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, 4:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 4:49 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 Former MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 8:29 AM.
Page 176
    • Mirrorcarp
    • By Mirrorcarp 14th May 19, 6:22 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 26 Thanks
    Mirrorcarp
    Portswood Centre, southampton

    Brittania Parking

    Decision Successful

    Assessor Name Grahame Hill

    Assessor summary of operator case.

    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle for being parked longer than the maximum time permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that they do not believe the operator has a valid contract with the landowner and have no legal right to issue parking charge notices. At the time of parking the car park was dark and poorly lit, and the signs are not clear or legible.
    They are not identifying as the driver but the keeper. They have provided other grounds of appeal under separate cover The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant has not identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of keeper liability. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on the site The appellant states that at the time of parking the car park was dark and poorly lit, and the signage is not clear or legible.

    In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.
    Also, it is the operator’s responsibility to provide evidence to POPLA, which rebut the appellant’s claims. I would expect the operator to provide POPLA with photographic evidence to show that motorists are able to clearly see the signage on the site in the dark. Appendix B, Contrast and illumination in the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area”.

    After reviewing the evidence provided, I note the nightime photographs were taken after the parking event and therefore cannot be considered. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the operator has demonstrated that the signage would be clearly illuminated, and visible in the hours of darkness. As such, I confirm the PCN was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on this basis and there is no need to address any other issues raised by the appellant.

    😊😊😊😊
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th May 19, 7:09 PM
    • 11,227 Posts
    • 15,121 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Good news

    Britannia = BPA scammer

    At least you will not get the idiotic DRP and that Mickey mouse legal on your back
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 14th May 19, 7:57 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 124 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    Wow....you managed to get a POPLA assessment that wasn't full of waffle and was simply to the point while also finding in your favour.
    Last edited by LoneStarState; 14-05-2019 at 8:12 PM.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th May 19, 8:53 AM
    • 39,564 Posts
    • 88,255 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Well done. Any win is a good win, but it's a shame the assessor didn't allow the appeal on lack of landowner authority.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th May 19, 10:08 AM
    • 23,375 Posts
    • 37,248 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done. Any win is a good win, but it's a shame the assessor didn't allow the appeal on lack of landowner authority.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    I’m sure that where a decision is to be made against a PPC, the one that causes least potential ongoing complications for them is the one required to be chosen.
    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.
    • Mahershalalhashbaz
    • By Mahershalalhashbaz 15th May 19, 1:07 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    Mahershalalhashbaz
    I’m sure that where a decision is to be made against a PPC, the one that causes least potential ongoing complications for them is the one required to be chosen.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I hope that the issue of inadequate signage selected by the assessor will also cause ongoing complications for them. With a ruling of inadequate signage against them, surely they shouldn't be pursuing those of us who received a PCN before or after the change in land ownership.
    • DorianWolf
    • By DorianWolf 15th May 19, 9:11 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    DorianWolf
    Verification Code - 4110049017
    POPLA assessment and decision - 14/05/2019

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=4488337

    Assessor Name - Ashlea Forshaw

    Assessor summary of operator case - The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for the following reason, ‘parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full’.

    Assessor summary of your case - The appellant has provided a document, which outlines his grounds for appeal. The grounds are as follows: • No contract offered by Minister Baywatch – different company on the sign. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Grace period – non compliance of the BPA Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision - I am satisfied that the appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As the driver has not been identified, I will be assessing keepers liability. For the operator to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, it must issue a notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the notice must comply with schedule 4, paragraph 9. Having assessed the notice, I am satisfied that this has met PoFA 2012 and therefore, the keeper can now be held liable for any unpaid parking charges.

    Whilst I note that the appellant has provided more than one ground for appeal to POPLA, I will be focusing on the concerns regarding landowner authority and misleading signage at the site.

    The appellant has said that the sign at the site is misleading. He states that he did not see any information on the sign regarding ‘Minister Baywatch’ and therefore he cannot have entered into a contract with them. He says that the sign states that the company ‘Bransby Wilson’ is managing the car park however it was not Bransby Wilson who issued the PCN.

    I refer to section 18.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which outlines to operator’s, “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 looked at the signage on site, I can see that there are two different signs located within the car park.

    One of the signs displays the tariffs and states ‘this car park is managed by Bransby Wilson’. I can see that one of those signs displays the ‘Minister Baywatch’ logo in the bottom corner however, it is not very clear to see when driving into the site.

