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 163
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 30th Oct 18, 10:58 AM
    • 9,369 Posts
    • 12,335 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Hi Just a quick message to say Parking Eye decided not to persue the POPLA appeal so that makes 6/6 now all thanks to people on this site who spend their own time helping others. Thanks
    Originally posted by Jason.rangou
    Well done ..... just further proof that Parking Eye were scamming you in the first place

    Parking Eye .. members of the joke called the BPA
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Porkpie1618
    • By Porkpie1618 5th Nov 18, 4:05 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Porkpie1618
    Hi, Just a quick message to say my appeal was successful. The story of my PCN can be found here:
    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5906911&highlight=
    need add the https:// at the start of the url above, or search for:
    SMART Parking Fine - 7 days for comment

    In my 2000 word rebutttal I had sent:
    Point 1: Signage. The appellant requests photos presented by SMART to be disallowed. The photos are close shot and are of signs no longer present. Appellants photos are recent and show that the entry signs conflicts with BPA CoP S18 para 2, Appendix B, and S18 para 4.
    Point 2 and 3:Keeper Liability. The appellant requests rebuttal para 5 be disregarded. At no point has SMART requested driver identification or has identification been given, the NtK did not comply with POFA 2012 Sch4 para 6 (1)(b), as you can see in their original notice. Rebuttal Para 5 is a complete fabrication, as you can see in the screenshot given. “I” was never stated as driver identification, the “I” was in reference to being the registered keeper. The follow up call did not identify “XXXX” as driver, again a fabrication, which contradicts para 5 which allegedly identifies “XXXX” as the driver. SMART has failed to demonstrate who the driver was and therefore who is liable for the PCN. Reference is made to the Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby SMART have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper.
    Point 4: Landownership. Rebuttal presented nothing, so SMART has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contact assigning rights to the charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. There is no evidence of compliance to BPA CoP para 7. SMART has not produced a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated contract with the landowner, and therefore have not supplied any evidence showing that they are entitled to pursue these charges.
    As a side note, appellant has not given permission for SMART to pass on a personal mobile number or email address shown within their evidence, to a third party. This does not comply with the recent EU GDPR.
    3 weeks later:
    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name XXXX
    Assessor summary of operator case The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant either did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained on site for longer than permitted.
    Assessor summary of your case The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. These are: 1. 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. 2. The PCN does not fully comply with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. 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 operator does not have the relevant landowner authority to issue the PCN.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant's case is that the operator has provided no evidence to confirm that it has the relevant landowner authority to issue the PCN. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. 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). 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". In order to prove that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue the PCN, I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims. However, the operator has provided neither document. As such, the operator has failed to confirm that it has the necessary landowner authority to have issued the PCN. The appellant has raised other 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 do not conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and will allow the appeal.
    I hope proves to be useful to people. I won because SMART couldn't prove they can operate on the land.

    I'm glad this is all over, I've not fretted about it as much as I thought I would and I would say that was down to reading this forum. Thank you to everyone who has put up great info to this forum it's been very useful. I paid my original fee, SMART got greedy and now they have lost money on me. I can't say I feel sorry for them.
    Last edited by Porkpie1618; 05-11-2018 at 4:07 PM. Reason: spelling
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Nov 18, 5:02 PM
    • 9,369 Posts
    • 12,335 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well done

    It's a dirty industry which is not controlled

    In control, or so they think, is the BPA and IPC

    "I won because SMART couldn't prove they can operate on the land."

    Sad to say that Smart is just one of the scammers approved by the BPA ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • windsmurf
    • By windsmurf 6th Nov 18, 8:25 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    windsmurf
    I was unsuccessful vs ECP at Gatwick Airport. Spitting wasps...

    Honestly, I don't feel the assessor addressed my key challenge that the entrance sign was located in a box yellow no parking area, that the vehicle was not in the segregated car parks which were closed off, not that there were no signs in the actual forecourt or between the forecourt and the shop. Here's the map ECP provided:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=17jKr_ykN6fPSmj_rFRgJAy2uYYNqqAF4
    (If anyone has a better place to host images then please advise?)

    And the POPLA judgement was: "Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

    Also interested by their firm grasp of the law regarding ANPR: "While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, they have not provided any evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR."

    So, guilty until proven innocent...

    I also don't think they bothered to address a number of other challenges raised.

    So, I guess I'm now onto ignore, or pay.

