I've just had a successful POPLA appeal against Serco thanks to the help on here. This is my thread ( I think!) https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5842199

And my POPLA decision :-

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAmy Butler
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant as raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows; !!!8226; The appellant states they are appealing as the registered keeper. !!!8226; The appellant states that the operator has not issued a notice to keeper. !!!8226; The appellant states the operator has not shown that the individual they are pursuing the driver. !!!8226; The appellant states the operator does not have the authority from the landowner. !!!8226; The appellant states the signs are not prominent, clear or legible.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a PCN the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the PCN that was issued to the appellant. In this case the operator has not done that. Therefore, I am unable to determine why the PCN was issued. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Furthermore, they are not fines

Thanks again to the regulars for the help over the past few PCNs...I would like to take this further with MBW if possible but glad to have won at POPLA for now.


Original Thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74569828





Decision
Successful


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant. The PCN was issued as the appellant did not clearly display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
He says that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the person being pursued by the operator is liable for the PCN.
The appellant advised that permission was already granted by the tenant and landowner. He states that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, in relation to grace periods.
The appellant states that the vehicle was observed for 10 minutes, which is not enough time for motorists to review the terms and conditions, or obtain anything from others vehicles if needed. The appellant says that no contract exists in a trespass case.
He advised that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the operator has the authority to issue PCNs on the site in question. The appellant states that the operator does not have legitimate interest in enforcing a charge.
He says that the Beavis Vs Parking Eye case is not relevant.
Furthermore, the appellant has made reference to a comment made by R Reeves POPLA team, which was made in September 2015.
The appellant advised that the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease. The appellant has made reference to the case Jopson V Home Guard Services.
He states that there was no contract due to inadequate signage. The appellant has requested to see a site map, and signage in the dark.
The appellant says that the operator has breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
He advised that the operator has breached the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.
The appellant has provided a copy of a tenancy agreement, images of the site in the dark, including images of the entrance of the site.
Furthermore, the appellant has provided a copy of the notice to keeper issued to him, and an image of a permit.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this instance, the operator issued the appellant with a PCN due to the appellant not clearly displaying a valid permit. Rebutting this, the appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence which demonstrates that the PCN was issued correctly.

I note that the operator in the case summary states: "Minster Baywatch have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle in instances where the driver is knowingly withheld, even in cases were PoFA 2012 is not applicable. Mr XX was informed of this within his Notice to Keeper letter. The Notice to Keeper Mr XXreceived gives no mention of PoFA for this reason".

I have reviewed the notice to keeper issued by the operator, and can see that within this document it states "You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have a right to recover any unpaid part of the Charge from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle". In this instance, I am satisfied that the operator has used PoFA 2012 in the notice to keeper. Section 9, paragraph 9(4)(b) states: ";The notice must be given by; sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."


Furthermore, Section 9, paragraph 9 (5) states: "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended";. In this instance, the date of the alleged parking contravention occurred on the 8XXXX 2018, and the notice to keeper was issued on the 7XXX7 2018.


The notice to keeper was assumed to be received on the XX 2018 however, should have been received by the XXXX 2018. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not issued under the correct timescales. If the operator continues to state that the notice to keeper was not issued under PoFA 2012 then, the driver has not been identified, and it is irrelevant that the registered keeper has chosen not to name the driver. In this instance, the operator continues to pursue the unknown driver. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal, I will not be taking these into account.

One way of making them spend a bit of money is to send them an LBC as they have wasted your time and may have used you personal data unlawfully.

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rl#i

Yiu do not have to follow through, (I rarely do) but the threat of being taken to court invariably results in them consulting a lawyer, kerching!