    There are other signs displayed which are on a yellow background. Those signs are placed on the brick buildings surrounding the site and whilst they may state ‘Minister Baywatch’ on them, those signs are very small to see and upon close inspection I am not satisfied that they are clear in stating who the car park is operated by.

    It appears that Bransby Wilson is the owner of the car park however, they have authorised Minister Baywatch to operate on the site and issue PCN’s to any motorist who parks in breach of the terms in place. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.”

    Whilst the document is signed by both Bransby Wilson and Minister Baywatch, I do not consider the signage at the site to be clear in stating who is managing the car park. The appellant states that he was not aware Minister Baywatch was operating on site and so, I am satisfied that he did not enter into a contract with Minister Baywatch. The signs must be clear, and they were not.

    As such, based on poor signage I will be allowing this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration. This appeal is allowed.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 19, 12:40 AM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Verification Code - 4110049017
    POPLA assessment and decision - 14/05/2019
    This decision is particularly good because it was changed by POPLA after the OP complained, and it reiterates that the MINSTER BAYWATCH car parks where the tariff (main) large signs beside the machine say the contract is with Bransby Wilson, have such confusing signs that the driver doesn't know about or agree to any contract with Minster Baywatch.

    I think there are at least 2 car parks that this decision covers.
    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
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 16th May 19, 5:37 AM
    • 2,365 Posts
    • 3,143 Thanks
    nigelbb
    This decision is particularly good because it was changed by POPLA after the OP complained, and it reiterates that the MINSTER BAYWATCH car parks where the tariff (main) large signs beside the machine say the contract is with Bransby Wilson, have such confusing signs that the driver doesn't know about or agree to any contract with Minster Baywatch.

    I think there are at least 2 car parks that this decision covers.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    It also is a great precedent to quote in other cases as there are many other car parks where the signage in large letters at the top has the name of the landowner (supermarket, hospital Trust etc) while the name of the PPC is in a miniscule font at the foot of the sign.
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 16th May 19, 10:14 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    A win against ParkingEye at the Beehive Centre in Cambridge, based on their failure to send the correct documents in the Notice to Hirer.

    Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5947181

    Decision: Successful

    Assessor Name: Natalie Hill

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that as the hirer of the vehicle the operator is in breach of the Code of Practice because it failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant advises that the operator has not show that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable of the charge. The appellant has indicated that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant argues that no grace period was given. The appellant states that the signage in 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 appellant argues that there is no evidence to show the ANPR is reliable. The appellant has included additional comments with each ground of appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has been identified as the hirer of the vehicle, as such I will be considering his liability for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic images of the signage which states: “3-hour max stay… Customer only car park.” The signage also states: “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering the car park at 13:29, and exiting 16:47, totalling a stay of 3 hours and 18 minutes. In this case the appellant has questioned Landowner Authority. I have examined the operator evidence and I can see a document which confirms an agreement between the landowner and the operator. After taking into consideration the criteria set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, I am satisfied that this document fulfils the requirements set out in 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and shows the operator does have Landowner Authority on this site. The appellant has advised that the operator is in breach of the Code of Practice because it failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. He has also argued that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable of the charge. He has referred to the right to not name the driver and keeper liability. In response to the above point I have reviewed the operator evidence and I can see that a Notice to Hirer was set to the appellant on 19 December 2018 this was after a PCN was issued to the hire company on 15 November 2018 and a reminder on 24 November 2018. The PCN indicates that the hire company had provided the operator with a copy of the appellants hire agreement and statement of liability. Taking into consideration PoFA 2012 I can see that after the reminder was issued to the hire company on 24 November and the hire company provided a copy of the hire agreement on 18 December 2018. The PCN was then issued to the appellant the next day on 19 December 2018. I therefore consider the PCN itself to be correct in regard to the time in which it was issued and the content, however when I have examined the evidence, I can see that the operator has only provided a copy of the hire agreement and has not provided the statement of liability. As the operator has not provided this document I am unable to establish if the appellant had been sent all the required documents as per PoFA 2012. On this basis, I must allow this appeal because the operator has failed to provide which evidence which shows that the appellant had signed a statement of liability when he hired the vehicle, and that this was sent to the appellant along with the PCN. As I have allowed this appeal, I will not need to consider any other points by the appellant.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th May 19, 11:19 AM
    • 11,227 Posts
    • 15,121 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well done, how delightful
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 16th May 19, 8:05 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Unsuccessful
    Gutted. Reading back on last few pages of decisions, I don’t know how some assessors day the signage is unacceptable and some say it ok when I know it’s not. Seems very unfair. Also another successful one saying that over the grace period by 2 mins was ruled successful when I was over grace period by 2 mins also but she said not allowed. R some of these assessors inexperienced? Can’t I ask for it to be checked again by a superior?? ☹️

