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 153
    • CharlieJB
    • By CharlieJB 1st May 18, 7:34 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    CharlieJB
    Successful - PoFA 2012
    Decision
    Successful
    Assessor Name
    XXXXXXXXX
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the driver exceeded the paid for parking session.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the amount of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant does not believe that the operator has applied reasonable grace periods in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs at this site. The appellant has questioned the accuracy and reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a PDF document containing an expansion of his grounds for appeal, which he submitted to the operator. Additionally, the appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s rejection letter.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. From both the operator’s case file and the appellant’s narrative in his POPLA appeal, I can see that the registered keeper of the vehicle is <Lease company>. The operator has acknowledged that Mr XXX is the hirer of the vehicle. Paragraph 4 (1) of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) 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". As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of the relevant documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have had to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 1st May 18, 7:57 AM
    • 8,444 Posts
    • 11,111 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Good news CharlieJB

    Who is the parking company please
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st May 18, 11:34 AM
    • 61,558 Posts
    • 74,439 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5767911

    Euro Car Parks, after a Fleet Manager paid the thing. Full refund now due.

    Sounds like the OP was lucky; if they didn't use 'no hirer liability' (100% slam dunk winning appeal point) and instead went for 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' (doomed) the appeal wasn't one the forum would have suggested but luckily, POPLA do nowadays look for whether the driver was ID'd or not and consider liability first.
    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.

    • scamdodger
    • By scamdodger 4th May 18, 3:23 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    scamdodger
    POPLA challenged and unsuccessful appeal reversed.
    See the thread;

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5762395

    Basically, the POPLA assessor did not take into account all my challenges - especially Landowner Authority and Parking Eye did not provide evidence. The initial appeal was unsuccessful, but after complaining of a procedural error, the appeal was allowed.

    Letter received from POPLA - appeal allowed!!
    Despite the fact that the appeal portal has still not been updated, I have just received a letter from POPLA stating the Appeal is Allowed.

    This is great news and shows that I did the right thing to complain about a 'procedural error'.

    The salient part of the review said;
    "For me to be able to categorically state that the operator has the authority granted to it to enforce parking on this land, I would have expected to have been provided with a copy of a redacted contract or witness statement. Having viewed the operator's evidence pack it has not provided any evidence of either. As such I am unable to determine that on the date of the event that the operator was authorised to issue PCN's to motorists, and am unable to conclude that the parking charge has been issued correctly.....

    ....Accordingly the Appeal is Allowed."
    • SalomonAssassin
    • By SalomonAssassin 4th May 18, 4:55 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    SalomonAssassin
    Original Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5822906

    Decision: Not contested

    Summary: Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Many thanks to all who helped!
    • Cash-Cows
    • By Cash-Cows 6th May 18, 7:51 AM
    • 216 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    Cash-Cows
    ParkingEye, the Range, Milton Keynes

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameSteve Macallan
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration xxxx xxx remained at the car park for longer than authorised or without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant believes the operator has failed to adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states the signage is not clear. He is questioning the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site. He is also questioning the accuracy of the operator’s ANPR system. The appellant has provided: an annotated birds-eye image of the entrance; several photographs of the entrance area; photographs from within the car park; photographs of signs; photographs of a sign belonging to The Range; and a list of businesses.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions state: “2 hour max stay” and that “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 10:37 and departing at 13:04, remaining for a total of two hours and 27 minutes. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, under section 18.1 states: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. The appellant has provided photographic evidence of the presence of parking signs belonging to The Range which advise that vehicles may be clamped. This introduces confusion over who the parking contract is with. I would also note that the clamping of vehicles of private land is illegal in England and Wales. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of the BPA. 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th May 18, 2:47 PM
    • 61,558 Posts
    • 74,439 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I like this, sensible stuff from Steve MacAllan; some POPLA Assessors don't just copy & paste:
    The appellant has provided photographic evidence of the presence of parking signs belonging to The Range which advise that vehicles may be clamped. This introduces confusion over who the parking contract is with. I would also note that the clamping of vehicles of private land is illegal in England and Wales.
    And nice to see a win like that achieved without a thread needed on here chewing over minor details - nice work!
    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.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th May 18, 7:43 PM
    • 9,997 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    The Deep
    Is there any sanctions which cn be applied to the PPC?