    Full background here:
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74765135#post74765135

    And my 2000 word rebuttal:

    Refs below are ECP pages (P) & timestamps XX:YY:ZZ
    Signs
    Evidence dated xx/yy/zz is not proof of signage present on aa/bb/cc.
    Map provided proves that no signs are visible from within the forecourt area where vehicle was located,nor between the forecourt & the shop (see vehicle in parking bay alongside shop in image 15:40:41 & 25:42:02 far left).No signs visible in 15:42:02.All operator signs are located away from forecourt & in the segregated parking areas,closed at time of visit.
    P30 shows No Parking & hatchings before the forecourt.15:42:02 shows these hatchings are not present on the forecourt
    P23,24,25,28,29,30ext illegible
    15:40:10:Unlit entrance sign,unreadable at night without camera flash, or on arrival considering direction of travel.Unclear if sign applies to traffic passing to right or left of the bollarded island-contrary to COP 18.2.Sign does not state fee.Disproportionately small compared to nearby Shell signs
    P29 shows lit signs.These are located in the segregated car park (see 15:41:37) & were behind a closed barrier so irrelevant to this case.
    Payment
    P13:ECP state “all drivers are required to purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the duration of their stay.”ECP provided no means for the driver to pay. By definition driver was unable to outstay the period paid for
    ANPR
    P12 Images show a license plate and shadows of a car-nothing that proves where that image was taken (no background recognizable as the garage in question).
    P13 Item 6 states “data produced”,indicating ECP HAVE BROKEN THE LAW through breach of GDPR & breached COP.
    NAAS compliant proves equipment will reliably identify registrations.It is not evidence of accuracy of date/time system.ECP have failed to prove accuracy of estimated duration vehicle was on site.
    Contract
    ECP refuse to provide full contract & only show 1 Appendix.ECP have failed to prove landowner authority as key terms and information is missing (eg precise boundaries).All breaches of COP are in breach of contract.


    POPLA DECISION
    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name: REDACTED
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued a parking charge notice for exceeding the maximum stay permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, as follows; 1. The entrance signs are both inadequately positioned and lit and 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 2. BPA code of practice, non-compliance to guidelines 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. Land owner authority 5. Observation points 6. Grace period 7. No evidence of period parked 8. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will therefore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle, REGISTRATION. The terms and conditions of this site state: “Maximum stay 20 minutes, cameras in operation at all times”. Further, the terms state: “This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice. (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue)”. “Parking limited to 20 minutes”. The operator has issued a parking charge notice for exceeding the maximum stay permitted. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition cameras. These captured the vehicle entering the site at 22:18 and exiting at 23:06, which is a total stay of 43 minutes. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, as follows; 1. The entrance signs are both inadequately positioned and lit and 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 2. BPA code of practice, non-compliance to guidelines 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. Land owner authority 5. Observation points 6. Grace period 7. No evidence of period parked 8. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. I note that the appellant has questioned the signage at the site. As such, I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. In response, the operator has provided copies of its signage. It has also provided a site map. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states the following: “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. Furthermore, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, 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.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The legal basis for the charge stems from the signage that the motorist has agreed to when parking their vehicle. By parking the vehicle on site, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions of the site. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The appellant says that there is no keeper liability as the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper as I have confirmed above, I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, I can only conclude that the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012, which entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified. The appellant has also asked POPLA to consider landowner authority. The operator has provided confirmation of landowner authority signed on 10 April 2018, on behalf of the landowner Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd and the operator Euro Car Parks. The operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control, and enforcement at the Gatwick site. The confirmation of landowner authority includes instructions from Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd for the operator to pursue parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographs of its signage at the Gatwick site. I am of the opinion that had the landowner ended the agreement with the operator between 10 April 2018 and YY July 2018 (when the PCN was issued to the appellant) then the operator’s signage would not remain in place. I accept on review that based on the balance of probabilities, Euro Car Parks does have authority from the landowner to operate on the Gatwick site. The appellant questions the accuracy of the ANPR system, POPLA is evidence based service and I can only make an assessment on the evidence that has been provided. The operator has provided ANPR evidence in the form of time and date stamped photographs in order to demonstrate that it has issued a parking charge notice correctly. I am satisfied that the operator’s evidence proves that the appellant entered and remained on site for over 43 minutes which is an over stay of 23 minutes. The burden of proof therefore passes to the appellant to provide some evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of the ANPR evidence. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, they have not provided any evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR. I must therefore work on the basis that it is fully accurate. I must clarify that in an ANPR camera-controlled site such as this one, there is no requirement to show the vehicle parked, only the entry and exit time. As the appellant’s vehicle remained on site the driver of the vehicle was making use of the facilities provided by the operator regardless of whether the appellant considered the vehicle to have been parked for the full duration of stay. The appellant has raised grace period as part if his appeal. With regards to any grace period being permitted The BPA Code of Practice section 13.2 states; “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.” I am satisfied on review of the site map that 10 minutes is a more than reasonable grace period for this particular site. As the appellant remained on site for 13 minutes beyond this, I can only conclude that the parking charge has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.
    Last edited by windsmurf; 06-11-2018 at 8:27 AM. Reason: Accidently named assessor
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Nov 18, 9:07 AM
    • 9,369 Posts
    • 12,335 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Another POPLA assessor completely ignorant about ANPR.