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Ashlea Forshaw
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a parking charge notice to the motorist for ‘Parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge’.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says that on this date, she parked in a bay which was marked in orange for disabled. She states that later in the month she received a parking notice request for payment because they stated that she had parked inappropriately or dangerously. The appellant says that this was not the case, she had parked properly and safely in that bay using it for the specific purposes it was made for. She states that she parked there so that her disabled husband could actually get out of the car to be able to come into the shop with her, he would not have been able to get out of the car in a normal parking space. The appellant has said that her husband suffered a stroke on the 9 February 2018 which resulted in a brain bleed and a subsequent mini stroke a month and half later which caused him to be admitted to hospital for a further five days in April. She states that he now has vision impairment and lost half of his eye sight in the right eye and peripheral sight towards the right, in his left eye. The appellant says that the signage for the parking was not visible from the area that she parked in. she states that on the sign it states blue badge holders may park in the disabled blue badge parking areas. She says that since the disabled bay does not state if it is a blue badge disabled parking bay or a disabled parking bay for disabled people, she parked in that bay. She states that to be discriminated against is against the law as being disabled is one of the nine characteristics that is protected by law. The appellant says that anyone is at risk of becoming disabled, however not everyone can get a blue badge as soon as they become disabled as it takes time to get assessments from the doctors. The appellant has provided evidence to POPLA of the signage, a receipt, a photograph of the parking bay and evidence of a transfer of care form for her husband.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states, “Maximum stay 3 hours, no return within 2 hours, Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. A blue badge must be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions apply”. Additionally, it states, “If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The car park is patrolled by a parking attendant. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in this car park, on the date of the event. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for ‘Parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge’. The appellant has said in her grounds for appeal that on this date, she parked in a bay which was marked in orange for disabled. She states that later in the month she received a parking notice request for payment because they stated that she had parked inappropriately or dangerously. The appellant says that this was not the case, she had parked properly and safely in that bay using it for the specific purposes it was made for. She states that she parked there so that her disabled husband could actually get out of the car to be able to come into the shop with her, he would not have been able to get out of the car in a normal parking space. The appellant has said that her husband suffered a stroke on the 9 February 2018 which resulted in a brain bleed and a subsequent mini stroke a month and half later which caused him to be admitted to hospital for a further five days in April. She states that he now has vision impairment and lost half of his eye sight in the right eye and peripheral sight towards the right, in his left eye. The appellant says that the signage for the parking was not visible from the area that she parked in. she states that on the sign it states blue badge holders may park in the disabled blue badge parking areas. She says that since the disabled bay does not state if it is a blue badge disabled parking bay or a disabled parking bay for disabled people, she parked in that bay. She states that to be discriminated against is against the law as being disabled is one of the nine characteristics that is protected by law. The appellant says that anyone is at risk of becoming disabled, however not everyone can get a blue badge as soon as they become disabled as it takes time to get assessments from the doctors. 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 evidence of the signage displayed at the site, along with a site map. Having assessed this evidence, I am satisfied that there are numerous terms and conditions displayed throughout the site, including at the entrance and therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant was given the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The signage clearly states: ‘Blue badge holders only in
marked blue badge bays. A blue badge must be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions apply’. Within Section 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states: “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised”. The parking attendant has taken photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked. Having assessed this evidence, I am satisfied that the attendant has carried out a full visual inspection on the vehicle and has proven from the photographs that the appellant has parked her vehicle in a disabled bay and has not displayed a blue badge. Therefore, the appellant was not authorised to park in this bay. I note that the appellant has provided evidence to POPLA of a transfer of care form for her husband and states that he has been in hospital and has suffered a stroke recently which resulted in a brain bleed. She has also said that he now has vision impairment and lost half of his eye sight in the right eye and peripheral sight towards the right, in his left eye. Whilst I can only understand and sympathise with the appellant regarding her husband’s health, when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to those conditions. I note that the appellant feels that her husband has been discriminated. However, when the operator has issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant’s husband was disabled. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability. The operator has issued the PCN for parking in a disabled bay and not displaying a blue badge. As such, the attendant was not aware that the appellant’s husband had a disability due to the appellant not being in possession of a blue badge. I do not consider the operator to have discriminated the appellant. If the appellant has requested a blue badge or needs to apply for a blue badge, it is her responsibility to contact the relevant authorities to discuss this. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess the terms and conditions of the car park and to determine if the appellant did indeed comply with those terms. As the appellant has parked in a disabled bay and has not displayed a blue badge, nor has she provided evidence to POPLA that she is in possession of a blue badge, I am satisfied that she was not entitled to park in this disabled parking bay. If you wish to park in a disabled parking bay, you must be in possession of a blue badge. As such, I conclude that this PCN has been issued correctly.

