrap 27th Feb 18, 5:47 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    MouseTrap
    Hey Coupon Mad - just a heads up that there's a load of weird typos in your "NTK never served" template - repetition of "!!!8217" within the text.

    I thought it's worth pointing out because obviously a lot of people copy/paste this text into their appeals and some people might not notice these typos in time to take them out!

    Cheers
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 27th Feb 18, 5:52 PM
    • 7,556 Posts
    • 10,060 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Hey Coupon Mad - just a heads up that there's a load of weird typos in your "NTK never served" template - repetition of "!!!8217" within the text.

    I thought it's worth pointing out because obviously a lot of people copy/paste this text into their appeals and some people might not notice these typos in time to take them out!

    Cheers
    Originally posted by MouseTrap
    The problem is the site that does not understand some devices/progammes
    Hope MSE can sort it soon
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Insamniac
    • By Insamniac 28th Feb 18, 1:47 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Insamniac
    Hi
    In the popla template for "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" it says this "always underneath any point #1 which alleges 'no keeper liability' for whatever reason (either non-compliant NTK, no NTK at all, a 'driver only PCN' like CEL ones, or byelaws ones - or even an appellant who lives in NI or Scotland who parked in England/Wales)."

    abit confused with the #1 part what part is this meant to be?

    this is regarding a NCP charge in a retail car park, do i need to do a popla appeal with more than one areas of complaint IE about signs and chasing the registered keeper? or just choose one and go down that route,

    NCP didnt give me pictures that i requested and the pitures on the original pcn only hsow car entering and leaving..

    sorry if this has been answered before

    Regards
    Last edited by Insamniac; 28-02-2018 at 1:51 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 28th Feb 18, 1:58 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    sorry if this has been answered before
    Originally posted by Insamniac
    Yes it has been answered before. Many times.

    Your best starting point is the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    If you have further questions then please start your own thread.
    This thread is for people to post PoPLA appeal decisions and your query isn't one of those.

    Please no further responses on this thread, but start your own thread if necessary. Thanks.
    .
    • fatbeetle
    • By fatbeetle 28th Feb 18, 4:33 PM
    • 400 Posts
    • 742 Thanks
    fatbeetle
    https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/motorist-reveals-how-beat-parking-1276432
    Just in case this was missed.
    “If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and who weren't so lazy.”
    • m00se
    • By m00se 28th Feb 18, 7:34 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    m00se
    Operator Name Local Parking Security
    Operator Case Summary
    We advise that the car park at Bath Road Premier Inn operates on an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system therefore the camera will pick up your vehicle registration entering and exiting the car park. Before exiting the car park, you need to visit the pay station located in the Premier Inn reception to pay for parking, You will need to enter your vehicle registration into the machine and this will inform you how long your vehicle has been parked for and how much payment is required for your stay. Payment is then made. Once you have visited the machine and made a payment, you can then exit the car park. The barriers operate automatically therefore will allow you to exit the car park, whether payment has been made or not. The appellant has stated in their appeal that they were unaware that the parking charges are additional to when making a booking at the Premier Inn, we can confirm that on the Bath Road Premier Inn website it is clearly states that !!!8216;Chargeable onsite parking, Pay and Display parking is available onsite at £10.00 per 24hours!!!8217;. This information has been attached and highlighted in pink. The signage located throughout the car park clearly informs all drivers/car park users that parking should be purchased upon exiting the car park, using the machine located in the Premier Inn reception all information required is clearly stated on the signage for appellants to see. As no payment for parking was made upon leaving the car park, the parking charge notice was correctly issued. It is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to read the signs and act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. By remaining on site, the appellant has agreed to comply with the terms or risk the incurrence of a PCN. The legal basis of the Parking Charge Notice is based on the contract entered by drivers who park on private land. The terms and conditions upon which the contract is based is clearly stated on all signage located throughout the car park. When parking on private land the motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions for parking in return for permission to park, it is the motorists responsibility to ensure they abide by any clearly displayed conditions for parking. The terms and conditions for parking including the parking charges applicable are clearly stated on the signs located throughout the car park. Local Parking Security Ltd are a fully approved member of the British Parking Association and as such abide by all current legislation and regulations with regards to parking on private land.