    Did you see this BBC Watchdog video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaKMkO3YVM

    It took Watchdog to intervene and tell POPLA how wrong they were and in the end POPLA agreed.
    Then you will see the CEO of the BPA waffling away and admitting that ANPR was not 100% accurate ??

    POPLA are not fit for purpose if they are ignorant of such matters.

    Anyway, pushing these very poor assessors behind you, it's onwards to prove to the court your case.
    You will get all the help here

    This POPLA was set up by the BPA who currently have so many scammers as members that it's no wonder that one MP labelled them as useless
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Nov 18, 2:04 PM
    • 20,285 Posts
    • 32,020 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Anyway, pushing these very poor assessors behind you, it's onwards to prove to the court your case.
    Not that likely at the moment, but they do have 6 years to try.

    http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

    Ignore anything you get now unless you do get court papers.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • windsmurf
    • By windsmurf 6th Nov 18, 3:45 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    windsmurf
    That's eye opening...1 in 233766 go to court...

    thanks for sharing
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Nov 18, 6:23 PM
    • 64,149 Posts
    • 76,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And the one court case was probably not even a driver, as ECP do not sue people over PCNs!

    Because of that, it was almost certainly a business v business claim, like ECP suing their paper-clip supplier or something!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • PEripoffs
    • By PEripoffs 7th Nov 18, 9:26 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    PEripoffs
    Chiquito Preston ParkingEye
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5884366&page=3#topofpage

    Two wins here, one PE didn't submit any evidence and for the other they failed to produce any evidence of a contract for the land.
    • Narkedmotorist
    • By Narkedmotorist 8th Nov 18, 2:17 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Narkedmotorist
    Popla Appeal Unsuccessful - ParkingEye - Darlington
    Hi folks, i have successfully seen off 2 previous parking tickets using the wonderful advice provided by this forum, many thanks for all your very valuable contributions. This latest ticket however has recently been rejected by Popla despite a robust defence i felt in relation to grace periods specifically.

    Verification Code
    606226XXXX

    Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    EilXXn IoaXXou

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    Within their appeal the appellant has identified themselves as the Registered keeper of the vehicle. They state that the driver has not been identified. The appellant has relied upon the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice stating that the operator has breached the following areas. They state that grace period at the site was not adhered to, from that the operator does not have the authority to purchase charges from the landowner. Staying with he BPA Code of Practice the appellant says that the signage is not compliant at the site as it is not prominent enough. On the date of the event the appellant says that a PCN was issued as the vehicle remained at the site for longer than permit, 14 minutes was quoted. The appellant supplied evidence of the signage at the site with their appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    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. The operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle who maintains throughout their appeal to POPLA that they were not the driver. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper which I reviewed against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the keeper is liable for the charge. POPLA is an evidence based service, the decision reached is based on the evidence and information supplied by both parties. Firstly, in order to establish if the contravention occurred I must consider the evidence from the parking operator that suggests the contract offered was breached. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of the contract offered. From the evidence supplied by the parking operator I can see that the signage states, “Parking Tariffs, Up to 3 hours £3.00”. “Please enter full, correct registration into the payment machine when purchasing a ticket” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. In addition to this the operator offers a paybyphone facility along with the option to pay for additional parking prior to leaving the site. I can see that each of the signs offers a helpline number for motorists to call for assistance. The operator has supplied a copy of a site map; from this I am able to determine the position of the signage from the entrance and throughout. The entrance to the site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The ANPR cameras record the duration of a motorists stay from the point of entry to the point of exit. To establish a breach the vehicle registration details are matched against the data produced by the ANPR system. Any breaches identified at the site will result in the issuance of a PCN. In this case I can see that the ANPR cameras have captured vehicle registration, XXXX XXXX. The entry time was recorded as 10:05 with an exit time recorded as 12:20. The total stay for this visit was two hours and 14 minutes. In this case and based on the evidence supplied by the parking operator, I can see that the operator issued a PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. From the operator’s evidence I can see that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event as the appellant remained at the site for a period of 14 minutes beyond the time that they had paid for. After reviewing the evidence supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that an offer of a contract was made between the parking operator and the motorist. I will now turn my attention to the appellant and assess their grounds of appeal to establish if there is sufficient information to dispute the validity of the PCN issued by the operator. Within their appeal the appellant has identified themselves as the Registered keeper of the vehicle. They state that the driver has not been identified. The appellant has relied upon the BPA Code of Practice stating that the operator has breached the following areas. They state that grace period at the site was not adhered to, from that the operator does not have the authority to purchase charges from the landowner. Staying with the BPA Code of Practice the appellant says that the signage is not compliant at the site as it is not prominent enough. On the date of the event the appellant says that a PCN was issued as the vehicle remained at the site for longer than permit, 14 minutes was quoted. The appellant supplied evidence of the signage at the site with their appeal. Section 7.1 of the BPA 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 BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims, that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The evidence supplied by the parking operator clearly identifies that a contract is in place and that it was valid at the time that the charge was issued to the appellant. As such, I am satisfied that the minimum requirements have been met by the parking operator. The appellant says that the parking operator did not adhere to the grace period offered at the site. Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice refers to grace periods on private land. A grace period allows a motorist to enter a site and leave, or to enter a site read the terms and conditions and exit if they feel the terms and conditions could not be complied with. However, if a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and the motorist must only decide not to park, and take no other action, whilst at the site. From the evidence given I can see that the appellant purchased their ticket within two minutes of arrival. However, it took 12 minutes to exit the site after the paid ticket had expired. As the appellant has not given a reason for the delay in leaving this site it is not possible to assess if the time at the end of the contract was used correctly. Additionally, as the operator offers an option to buy additional time prior to leaving this was an option for the appellant to consider. Within their appeal the appellant has questioned the signage at the site. 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”. Having reviewed the signage I am satisfied that it meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. When entering a private car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions and comply with them. If, for whatever reason, the motorist does not feel that they can meet the terms and conditions offered or feels that more suitable parking can be found elsewhere, there would be sufficient time to leave the site prior to entering a contract with the parking operator. By remaining and parking the motorist has implied their acceptance of the contract offered in the signage advertised. Based on the information and evidence presented to me, I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must pay for their parking with additional payments being accepted for any unplanned time at the site. It is my conclusion that the appellant breached the terms and conditions offered and that the PCN was issued correctly. For the time that the vehicle remained at the site a payment of £3 was required. As such, I must refuse this appeal.