Thanks to the great help and information provided in this forum I can add another successful POPLA appeal to the list.
--> Non-compliant Notice to Hirer.

Even though I almost shot myself in the foot by commenting unwisely which could have been seen as an admission to being the driver on my side.

Original thread no.: 5848492


Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Maxine Thomson
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the parking payment expired or was unpaid.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that (1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). (2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). (3) 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. (4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. (5) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable. (6) No evidence of Landowner Authority. // Detailed explanations as well as the original Notice to Keeper as evidence can be found in the attached file. The appellant has provided a document detailing the above points.

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. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle in this instance. If a parking operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. I can see that the initial PCN was sent to Eurocar Group Ltd., who appears to be a rental company. A second PCN was then sent to [hirer] who appears to be the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator are chasing the appellant as the hirer they will need to comply with Section 13 of PoFA 2012 which states, “A notice to hirer can be issued; If within 29 days of the date of the notice to keeper (starting 2 working days after the date on the notice to keeper, if sent by post) the vehicle hire company provides the operator with · a statement signed by a representative of the vehicle hire company stating that the vehicle was hired out at the time · a copy of the hire agreement · a copy of a statement of liability signed by the person who hired the vehicle stating that the hirer will be responsible for any parking charges incurred while it is hired (it doesn’t matter if it refers to any other charges, it must refer to parking charges) The operator has failed to provide me with evidence that they have received the above documentation within the relevant timescale. If the operator has not been provided with the correct documentation then the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012, as a notice to hirer can only be issued if the documentation is provided within the correct timescales. Therefore, I cannot confirm that the notice to hirer was compliant with PoFA 2012 and cannot conclude if the PCN was issued correctly. As such, I must allow the appeal. I acknowledge the appellant has provided further evidence to support their appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal for the reason explained I have no requirement to address additional evidence or grounds provided.

Not true, in law, because contractual terms cannot override the need for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.

Trouble is, POPLA are not trained in the EA and ignore it, regarding appeals.

The driver should have complained to the retailer, and still can.

Certainly no paying the thing! Which PPC was this?

agreed


see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5873031

Hey all - my first (and hopefully last) experience appealing against this sort of thing - details captured below to help out others - and huge thanks to those on this forum who were so enthusiastic and helpful to me - I'm very grateful.

In July 2018, I had 3 successful appeals at POPLA versus PE for 3 separate incidents. These were all 'Golden Tickets' - no sticker on windshield (so all ANPR), and the PCN came to me outside of the 14-day window for keeper liability - dates were actually on the PCNs - so PE had no provided no proof of who was driving, and had no basis to chase me as keeper of the vehicle for the actions of the driver.

I'm not allowed to post links in here as a new user - my post was called "Period of time elapsed before receiving Parking Charge notification?", dated 9th June. If anyone has authority to link, please do so!

Chain of events:

1. I sent in 3 generic MSE appeals to PE using PE's process (all rejected) purely to get 3 POPLA references. Based on reading on this forum, I was expecting all three to get rejected, and....
2. PE rejected all 3, providing POPLA references.
3. I then sent the text in blue below to POPLA. Following advice on this forum, I didn't bother with any other points (e.g. lighting, signage, fairness) - just the fact that PE had allowed far too much time to lapse to chase me as keeper for the actions of the driver: PE had provided no proof who the driver was, and therefore had no basis to chase me.
4. I sent this to POPLA by going via their site - once each for all 3 appeals. I entered the minimum level of info on the POPLA screens just to get to the bit where I can enter attachments; I appealed as Keeper (watch out, it defaults to 'keeper and driver'). I also appealed under reason of 'Other', despite the POPLA site saying this was far less likely to be successful. As attachments, I sent the letter as a PDF, and also the scanned-in PCN.
5. I received 3 separate emails from POPLA saying PE were choosing not to contest my appeal and I did not have to pay the charge.

My aim with my letter was to make it as easy as possible for POPLA to see the key facts (which were the dates and lack of driver identit)y.