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • incar999
    • By incar999 7th May 18, 10:35 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    incar999
    Successful appeal to POPLA...... non-illuminated signs in unlit carpark !

    I'm posting here to hopefully help anyone who is appealing to a PCN on the basis of non-illuminated signs in an unlit private car park. ( see thread for more details - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5786763#topofpage )

    In summary, I received 3 PCN's for parking without a ticket. I appealed on the basis that their signs were not illuminated and the car park is unlit during the hours of darkness. I appealed to Britannia with the standard template made available on these forums. Britannia rejected my appeal and provided me with 3 x POPLA codes.

    I then wrote my appeal in my own words and provided photographic evidence to support my appeal. This was sent to POPLA who communicated with Britannia.

    All 3 of my appeals have won as I have been informed by POPLA that Britannia do not wish to contest any of my appeals.

    The following link will take you to a copy of my appeal (personal info removed)...... I hope it helps anyone needing to appeal. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9wccq5zonz4whcp/redacted.pdf?dl=0

    Genuine thanks to all who offered helpful advice in my thread..... and to those who didn't...... "what goes around....usually comes around"
    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 8th May 18, 4:57 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Labinopper
    Hey guys, just to let you know I've had an uncontested win against ParkingEye for the Southampton Town Quay car park (Red Funnel Car Park) primarily based on relevant land / harbour byelaws.

    I did add abit about how I'd requested certain information (from the standard appeal template on the main thread and it was totally disregarded and I received an automated rejection letter) so I challenged the appeals process, pointed out that ParkingEye have the responcibility to provide evidence of signage and not me, that ParkingEye have cash meters which are presumably collected on a regular basis and that Due Dilligence would imply that Parking Eye maintain documentation that their signage is visible on a daily basis, or however frequently they empty their parking meters...

    Will post up my appeal if anyone wishes to use it. (Some may be old / irrelevant I left it until day 28 so had to rush something through so perhaps not what the experts here would have done)

    Appeal is at: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74260638#post74260638
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th May 18, 8:00 PM
    • 8,444 Posts
    • 11,111 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Hey guys, just to let you know I've had an uncontested win against ParkingEye for the Southampton Town Quay car park (Red Funnel Car Park) primarily based on relevant land / harbour byelaws.

    ]
    Originally posted by Labinopper
    GOODS NEWS

    I seem to recall that Parking Eye has tried this little trick
    before at the same site.

    So when they try it again, it can be put down as a
    Parking Eye SCAM
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th May 18, 8:02 PM
    • 19,400 Posts
    • 30,656 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hey guys, just to let you know I've had an uncontested win against ParkingEye for the Southampton Town Quay car park (Red Funnel Car Park) primarily based on relevant land / harbour byelaws.
    PE know they're stuffed on Keeper Liability here, but would be more than content to take the keeper's money if they were totally naive about PoFA - and the vast majority are - so they won't lose sleep over the few that rumble them. And that must be a premeditated strategy on their part.

    Well done on seeing through the ruse!
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 8th May 18, 9:30 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 59 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Operator Information and Evidence
    Submitted 19/04/2018
    POPLA assessment and decision
    08/05/2018
    Verification Code