    grrrrrrrr..
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Nov 18, 4:51 PM
    • 64,149 Posts
    • 76,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi folks, i have successfully seen off 2 previous parking tickets using the wonderful advice provided by this forum, many thanks for all your very valuable contributions. This latest ticket however has recently been rejected by Popla despite a robust defence i felt in relation to grace periods specifically.

    Verification Code
    606226XXXX

    Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    EilXXn IoaXXou


    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case

    Within their appeal the appellant has identified themselves as the Registered keeper of the vehicle. They state that the driver has not been identified.

    The appellant has relied upon the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice stating that the operator has breached the following areas.
    - They state that grace period at the site was not adhered to,
    - from that the operator does not have the authority to purchase charges from the landowner.
    - Staying with he BPA Code of Practice the appellant says that the signage is not compliant at the site as it is not prominent enough.

    On the date of the event the appellant says that a PCN was issued as the vehicle remained at the site for longer than permit, 14 minutes was quoted. The appellant supplied evidence of the signage at the site with their appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    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. The operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle who maintains throughout their appeal to POPLA that they were not the driver. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper which I reviewed against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the keeper is liable for the charge.

    POPLA is an evidence based service, the decision reached is based on the evidence and information supplied by both parties.

    Firstly, in order to establish if the contravention occurred I must consider the evidence from the parking operator that suggests the contract offered was breached. The signage sets out the terms and conditions of the contract offered. From the evidence supplied by the parking operator I can see that the signage states, “Parking Tariffs, Up to 3 hours £3.00”. “Please enter full, correct registration into the payment machine when purchasing a ticket” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

    In addition to this the operator offers a paybyphone facility along with the option to pay for additional parking prior to leaving the site. I can see that each of the signs offers a helpline number for motorists to call for assistance.

    The operator has supplied a copy of a site map; from this I am able to determine the position of the signage from the entrance and throughout. The entrance to the site uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The ANPR cameras record the duration of a motorists stay from the point of entry to the point of exit.

    To establish a breach the vehicle registration details are matched against the data produced by the ANPR system. Any breaches identified at the site will result in the issuance of a PCN.

    In this case I can see that the ANPR cameras have captured vehicle registration, XXXX XXXX. The entry time was recorded as 10:05 with an exit time recorded as 12:20. The total stay for this visit was two hours and 14 minutes.

    In this case and based on the evidence supplied by the parking operator, I can see that the operator issued a PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

    From the operator’s evidence I can see that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event as the appellant remained at the site for a period of 14 minutes beyond the time that they had paid for.

    After reviewing the evidence supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that an offer of a contract was made between the parking operator and the motorist. I will now turn my attention to the appellant and assess their grounds of appeal to establish if there is sufficient information to dispute the validity of the PCN issued by the operator.

    Within their appeal the appellant has identified themselves as the Registered keeper of the vehicle. They state that the driver has not been identified. The appellant has relied upon the BPA Code of Practice stating that the operator has breached the following areas.

    They state that grace period at the site was not adhered to, from that the operator does not have the authority to purchase charges from the landowner. Staying with the BPA Code of Practice the appellant says that the signage is not compliant at the site as it is not prominent enough.