    POPLA assessment and decision
    23/02/2018

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor Name Gemma West
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that he stayed the Premier Inn prior to a two-week holiday in Canada. He explains that on booking it was noted that it was chargeable parking on site; however did not receive notification that he was required to make a payment. The appellant states the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He says that there is insufficient notice of the amount of the parking charge. Furthermore, he states the signage is not clear in the hours of darkness. The appellant has provided a photograph of the signage at the site within his submission to POPLA.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof rests with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. The British Parking Association Code of Practice section 18.3 states, !!!8220;Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your 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 their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; Furthermore section 19.3 states !!!8220;If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions!!!8221;. On review of the operator!!!8217;s evidence, I can see that payment is required at the site. However, the pictures of the signage at the site, do not state the amount of the parking charge. Furthermore, I cannot determine if the appellant entered an agreement whereby they agreed to £85. Therefore, I cannot conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must allow the appeal.
    • Marcel898
    • By Marcel898 7th Mar 18, 7:19 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Marcel898
    Popla appeal rejected - allocated parking
    Hi, I have received a PCN for parking in my allocated bay that comes with a rented property for having displayed a copy of my parking permit (original was stored at home).
    Charge £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)

    1, PPC: Premier Park issued PCN on 23/1/2018 and my appeal was instantly rejected by them.
    2, I have tried to cancel it with the property management but they kind of blag it, that they are waiting for Premier park and asking questions why there was only a copy of permit

    01/02/2018 PP reduced fine to £30 so I thought their case is weak and appealed to POPLA where they have to pay £27 to enter so I thought they`ll drop it.

    3, 02/02/2018 I raised an appeal to POPLA based on the successful stories here with a copy of tenancy agreement, but I guess my initial case was week.

    4, Popla Appeal
    I have received a parking charge notice from Premier Park (further PP) due to Parking Permit being invalid. The car was parked in my allocated space (bay 106). I contacted the Property Management Company (SDL Bigwood) who contacted PP and they didn`t cancel it for them. At the time PP issued the notice I had a copy of the permit on my windscreen. Original was took down as it was fading from the sun and I wanted to write down the number plate and bay number on it. If I did it on the original the tenants who would rent after me couldn`t use it.

    Premier Park countered:
    We enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage.
    The signage clearly states:
    !!!8226; Vehicles must fully display a valid permit in the windscreen area and park within a bay allocated to the permit.
    !!!8226; Vehicles displaying a green permit to park within the green lined bays.
    !!!8226; Vehicles displaying a yellow permit must park within a yellow lined bay.
    !!!8226; Only one vehicle may occupy a single bay at any time.
    !!!8226; No double parking within bays is permitted
    !!!8226; No parking is permitted outside of marked bays or in the roadways at any time. No exceptions.
    If you enter or park on this land contravening the above terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice.
    The vehicle was parked in a yellow lined bay but the permit on display in the windscreen of the vehicle was a photo-copy and therefore, the vehicle was not authorised to park.

    I have added:
    1, I am renting a property which comes with the allocated parking space (contract attached- not mentioning obligation to actually display the ticket).
    2, PP do not own the land, and I have not agreed to enter into any contract with them. It's not their land, and they have suffered no actual loss by myself parking in my own bay.

    PP countered:
    The Appellant has admitted that the permit on display was a photo-copy and therefore, an invalid permit.
    When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract 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, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park.
    However, if the Appellant felt for any reason, that he was not able to adhere to the terms and conditions, then he would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site
    The permit on display in the windscreen of the vehicle was a photo-copy and therefore invalid. Therefore, a Parking Charge Notice was issued.
    It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not.
    We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

    POPLA decision

    The terms and conditions of the site are, !!!8220;Vehicles must fully display a valid permit in the windscreen area, and park within a bay as allocated to the permit!!!8230; If you enter or park on this land contravening the above terms & conditions, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.00!!!8221;. The operator issued a PCN due to invalid permit. The operator has provided photographic images of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked at the site on the date of the parking event; the photographic images captured show the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked displaying a photocopied permit. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that they had a permit and that the vehicle was parked in the allocated space for the property they are renting. The appellant has advised that they had a copy of the permit on their windscreen as the original was fading from the sun. The appellant has advised that the operator does not own the land, and they have not suffered any loss. The appellant has provided a copy of their permit, tenancy agreement and email conversation in support of their appeal. The operator has provided a copy of a contract it holds, after reviewing the document I am satisfied that this complies with the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice guidelines and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on the land. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: !!!8220;!!!8230;the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices!!!8221;. As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are!!!8221;. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, !!!8220;You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. The Act then moved on to define !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows, 3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments and the reason for parking at the site in question. However, when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed based on the evidence provided by both parties. While I acknowledge the appellant has advised and provided evidence that they are a permit holder. This would not exempt the appellant from complying with the terms and conditions of the car park. If the appellant had concerns that their permit was fading the, appellant would have needed to arrange for a new permit to be issued. POPLA cannot allow an appeal where a parking contract was formed, and the motorist did not keep to the terms offered. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by displaying a photocopied permit the appellant parked without displaying a valid permit, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.


    Shall I ignore PP from now on, unless the court notice will be sent? Or is there something that can be done to fight greedy Premier parking?

    Many thanks,
    Marcel
    Last edited by Marcel898; 07-03-2018 at 7:39 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Mar 18, 7:20 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Shall I ignore PP from now on, unless the court notice will be sent?
    Yes, like everyone else does - search the forum for 'Premier Park POPLA lost'.
    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.