Text below:

ADDRESS
EMAIL
CAR LICENSE PLATE
DATE

Dear POPLA,

On the DATE, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on DATE, but they did not issue the PCN until DATE, over a month later.
2. 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

Please see below for details
1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 53 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from ParkingEye with the ‘event date’ of DATE and the issue date of DATE (ie, over one full month later!)


2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with ParkingEye with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

Here is the link.

Decision
Successful - no contest from Operator

Link to redacted PDF here: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ap06gnH-WtYthcIPX0Lh9iYjnCC6oA

Another successful POPLA appeal to the list.


Thank you for all your help and information in this forum (Coupon-mad, your final advice nailed it)!
.

--> Non-compliant Notice to Hirer.


Decision Successful


Assessor Name Chris Markey

Assessor summary of operator case
Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows:

- delivery outside of the relevant period
- specified under S4, sub-paragraph 9 (5);
- non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) S4, subparagraph 9 (2) (f);
- minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator;
- insufficient signage;
- poor system implementation & maintenance;
- No evidence of Landowner Authority; and
- British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines.


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 Parking Charge Notice (PCN). It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions at the site state “camera controlled car park… 1 ½ hours free parking for Church Farm - Warrington customers only… Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £90 Parking Charge Notice”. It is the Operators case that on XXXXX 2018, vehicle XXXXXXX entered the car park at XX:XXpm and exited at XX:XXpm a total duration of 1 hour and 43 minutes. This is in excess of the maximum free parking by 13 minutes. As the vehicle in question is a hire vehicle, the operator has exercised its rights under section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Section 4 of PoFA 2012 refers to the operators’ right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. This is subject to paragraph 13 of PoFA 2012, relating to hire vehicles. Paragraph 13(2) states:

“The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid 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”

Reviewing the evidence provided to me by the operator, I cannot see that a copy of 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, has been provided to me either as an attachment to the notice to hirer, or separately.

As this document has not been provided to me in the body of evidence supplied by the operator, I am not able to consider that it has been provided to the appellant in accordance with the provisions set out in PoFA 2012.

As a result, I am not satisfied that the provisions set out in PoFA 2012 have been met for the purposes of transferring liability for unpaid parking charges from the keeper to the hirer of the vehicle. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other comments or grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

Hi All

Update on the POPLA appeal, unfortunately was unsuccessful.

From the comments the assessor did not look at the correct signage provided in the rebuttal, instead reviewed the incorrect signage provided by PE.

Anything I can do about this or ride out the debt collectors letters until I get an LBCCC and court claim?

See appeal decision below:

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameAlexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant!!!8217;s case is that he is a member of the gym and was using its facilities that day. As a member of the gym, the appellant advises that he is entitled to use the car park for two and a half hours for free. Out of human error, the appellant states that he may have forgotten to register his vehicle to park, or entered his vehicle registration number incorrectly. Despite this, he believes that he should not have to pay the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The appellant has provided an email from the gym to confirm that he was using the gym between the times that he parked.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state: !!!8220;Permit holders only. This area is for the use of Hastings staff and St George!!!8217;s Heights resident permit holders only. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Chare of: £100!!!8221;. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation. Images from the operator!!!8217;s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle entered the car park at 06:27 and exited at 08:00 on the day in question, staying for a total of one hour and 32 minutes. A system generated print out has also been provided, showing that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was not registered to park at the site that day. The appellant!!!8217;s case is that he is a member of the gym and was using its facilities that day. As a member of the gym, the appellant advises that he is entitled to use the car park for two and a half hours for free. Out of human error, the appellant states that he may have forgotten to register his vehicle to park, or entered his vehicle registration number incorrectly. Despite this, he believes that he should not have to pay the PCN. When parking on private land, 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 and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. While I appreciate the appellant!!!8217;s version of events and his evidence, upon review of the signage, the car park does not appear to be for gym members. It clearly states that the car park is for Hasting staff and St George!!!8217;s Heights residents. Regardless, the appellant was not registered to park at the site that day. Ultimately, it is a motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation, he has failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

I have just rec'd my popla decision....it was SUCCESSFUL!!!! Thanks so much for all the info i gained off here, it really has been invaluable. It may have taken a while to put my case together, and ALOT of reading and studying....but i wouldnt have known where to start if it wasnt for this forum. I wouldnt have even had a clue!