    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameLauren Bailey
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant parked without making a payment.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that they did not park and the operator has not allowed the correct grace period. The appellant explained that the driver could not turn around easily due to the car park conditions. The appellant also stated that there was a queue entering and exiting the site. The appellant commented that the car park is unlit and has a bad road surface. The appellant said that there are no bay markings and there is graffiti on the signs. They also stated that there is a lack of disabled bays. The appellant said that there is no space for disabled passengers to exit vehicles due to vehicles being double parked. The appellant questioned if the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant stated that ANPR system is not accurate or reliable. The appellant said that the signs do not state how the operator uses the data collected by ANPR. The appellant provided evidence that they left the site and paid at an alternative car park. The appellant referred to the Parking Eye vs Beavis case. Further, the appellant has referred to clarity of the terms on the signs. They have also commented on the location of the sins within this car park.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has not named the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore need to consider if the operator met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has transferred liability correctly and met the requirements of PoFA 2012. The appellant stated that the operator has not complied Section 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which states: !!!8220;You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.!!!8221; Upon reviewing the evidence of the signage provided by the operator, I note it states !!!8220;car park monitored by ANPR systems!!!8221;. As such, I am satisfied that it is clear the data is used to monitor vehicle using this car park. I consider that it is clear the data is used to identify non-compliance with the terms and conditions at the site. The appellant has raised Section 21.2 of the BPA Code of Practice and questioned the reliability of the ANPR systems at this location. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to provide POPLA with any evidence to substantiate their claims that the vehicle did not remain in the car park for the length of time suggested by the ANPR cameras. I must therefore work on the basis that they were in working order on the date of the contravention. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the operator has not provided any evidence that the operator has the authority to issue parking charges. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that !!!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 authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site 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; The operator has provided POPLA with a signed contract dated 24 March 2016. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that signs have been in place at this location since 2015. The operator still has signs at this site and is also still using ANPR to detect non-compliance with the car park terms and conditions. On the balance of probability I am satisfied that the operator does in fact have the permission of the landowner to issue parking charges on this land. The appellant stated the operator has not allowed a grace period. They explained the conditions at this car park and stated this affected the driver leaving the site. Section 13.2 of The BPA Code of Practice that states: !!!8220;You should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; 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!!!8221;. However, the driver remained at the car park for 15 minutes without making a payment. I have considered the size of this car park and based on that, I believe that 15 minutes is in excess of a reasonable period to remain in this car park without making a payment. While I appreciate the appellant!!!8217;s comments about the car park conditions, I do not consider that it would take 15 minutes to park, attempt to read the signs then leave a car park of this size. The appellant commented on the clarity of the signs in this car park. The appellant said that are not clear and were covered in graffiti. The terms and conditions in place at this car park state !!!8220;parking tariffs apply!!!8230;weekday: Mon !!!8211; Fri, 8am !!!8211; 6pm!!!8230;overnight: Mon !!!8211; Sun, 6pm !!!8211; 8am!!!8221;. I will therefore consider the clarity of the signs at this car park. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states: !!!8220;In all cases, the driver!!!8217;s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.!!!8221; Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice continues to state: !!!8220;!!!8230;as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of!!!8221;. The operator has provided evidence of the entrance signs at the site. The entrance sign states: !!!8220;tariff payable at machine or by phone!!!8221;. I am satisfied this sign informed you that you were entering private land and were required to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Having considered this, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements set out above and is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. 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; I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I am satisfied that the signage installed by the parking operator is !!!8220;conspicuous!!!8221;, !!!8220;legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; Additionally, I can see that there are lighting posts around this car park. This would suggest that the car park is lit at night. As the appellant has not provided evidence to show otherwise, I am satisfied there is sufficient lighting in this car park. While I appreciate the appellant!!!8217;s comments that the signs have been defaced, they have not provided any evidence to support this. In any case, if the appellant could not read the terms they could have left the site in a more timely manner. The appellant referred to the Parking Eye vs Beavis case. I will therefore consider the prominence of the parking charge on the signs at this site. 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 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 could be expected of the parking operator 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 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the 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. As previously stated, I am satisfied that the signage at the car park is !!!8220;conspicuous!!!8221;, !!!8220;legible, and the parking charge amount of £100 is prominently displayed on the signs. 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. While the charge in this instance was £100, this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. I acknowledge the appellant!!!8217;s comments regarding the lack of disabled parking bays. However, the operator issued the parking charge as the appellant parked without making a payment. As a tariff applies to disabled motorists, where the appellant parked has no bearing on the outcome of the appeal. Fundamentally, it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. By parking your vehicle at the site, the driver of the vehicle is indicating an acceptance of the terms and conditions. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the appellant failed to meet these terms and conditions. I can only conclude the operator issued the parking charge correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 8th May 18, 9:31 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 59 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Sorry for the random letters i posted on a laptop so not sure why!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th May 18, 9:43 PM
    • 61,558 Posts
    • 74,439 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's a template, she didn't write it - they all end like that when people get a refusal.