    On the date of the event the appellant says that a PCN was issued as the vehicle remained at the site for longer than permit, 14 minutes was quoted.

    The appellant supplied evidence of the signage at the site with their appeal. Section 7.1 of the BPA 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 BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims, that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The evidence supplied by the parking operator clearly identifies that a contract is in place and that it was valid at the time that the charge was issued to the appellant. As such, I am satisfied that the minimum requirements have been met by the parking operator.

    The appellant says that the parking operator did not adhere to the grace period offered at the site. Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice refers to grace periods on private land. A grace period allows a motorist to enter a site and leave, or to enter a site read the terms and conditions and exit if they feel the terms and conditions could not be complied with. However, if a grace period is to be considered, the motorist must have utilised the period for its intended purpose and the motorist must only decide not to park, and take no other action, whilst at the site. From the evidence given I can see that the appellant purchased their ticket within two minutes of arrival.

    However, it took 12 minutes to exit the site after the paid ticket had expired.

    As the appellant has not given a reason for the delay
    in leaving this site it is not possible to assess if the time at the end of the contract was used correctly. Additionally, as the operator offers an option to buy additional time prior to leaving this was an option for the appellant to consider.

    Within their appeal the appellant has questioned the signage at the site. 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”.

    Having reviewed the signage I am satisfied that it meets the minimum requirements set out by the BPA Code of Practice. When entering a private car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions and comply with them. If, for whatever reason, the motorist does not feel that they can meet the terms and conditions offered or feels that more suitable parking can be found elsewhere, there would be sufficient time to leave the site prior to entering a contract with the parking operator. By remaining and parking the motorist has implied their acceptance of the contract offered in the signage advertised.

    Based on the information and evidence presented to me, I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must pay for their parking with additional payments being accepted for any unplanned time at the site. It is my conclusion that the appellant breached the terms and conditions offered and that the PCN was issued correctly. For the time that the vehicle remained at the site a payment of £3 was required.

    As such, I must refuse this appeal.
    Originally posted by Narkedmotorist
    OK, so they say you didn't provide a reason for taking twelve minutes at the end (even though you might not have done, because of course the in/out ANPR clocks are not always correct, as we know from people who have proof from their Google location data. The actual ANPR clocks have been seen to be 3 minutes wrong in a couple of cases recently where people's phone (or dashcam or car telematics location data) proved it. Do you have that data on your phone with a different arrival time, minutes out?

    Do you have Google location data? Even if not, this is defendable in court. I very much doubt you took only two minutes to drive in, find a space, park, lock the car, walk to the machine, read the sign & then buy the ticket, and guess what? If the skewed times had shown you took 4 minutes to buy the ticket, then ten minutes to leave (still 14 mins in total) POPLA would have found in your favour...!

    So all a rogue PPC has to do is misalign the clocks by 2 or 3 minutes between the ANPR system and the machine.

    Ludicrous ''scam'' (Hansard) situation and something a court would see through, given the lack of synchronisation between the ANPR clocks and the machine system clocks. Did the landowner contract disclose what the grace period at the site is? I wonder if it was 15 minutes (as some of their contracts are) and PE covered it up...which site?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-11-2018 at 5:02 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Narkedmotorist
    • By Narkedmotorist 9th Nov 18, 10:19 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Narkedmotorist
    will check on the google location aspect but i do doubt it to be honest. It was the grange road Darlington site, landowner F Peter Robinson Limited

    the landowner permission is in the form of a witness statement, signed 10th august 2018, for a 9th feb - 9th august period. the event was on the 20th July. I missed this, may have been relevant to point out at the Popla stage before decision? there is no detail on this witness statement regarding grace or observation periods.

    i had pointed out in my defence the combination observation and grace period BPA context, which seems to have been ignored but for me provided a decent defence:

    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. 13.4 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. For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read " observe the signage terms, before paying.
    Upon receiving the Parking Charge, the document described the vehicle as merely entering the car park at 10.05.55 and merely leaving at 12.20.00. The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period.

    The BPA’s guidance defines the grace period as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    To briefly summarise his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and park.

    It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the permitted paid period by only 14 minutes in total, containing a period prior to making payment (finding a bay to park, check the vehicle was parked correctly, secured correctly and then to find a pay machine, read the instructions, enter a registration number on the machine, find the means of payment and make said payment, read any available signage; which I also believe to be unclear as there is on site a combination of inadequately positioned notices and illegible small print) and a period after the paid parking period had ended (to get in the car, carry out any safety checks on the vehicle and then navigate around, make way for other vehicles and leave the car park safely).

    By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable and are well within the MINIMUM of both grace periods added together. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 12/13/14 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

    Again, it is undeniably clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider the necessary grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above, nor allow the necessary grace period for leaving the car park following the “alleged” contracted period.


    should i start a new thread with this or wait for any further action?
    cheers again for your formidable assistance guys.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Nov 18, 9:58 PM
    • 64,149 Posts
    • 76,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Wait for the threatogram then start your own thread.

