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 152
    • mick miller
    • By mick miller 16th Apr 18, 1:29 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    mick miller
    POPLA Appeal Successful

    POPLA assessment and decision: XX/XX/2018
    Verification Code: XXXXXXXXXXXX
    Decision: Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration XXXX XXX, parked and the driver left the premises.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant believes the operator has failed to adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, specifically in regards to when the operator issued the Notice to Keeper. He is questioning the operator's authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site. He states that the signage is not clear and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided a pdf document detailing his grounds of appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The terms and conditions state: 'Southgate Park' Standsted customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park'McDonald's is not in Southgate Park, 'If you wish to park here for McDonald's you must pay from when you enter the car park'and that 'If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge'. The operator's case file includes photographs of the signage at the site showing these terms. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle parking at the site and the driver then leaving the site on foot. 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: '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.'. 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: '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'. In addition to this, I note that within the 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 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows: '(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' 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 not sufficiently clear. As quoted above, the sign both forbids motorists to park here for McDonald's while also inviting motorists to park here for McDonald's. Therefore, the operator is offering contradictory terms. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.`
    Last edited by mick miller; 16-04-2018 at 1:36 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 4:59 PM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,938 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The terms and conditions state:

    'Southgate Park' Standsted customers only. Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park (McDonald's is not in Southgate Park). 'If you wish to park here for McDonald's you must pay from when you enter the car park' and that 'If you contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use you will be charged as follows: £100.00 Parking Charge'.

    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 not sufficiently clear.

    As quoted above, the sign both forbids motorists to park here for McDonald's while also inviting motorists to park here for McDonald's. Therefore, the operator is offering contradictory terms. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.
    LOL, good decision by POPLA about forbidding signs, that's a first!

    We must use this again about MET cases at Stansted McDonalds (I think there's a similar set up at Gatwick too).

    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.

    • nic66
    • By nic66 16th Apr 18, 11:24 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    nic66
    Successful POPLA appeal, Lease car, Euro Car Parks, Matalan
    original thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74171533#post74171533

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name:
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellants case is that the operator has not complied with the requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has advised that the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has advice that the signage fail to advise drivers of what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for, in breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that the photographs provided by the operator fail to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the hirer of the vehicle, as they have not been identified as the driver. Accordingly, the provisions laid out in PoFA 2012 will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states: The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that: the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Following from this, it states under Section 14 (2) that: The conditions are that: (a) 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.
    From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to the hire company, followed by a further notice to keeper to the hirer. I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it provided the relevant documents to the hirer. From the evidence provided to me, the operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with section 13 and section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. While I note the appellant has advised further grounds for appeal as I have allowed this appeal these require no further consideration.

    Thank you so much for your help with this, especially Coupon-Mad and Edna Basher's templates I would not have been able to begin to pursue this, never mind successfully appeal, without the fantastic support and advice found on this forum
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 11:29 PM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,938 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to the hire company, followed by a further notice to keeper to the hirer. I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it provided the relevant documents to the hirer.

    From the evidence provided to me, the operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with section 13 and section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.
    Perfect example of a winning POPLA appeal v ECP from a hirer/lessee, and just shows why not to name the driver!

    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.

    • ThrownOutTheAsylum
    • By ThrownOutTheAsylum 17th Apr 18, 1:28 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ThrownOutTheAsylum
    CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED AT GREENWICH CAR PARK

    DecisionSuccessful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant did not make a payment in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the parking contract was made null and void by the operator. He states that the motorist paid £2.50, however the payment machine only registered £2.00 on the ticket. The appellant states that parking costs £1 for 20 minutes and £2.50 for an hour. Therefore, he believes that the motorist should have been given 40 minutes of parking time. The appellant adds that the payment machine also did not accept the correct vehicle registration number. The appellant states that there is no keeper liability as the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the signage is improperly and inadequately displayed. The appellant has disputed the accuracy and reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. He states that the signage does not clearly state what the ANPR footage will be issued for. The appellant states that the operator has not provided any evidence that it has any interest in the land, or the authority to pursue charges. The appellant states that the sum is extravagant, unconscionable and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has provided a photograph of the parking ticket to support his appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. 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 not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. While I acknowledge the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park, it has not provided any evidence of the landowner authority. As such, I am unable to establish whether the operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) for this car park. Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must allow this appeal.
    Last edited by ThrownOutTheAsylum; 17-04-2018 at 1:31 PM. Reason: Added title
    • stevem365
    • By stevem365 18th Apr 18, 1:46 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    stevem365
    POPLA Appeals Pedantry
    "Assessor supporting rational for decision"

    I had a successful appeal but this bit just sets me twitching. Just one little 'e' does the trick
    • Chris Oliver
    • By Chris Oliver 18th Apr 18, 3:41 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Chris Oliver
    Thank You MSE Success with PTL
    Thank you to MSE Forum and also all the contributions.
    The "ticket" relates to a private residential block where my mother-in-law lives. he owns the lease. My wife and I dropped her off. She is 99yrs old and although she lives independently, she's a little slow!!! Anyway, we parked outside, not in a bay, displayed the daft "permit", helped mum in and 15mns later came out to find a ticket. Thanks to the Forum and contributions we appealed on various grounds
    - Mum owns a lease. The rights of the lease trumps a daft "permit" scheme
    - HOME GAURD Services Ltd - "loading not parked"
    - No Contract between PTL and Land Owner. We provided evidence of this.
    The parking company PTL predictably dismissed the appeal. Following advice from here we appealed to POPLA. They have granted the appeal. The decision, which looks to me to somewhat odd (??) is below.