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name
Michael Byrne
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has Landowner Authority to issue the PCN. The appellant states has failed to identify that it is pursuing the driver of the vehicle who may have been liable for the PCN. The appellant does not consider the signage prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has advised that the parking charge was not made prominent on the signage. The appellant states that the driver therefore did not have the opportunity to read about the £85 PCN, which they consider out of proportion. The appellant states that the operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Code of Practice rules for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and surveillance cameras. The appellant considers the photographic evidence to be doctored and does not show evidence of the vehicle contravening the terms of the car park. The appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s PCN appeal letter to support their case.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Maximum stay 2 hours...Cameras in operation Monday to Sunday 06:00 hours to 19:00 hours...This car park is patrolled...Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £85 PCN...Parking limited to 2 hours". The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle XXXXXXX entering the car park at 14:10 and leaving at 16:39, totalling a stay of two hours and 29 minutes. The appellant has advised that the parking charge was not made prominent on the signage. The appellant states that the driver therefore did not have the opportunity to read about the £85 PCN, which they consider out of proportion. 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 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 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 “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 sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, I do not consider it necessary to consider these, as I have already allowed the appeal on the above basis. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and must allow the appeal.

^^ Euro Car Parks ^^

Helps to know who the PPC is when copying and pasting POPLA adjudications.

Well done.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5866601

oops sorry, didnt realised id missed that out....edited to include it now

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Michael Byrne

Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant did not park in a designated parking bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant advises that the operator did not issue a Notice to Keeper, in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that it is pursuing them for the PCN as the driver of the vehicle. The appellant argues that the operator has not proven that it has landowner authority to issue the PCN. The appellant advises that the signage on site is insufficient, in particularly in regards to the sum of the charge itself.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. POPLA’s role is to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly. Therefore, we require evidence of the PCN in order to determine whether it has been given correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage at the site. In this case, the operator has not provided sufficient evidence of the notice, and as such, I have not been able to assess if the PCN has been issued correctly. Upon consideration of the evidence provided to POPLA, I cannot determine the terms and conditions of the car park were breached. I note the appellant has provided evidence and raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and must allow the appeal.

APCOA appeal on Wigan Grand Arcade


Link to original thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5832962



From popla track appeals page:
Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator

Withdrawn on 09/08/2018
Verification Code

0*********

Withdrawal reasons

no site images

Thanks to everyone for their help with this! Especially CouponMad

Decision - Successful
Assessor Name - Michael Byrne
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display ticket was purchased for the appellant's vehicle.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. These are as follows: - The operator did not issue a compliant Notice to Keeper; - The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge; - The operator has not provided evidence of land owner authority; - The signs of the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself; - The signs do not adequately warn drivers what Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera data will be stored for; - The operator did not provide a grace period; and - The operator has breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and Information Commissioners Office Code of Practice rules for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “24 hour pay and display/pay by phone...Charges apply at all times......Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £70 PCN". The operator has issued the PCN as no valid pay and display ticket was purchased for the appellant's vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of vehicle ---- parked on site at ---- without displaying a valid pay and display ticket. The appellant states that they did not notice any indicators of parking restrictions when first arriving on site, such as double yellow lines or signage. However, they clarified whether there were any parking restrictions with a shop owner, who pointed out the parking sign. After reading the terms and conditions, the appellant noticed that the sign advised of a 10 minute waiting period, which she did not think she exceeded until receiving the PCN. The appellant states that they would have purchased a ticket if they knew that they had exceeded the time. The appellant has advised that The signs of the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The 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 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 “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 sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the above reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I do not conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and will allow the appeal.

A bit late, to the extent that I can't access the decision criteria, but we had a successful appeal to POPLA against Care Parking (Anchor) related to abused patronage at Aldi Corporation St Preston in March.


The appeal was upheld as the NTK arrived after 60+ days and there was no clear evidence of abused patronage.

I guess they only allow access to the decisions to 28 days as I can no longer access the portal.

Cheers for the guidance.....