    Do you know what I would do right now, this weekend? Take someone (other half or family member) as an independent witness, with Google Location on their phone into that car park and pay the minimum sum to stay (50p, or £1 or whatever, for 30 mins/an hour). Film yourself/passenger making that payment, with the time showing on the film and zoom in on the time displayed on the PDT Machine, so you have all the facts, including the real arrive & leaving time from Google location.

    Do not contravene; leave in good time. Keep the data.

    Then leave it a week to make sure they will have processed that day's data and go to PE's privacy page and upload your V5C as identity and the previous PCN to show they have sufficient information to know you are the relevant data subject for that car and they know that your email address is yours, and ask for the data from their ANPR cameras on (this weekend's visit date). State that you require the two images of driving in and out and the times from the ANPR and the time and payment made from the PDT machine data.

    Pretty sure they retain ALL data/images for a 12 month period (on the ludicrous excuse of storing it in case it's needed to assist the Police re a crime) whether you comply with the terms or not.

    Therefore they must have the images of your brief visit, and under the GDPR you want to see that data, which is easily available to them.

    Then compare the times on their Data Protection Team's reply, with the times you have proved. Different? I expect so (I really do).

    You will then have evidence of unreliability of ANPR/PDT machine timings at that car park and can use your data in your defence for the above case.

    I've never suggested that to anyone before but I think people in your shoes, where the PCN depends on 2 or 3 minutes either way, should revisit and expose the unreliability of the timings. We do need to start exposing this part of the scam.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 10th Nov 18, 9:05 AM
    • 414 Posts
    • 263 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    Another MSE victory...
    Won by default from operator apathy, no doubt due to my excellently worded appeal they knew they were on for a hiding lol, but still a win!!!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75030185#post75030185

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Paul Garrity

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: The appellant says the grace period is non-complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned. They say that there is no evidence of land owner authority. They say that there is no evidence of the period of parking. They say that the is no planning permission for pole mounted cameras or signage.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA.
    As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, I have not considered these.
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 10-11-2018 at 9:07 AM.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Nov 18, 9:29 AM
    • 9,369 Posts
    • 12,335 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Another MSE victory...
    Won by default from operator apathy, no doubt due to my excellently worded appeal they knew they were on for a hiding lol, but still a win!!!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75030185#post75030185
    Originally posted by misterbarlow
    GREAT NEWS ...... proving to everyone that Parking Eye were scamming you in the first place

    PARKING EYE - A BPA APPROVED MEMBER ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • archie2008
    • By archie2008 10th Nov 18, 4:24 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    archie2008
    Got this decision through today

    Britannia Parking Group - Unsuccessful

    Decision- Unsuccessful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver failed to validate stay or make valid payment

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who is it pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. The appellant states the PCN and appeal reply show different contraventions. The appellant says the original PCN states the contravention as “Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment.” The appellant states on appealing to the operator the reply stated, “The Parking Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because your pay and display ticket had expired.” The appellant says they are informed that the driver did purchase a valid pay and display ticket, so this highlights that the original PCN was not properly given and the subsequent appeal reply letter is contradictory. The appellant states this breaches the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is appropriate before issuing a PCN. The appellant says there is no evidence of an invalid or expired ticket. The appellant states the Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parking during the relevant period. The appellant says the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. The appellant states by virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, the operator have not been able to definitively state the period of parking. The appellant says the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is inadequate notice of the contraventions. The appellant states there was no contract or agreement of the parking charge at all. The appellant says the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving a huge charge. The appellant states they require the operator to provide evidence of the signage from the view of the driver on the day in question. The appellant says the operator has no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I consider the appellant is the registered keeper, because in the appeal to the operator the appellant has stated, “There will be no admission as to who was driving.” I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “PAY ON ENTRY: Welcome to XXXXXXXXX: RESTRICTIONS AND CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES: £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.” The site operates using an ANPR system. The cameras captured the driver’s vehicle registration, XXX XXX, entering the site at 11:35, and exiting at 15:14. The total period of stay was three hours and 39 minutes. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, and it appears that the appellant did breach the terms and conditions. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper. I note the appellant’s comments relating to the issue reason on the PCN and the appeal response. However, I am satisfied that the reason on the PCN is correct. The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that a payment for a period of three hours has been made against the vehicle registration number at 11:38. The driver was on the site for three hours and 39 minutes, therefore there was a period of 39 minutes that was unpaid. I am therefore satisfied that the driver did not purchase a valid ticket. When the appellant submitted the appeal to the operator it was able to investigate it further, and at that point found that the payment made by the driver did not cover the full duration they were on the site. The initial PCN will not always completely identify the reason the PCN was issued, however as long as it covers the reason then that is acceptable. I appreciate the appellant’s comments surrounding the operator not being able to definitively state the period of parking. Due to this, there are reasonable periods for motorists to park, review the terms and conditions and then make a payment if they wish to stay. There is also a reasonable period for motorists to leave the car park at the end of the contract. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the driver has made a payment three minutes after entering the site. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable period in which to enter the site, park and then make a payment. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “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.” The driver’s ticket expired at 14:48, however the appellant has not left the site until 15:14. This is 26 minutes after the ticket expired, and the appellant has not provided a reason for the driver leaving the site 26 minutes after their ticket expired. Therefore, the operator does not need to allow an extension to the 10-minute grace period The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, 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”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. From the site map I can see that there are two levels, and I can see that level one has 31 signs placed at the entrance and throughout the level, and level two has 56 signs throughout the level clearly detailing the terms and conditions. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. The operator is not required to provide evidence of how the signs will have looked to a motorist on the day in question. The motorist just needs to be afforded the opportunity to review the terms and conditions when deciding to park in the initial period when entering a site. Based on the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied the driver had sufficient opportunity to review the terms and conditions. By the fact the driver has purchased a ticket I am satisfied that they have read the terms and conditions by purchasing a ticket and having purchased a valid tariff. Section 7.1 of the BPA 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”. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has produced a witness statement in line with the BPA Code of Practice 22.16b, to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the driver’s vehicle has been on site without making a payment to cover the time on site, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

    Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Nov 18, 6:30 PM
    • 64,149 Posts
    • 76,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Got this decision through today

    Britannia Parking Group - Unsuccessful

    Decision- Unsuccessful

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver failed to validate stay or make valid payment

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who is it pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    The appellant states the PCN and appeal reply show different contraventions. The appellant says the original PCN states the contravention as “Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment.” The appellant states on appealing to the operator the reply stated, “The Parking Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because your pay and display ticket had expired.”

    The appellant says they are informed that the driver did purchase a valid pay and display ticket, so this highlights that the original PCN was not properly given and the subsequent appeal reply letter is contradictory. The appellant states this breaches the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is appropriate before issuing a PCN.

    The appellant says there is no evidence of an invalid or expired ticket.

    The appellant states the Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parking during the relevant period. The appellant says the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. The appellant states by virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, the operator have not been able to definitively state the period of parking.

    The appellant says the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is inadequate notice of the contraventions.

    The appellant states there was no contract or agreement of the parking charge at all. The appellant says the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving a huge charge. The appellant states they require the operator to provide evidence of the signage from the view of the driver on the day in question.

    The appellant says the operator has no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I consider the appellant is the registered keeper, because in the appeal to the operator the appellant has stated, “There will be no admission as to who was driving.” I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “PAY ON ENTRY: Welcome to XXXXXXXXX: RESTRICTIONS AND CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES: £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.”

    The site operates using an ANPR system. The cameras captured the driver’s vehicle registration, XXX XXX, entering the site at 11:35, and exiting at 15:14. The total period of stay was three hours and 39 minutes.

    Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, and it appears that the appellant did breach the terms and conditions.

    I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN.

    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper.

    I note the appellant’s comments relating to the issue reason on the PCN and the appeal response. However, I am satisfied that the reason on the PCN is correct.

    The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that a payment for a period of three hours has been made against the vehicle registration number at 11:38. The driver was on the site for three hours and 39 minutes, therefore there was a period of 39 minutes that was unpaid.

    I am therefore satisfied that the driver did not purchase a valid ticket.

    When the appellant submitted the appeal to the operator it was able to investigate it further, and at that point found that the payment made by the driver did not cover the full duration they were on the site. The initial PCN will not always completely identify the reason the PCN was issued, however as long as it covers the reason then that is acceptable.

    I appreciate the appellant’s comments surrounding the operator not being able to definitively state the period of parking. Due to this, there are reasonable periods for motorists to park, review the terms and conditions and then make a payment if they wish to stay. There is also a reasonable period for motorists to leave the car park at the end of the contract.

    For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer.

    In this case the driver has made a payment three minutes after entering the site. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable period in which to enter the site, park and then make a payment.

    Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “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.”

    The driver’s ticket expired at 14:48, however the appellant has not left the site until 15:14. This is 26 minutes after the ticket expired, and the appellant has not provided a reason for the driver leaving the site 26 minutes after their ticket expired. Therefore, the operator does not need to allow an extension to the 10-minute grace period.

    The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, 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”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    From the site map I can see that there are two levels, and I can see that level one has 31 signs placed at the entrance and throughout the level, and level two has 56 signs throughout the level clearly detailing the terms and conditions.

    I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. The operator is not required to provide evidence of how the signs will have looked to a motorist on the day in question.

    The motorist just needs to be afforded the opportunity to review the terms and conditions when deciding to park in the initial period when entering a site. Based on the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied the driver had sufficient opportunity to review the terms and conditions.