    Many, many, many thanks again.
    Warm regards - Chris.

    Successful
    Assessor Name
    Louise Dack
    Assessor summary of operator case
    On 23 December 2017, vehicle SD65OTT was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist failing to display a valid permit.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the vehicle was not parked on the day of the contravention, however was on site due to being unloaded. They say that a permit was on display. The appellant says that the vehicle was situated outside and closely adjacent to the main entrance to the block of flat 39, where Mrs M Kochowiec owns the leasehold, but some distance from the kerb line. They say that they are the principle carers of Mrs Kochowiec, along with their wife and eldest daughter and on the day of the contravention Mrs Kochowiec was entering her premises needed assistance in doing so as she cannot walk unaided or indeed any distance. In addition, the appellant says that there has been no loss to the operator and they do not believe that that the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    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 PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Parking conditions apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions below will result in a £100 parking charge notice…Vehicles parked in this area must park in the correct marked bay and clearly display a valid P.T.L permit in the windscreen.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has failed to display a valid permit. The appellant states that the vehicle was not parked on the day of the contravention, however was on site due to being unloaded. They say that a permit was on display. The appellant says that the vehicle was situated outside and closely adjacent to the main entrance to the block of flat 39, where Mrs M Kochowiec owns the leasehold, but some distance from the kerb line. They say that they are the principle carers of Mrs Kochowiec, along with their wife and eldest daughter and on the day of the contravention Mrs Kochowiec was entering her premises needed assistance in doing so as she cannot walk unaided or indeed any distance. In addition, the appellant says that there has been no loss to the operator and they do not believe that that the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. The operator has provided a case file to rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal. Within this case file, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site. This evidence is poor quality and I have not received any clear evidence to show that the appellant has failed to display a valid permit. 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. As the operator has not provided insufficient evidence to POPLA of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site without a valid permit clearly on display, I cannot determine whether they have breached the terms and conditions of the car park.Therefore, I can only conclude that the parking charge was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.[/B]
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Apr 18, 7:18 PM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,938 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Within this case file, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked on site. This evidence is poor quality and I have not received any clear evidence to show that the appellant has failed to display a valid permit.
    Haha, in their rush to follow the money & issue a predatory ticket in minutes, no doubt having watched a disabled lady being helped to her flat, the PTL oik mucked up their blurry photos.



    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.

    • Chris Oliver
    • By Chris Oliver 18th Apr 18, 8:46 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Chris Oliver
    Ha, ha, you're probably very close to the truth there.
    Why do these "operators" pretend everything is okay when the appeal goes in to them. They must know they are bother?
    Based on the wonderful help posted here, we had a result. Anyone reading, please use the Forum and dont give up!
    Thanks again and again for all the help.
    • scamdodger
    • By scamdodger 25th Apr 18, 10:18 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    scamdodger
    POPLA complaint
    I am complaining to POPLA (see my thread 'Insufficient Signage?).
    Apart from writing to the email address info@popla.co.uk, is there any other name or email contact I can use?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 18, 10:21 PM
    • 56,325 Posts
    • 69,938 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, POPLA tell you in their FAQs on the website:

    If you have a complaint about the standard of service that we have provided, have any queries regarding the status of your appeal, or if you feel we have not considered the evidence you have provided, please email info@popla.co.uk and we will be in touch soon.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; Yesterday at 10:30 PM.
    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Apr 18, 10:23 PM
    • 17,336 Posts
    • 27,314 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I am complaining to POPLA (see my thread 'Insufficient Signage?).
    Apart from writing to the email address info@popla.co.uk, is there any other name or email contact I can use?
    Originally posted by scamdodger
    This is a 'POPLA Decisions' thread, not a 'POPLA Complaints' thread. What's wrong with asking this on your own thread?

    This stuff gets no easier!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • scamdodger
    • By scamdodger 26th Apr 18, 7:11 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    scamdodger
    Apologies.
    I thought it appropriate to post here because I have had an unsuccessful POPLA decision (referenced my own thread) and I note from post #3003 that someone else is in a similar position regarding making a complaint.
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

1,107Posts Today

7,092Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Yes you would think in this electronic day and age. They could put digital ticket machines on trains https://t.co/RPo4XXvrwk

  • RT @Mattallwright: Martin: supplementary: Does she know which platform the train is on, or is it Paddington with five minutes notice to cov?

  • RT @KTMGordo: @MartinSLewis Imagine Jane is hungry and late for an urgent appointment & needs to buy a sandwich but the queue's huge. Is?

  • Follow Martin