    • TattieHead
    • By TattieHead 7th Mar 18, 7:24 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    TattieHead
    Operator Information and Evidence
    Submitted 16/02/2018


    We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course

    Verification Code
    **********


    Operator Name
    Anchor Security Services

    Operator Case Summary

    Please find attached PDF for Care Parking response.



    POPLA assessment and decision
    02/03/2018

    Verification Code
    **********


    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    L**** M*******

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator issued the charge for the contravention !!!8220;Abused Patron Parking!!!8221;.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant!!!8217;s case is as follows: !!!8226; The appellant questions the witness evidence on which it bases its allegation: !!!8226; He states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) placed on the windscreen is invalid: !!!8226; He states that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the statutory wording: contained within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: !!!8226; He states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been liable for the charge: !!!8226; The appellant states that there is a lack of standing authority for the landowner: !!!8226; He states that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces: !!!8226; He states that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has included a 12 page document expanding on the above grounds for appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, !!!8220;2 Hour Max Stay. You must remain on site at all times your vehicle remains in this car park!!!8221;. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The PCN has been issued for !!!8220;Abused Patron Parking!!!8221;. In this case I would take this to mean that the driver has left the site and as such, has breached the terms and conditions. This being so, I would have expected the operator to provide me with proof that the driver did indeed leave the site. On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided a screenshot taken by the operative on site that states, !!!8220;2 females left the site going towards the shopping centre!!!8221;. This does not states that the females seen exiting the vehicle or were in anyway related to the vehicle in question, only that two random females were seen going towards the shopping centre. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant!!!8217;s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant!!!8217;s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Mar 18, 7:28 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Link to your thread, TattieHead:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5775111

    Love the 'two random females' in that decision, still making me chuckle!
    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.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 7th Mar 18, 7:47 PM
    • 7,556 Posts
    • 10,060 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I would imagine that Care (bear) parking has been
    following the jokers UKPC on here with their left site
    rubbish.

    Did they miss that UKPC are expert fakers and hide
    behind wheelie bins

    Next time Care Bear, try a bit of upskirt photography,
    you are in the right members club ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 8th Mar 18, 9:04 AM
    • 960 Posts
    • 748 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Link to your thread, TattieHead:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5775111

    Love the 'two random females' in that decision, still making me chuckle!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    So basically unless the parking scum have a continuous video of the driver getting out of the car and leaving the site they will lose every single time at POPLA...love it!!!


    Of course what POPLA should now do is issue a dictat that all 'leaving site' cases will automatically be lost unless they prove the driver left the site...but that's never going to happen!
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 8th Mar 18, 7:18 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    I've had success with a non pofa "golden ticket" with parking eye. Grateful to members who helped.

    A link to the post:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5755580&goto=newpost&utm_source=M SE_FS&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=06-Mar-18
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Mar 18, 7:33 PM
    • 7,556 Posts
    • 10,060 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I've had success with a non pofa "golden ticket" with parking eye. Grateful to members who helped.

    A link to the post:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5755580&goto=newpost&utm_source=M SE_FS&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=06-Mar-18
    Originally posted by Beckie1406


    And Parking Eye wonder why they are called COWBOYS
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • doubled1989
    • By doubled1989 11th Mar 18, 2:24 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    doubled1989
    Gah ANNOYING

    Lost Popla

    For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict guidelines set out in section 9 of the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012, therefore the liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. 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. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signage at the site states !!!8220;Maximum Stay 20 Minutes!!!8221;. The operator offers a facility to pay additional time prior to leaving the site. The operator offers a facility to pay for parking using the paybyphone system, failing this there is a helpline number to call for assistance. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The appellant!!!8217;s vehicle registration, YY54 MVD, was captured entering the site at 11:02 and exiting at 11:40. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 37 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant for exceeding the maximum stay. The appellant has stated that they are the registered keep of the vehicle. They state that the parking operator has not shown that the individual it is pursing is the driver who may have been liable for the charge. They state that no presumption can be made about liability in this case and the appellant reserves the right not to name the driver. They state that the signage is not prominent and is obscured; therefore inappropriate, illegible and confusing. They state that the charge amount is not clear and the text is too small. In addition the appellant states that there is no contract with the landowner. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The appellant has highlighted that they feel that the charge amount is not sufficient on the signage or that the signage itself is prominent causing an excess of charge. 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are!!!8221;. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: !!!8220;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!!!8230;Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. POFA 2012 defines !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows: !!!8220;(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land!!!8221;. Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states !!!8220;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!!!8221;. Within the contract supplied I can see that the contract with the landowner commenced on 28 February, 2017. It further states that the agreement is in place until terminated in accordance with the provisions given. For the purposes of this contract the termination provision is three months in writing by either party. The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. The photographic evidence provided by the appellant supports that given by the parking operator. Overall, I am satisfied that there is sufficient signage to alert motorists to seek out terms prior to parking. If a motorist is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or feels that the terms and conditions cannot be complied with, there would be sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.
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

595Posts Today

5,741Users online

Martin's Twitter