    By the fact the driver has purchased a ticket I am satisfied that they have read the terms and conditions by purchasing a ticket and having purchased a valid tariff.

    Section 7.1 of the BPA 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”.

    As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has produced a witness statement in line with the BPA Code of Practice 22.16b, to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7.

    Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

    In this case, as the driver’s vehicle has been on site without making a payment to cover the time on site, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

    Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    Originally posted by archie2008
    A PLEA to NEWBIES to PLEASE add paragraphs when pasting in a POPLA Decision, or we can't possibly read it! Yes we know it arrives like that...I just added some obvious para breaks, above. Took me about a minute max.

    Anyway ignore the eeejits and carry on posting on your thread here if they try a small claim. A loss at POPLA is never game over, ignore it:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5896865

    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • AncientDriver
    • By AncientDriver 11th Nov 18, 10:02 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    AncientDriver
    I was successful in appealing against Total Parking Solutions (TPS) who wanted to charge me for parking on Carousel Way, Northampton.

    For my submission to POPLA, I compiled a lengthy pdf containing my entire appeal, including photographs and diagrams all very much based on ideas I found on this board. Thank you to all the sources of that good advice. (I had earlier made a number of mistakes that I could have avoided by reading the advice sooner)

    I appealed on 4 grounds, abbreviated here (and only my belief - not necessarily true):-

    1. Carousel Way is a road with public access. As such all signage including parking signs has to comply with the Road Traffic Act and associated statutes. To prevent parking, that either means double yellow lines or establishing a Restricted Parking Zone. There are no yellow lines so TPS should have implemented a Restricted Parking Zone with the signage that implies. The signs provided by TPS do not meet the requrements so they cannot have established a valid parking restriction. I cannot be charged for parking in an invalid parking zone.

    2. BPA state (on their website, guidance for drivers) that on a road, a driver will either find double yellow lines or signs indicating a Restricted Parking Zone. They state that there will be an entrance sign. I took the entrance sign they provide for a car park as a reasonable guide to the size and clarity of the sign they would expect as an entrance sign to a Restricted Parking Zone (if the Road Traffic Act version could be ignored). Again, TPS's entrance sign came nowhere near meeting the requirement (it is badly placed, too tiny, too cluttered and the parking charge is not highlighted. Other signs along the road are too infrequent, far from obvious and it is only realistic to read them while standing in the middle of the road after parking - and these are no-parking signs).

    3. The limits of a parking restriction have to be clearly marked (exit signs etc). Where I parked, the extent of the parking restriction was unclear and while I might have been inside the area TPS thought restricted, there was nothing to tell a driver this.

    4. There was no evidence that TPS had the right to regulate parking or demand parking charges on this land.

    I am a little sorry that the assessor only commented on number 4 and made no comment on the other three. I would have liked to know the assessors thoughts on number 1 in particular as that would apply to anybody parking there and to all similar roads. After that the arguments get more limited in their general effect. I do wonder whether TPS deliberately provided no evidence of authority to provide an obvious, easy decision for the assessor and save the possible damage to themselves of having their entire approach to signage thrown out.

    The assessors findings were:-

    Decision Successful

    Assessor Name *************

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked in a no parking zone.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has provided a 15-page summary for this appeal. To keep this review to the point, I have completed a brief summary of the key points.

    The appellant states that he parked behind a lorry that had already parked there. The appellant explains that he got out of his car and stepped through the barriers situated beside the road. The appellant claims he saw a number of signs, but they were inadequate as they did not conform to statutory legislation and did not clearly inform the driver of the parking restriction.

    The appellant has indicated in his initial appeal to the operator that the signage did not clearly stipulate where the “No Parking/ No Waiting” conditions applied and did not meet standard British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He further explains that the operator also did not provide any evidence of its authority to issue PCNs on the land. As such, the appellant believes the PCN was issued incorrectly.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has identified that he was the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering his liability for the PCN, as the driver.

    The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly.

    The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, I cannot determine whether authority to issue PCNs on the site in question. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Nov 18, 10:11 AM
    • 9,369 Posts
    • 12,335 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well done

    Total Parking Solutions were trying to scam you in the first place

    Total Parking Solutions = yet another BPA approved member

    The list of BPA scammers keeps growing
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Nov 18, 11:08 AM
    • 20,285 Posts
    • 32,020 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    POPLA won't open themselves up to anything vaguely outside the brief they've been given by the BPA. Anything that drifts into the areas of responsibility of other 'authorities' it will ignore.

    As the finding is that TPS has not produced evidence of its ability to issue charges at this site, then please complain to the DVLA, ask them to investigate and if the finding is true, sanction TPS, require them to repay any charges already paid by motorists for this piece of land, and all outstanding charges to be cancelled.

    ccrt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 11-11-2018 at 11:10 AM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
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

1,076Posts Today

6,702Users online

Martin's Twitter