    You need to start replying on your own thread; this one is only for the decision.
    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.

    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 8th May 18, 9:44 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 59 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Sorry i noticed i have tried to delete it several times and it doesnt seem to be going
    • zafiradad1980
    • By zafiradad1980 10th May 18, 12:12 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    zafiradad1980
    Thanks everyone.

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 5911088008.

    Parking Charge Limited have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.


    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team

    ET6116/001
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 11th May 18, 12:19 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    POPLA appeal rejected. Oh well it is only Britannia. Original thread accessible from my username.

    POPLA assessment and decision
    26//04//2018

    Verification Code
    XXXXXXXXXX
    Decision Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name S. S.

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant parked longer than the maximum
    time permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: Grace period. Entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs are not prominent are not clear. The signs fail to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. No evidence of period parked. Notice to keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. No evidence of landowner authority. No planning permission. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the parking charge, the initial rejection letter and photographs of the signage.

    Assessor supporting rational (sic) for decision
    In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

    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. The signs state !!!8220;Maximum Stay 2 Hours. THIS CAR PARK IS REGULARLY CONTROLLED BY MOBILE ENFORCEMENT TEAMS. £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: Exceed the maximum stay period.!!!8221;

    The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle entering the site at 17:19pm and exited the site at 19:36pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle remained on site for a total of two hour and 17 minutes. I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration XXXX XXX. Therefore, in this case I conclude that the charge was issued correctly.

    Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, !!!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;. After reviewing the operator!!!8217;s evidence, it has provided sufficient written authorisation of the landowner confirming it can operate on the land in question.

    Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states !!!8220;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!!!8221;. As the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period by 17 minutes, I do not consider this to be a reasonable grace period to exit the car park. Therefore, I will not be applying grace periods in this appeal.

    I note the appellant!!!8217;s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states !!!8220;By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems!!!8221;. Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states !!!8220;Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for!!!8221;. In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 !!!8220;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.!!!8221; Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs !!!8220;must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.!!!8221; 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 entrance signage is also clear and sufficient.

    The appellant also states that there is no planning permission from Southampton City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR camera and no advertising consent for signage. However, this would not be relevant to the appeal and would have no bearing to my decision. The onus is on the appellant to ensure they do not exceed the maximum stay period on site. 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. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    Last edited by LoneStarState; 12-09-2018 at 11:55 PM.
    • m149065
    • By m149065 22nd May 18, 12:35 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    m149065
    Success : 1410908501 Message from POPLA PTL:0029910

    appealed on various grounds but the winning part seems to be that Civil Enforcement have not proven an agreement with The Redwoods centre in Shrewsbury.

    Thanks for the advice MSE
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 24th May 18, 11:51 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    ECP - unsuccessful
    Absolutely astounded POPLA have rejected this appeal. Key point was on the darkness / no lighting so impossible to see signage - the appeal decision didn't even mention any of that. Do ECP still not doing court?

    Decision Rationale:

    When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator 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, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “…Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue pf a £100 parking charge notice…Purchase and display a valid ticket or permit clearly inside your windscreen…”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 21:14, and exiting at 23:13, totalling a stay of one hour and 59 minutes. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each ground as follows: They say the operator has no land owner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice states, “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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.” Further to this, section 7.3 states, “The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.” The operator has provided a witness statement and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The appellant states that there is no keeper liability. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant states that he operator is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. The British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate. I accept the appellant disputes the ANPR evidence provided by the operator, however as no evidence has been provided to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The images provided by the operator show the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the car park. The operator does not have to provide evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked. Further, these images are time and date stamped and I am satisfied that these images are compliant with the minimum standards as set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to display a valid pay and display ticket and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that 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

74Posts Today

3,187Users online

Martin's Twitter