    Decision: Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name: Adele Brophy

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to the P&D / Permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal these are: The appellant has advised that the operator has not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to signage at the site. The appellant has advised that the operator has not shown the individual nit is pursuing is the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant has advised that the operator has not allowed a grace period and that the driver purchased a ticket for £3.00 for three hours. The appellant has advised that the time to find a space, make a payment and read the signage, get back to the vehicle and make sure children are safely in and the vehicle is loaded before leaving. The appellant has questioned the operators right to issue PCN’s on the land in question, and that any contract is unfair. The appellant has advised that one of the passengers needed to urgently breastfeed her baby before leaving the car park and that the operator is guilty of indirect discrimination. The appellant’s case is that the PCN is punitive and exceeds and potential or consequential loss to the landowner. The appellant has advised that the signage fails to advise what the ANPR data collected will be used for and is in breach of section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Code of practice. The appellant has provided a photograph of signage in support of their appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle 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. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The terms and conditions of the site are, “Up to 3 hours £3.00, Up to 4 hours £4.00. This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £85 Parking charge Notice. We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and calculate the length of stay between entry ad exit at all times including bank holidays”. The site operates by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The appellant’s vehicle was captured entering the site at 10:00, before exiting at 13:22, totalling a stay of three hours 22 minutes. The operator issued a PCN due to the P&D / Permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. The appellant has advised that the operator has not met the requirements of the PoFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice in relation to signage at the site. The appellant has advised that the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant has advised that the operator has not allowed a grace period and that the driver purchased a ticket for £3.00 for three hours. The appellant has advised that the time to find a space, make a payment and read the signage, get back to the vehicle and make sure children are safely in and the vehicle is loaded before leaving. The appellant has questioned the operators right to issue PCN’s on the land in question, and that any contract is unfair. The appellant has advised that one of the passengers needed to urgently breastfeed her baby before leaving the car park and that the operator is guilty of indirect discrimination. The appellant’s case is that the PCN is punitive and exceeds and potential or consequential loss to the landowner. The appellant has advised that the signage fails to advise what the ANPR data collected will be used for and is in breach of section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Code of practice. The appellant has provided a photograph of signage in support of their appeal. The appellant has advised that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue Parking Charges nor form contracts with drivers on the land. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a copy of a contract confirming it held landowner authority at the time of the parking event. AS such, I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements set by the BPA. The appellant’s case is that the PCN is punitive and exceeds and potential or consequential loss to the landowner. 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 Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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”. As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within 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. The Act then moved on to define “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 sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states,” You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”. The signage displayed within the car park advises that cameras monitor the site. I would therefore be satisfied the operator has made it clear that ANPR technology is in place to determine the duration of stay of vehicles. While I acknowledge the appellants comments why they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR images captured on the date of the parking event I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. Section 13.2 of the BPA code of practice, advises,” 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”. After reviewing the evidence and comments provided by both the appellant and the operator, I consider 22 minutes to be in excess of a reasonable grace period to allow a motorist to enter the site read the terms and conditions, make a payment and exit again at the end of the contract. I note the appellant’s comments that one of the passengers needed to breastfeed their baby and that the operator has indirectly discriminated. Indirect discrimination is where a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's. However, indirect discrimination can be justified if the provision, criteria, or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. We consider ANPR as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of effective car parking management. While I appreciate Section Non-work pregnancy and maternity discrimination states “(3) A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth. (4) The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding”. It is clear that in this case the motorist has not been treated unfairly due to breastfeeding, as they been treated the same as other motorists would be, as every motorist that enters the site and agrees to remain parked on site enter into the same terms and conditions contract. The appellant received a PCN because a computer calculated the difference between the motorist’s entry and exit times and determined that the motorist overstayed the time paid for. While a passenger in the vehicle may have been breastfeeding at the time of the overstay, this did not have no material effect on the PCN being issued. When parking on private land, a motorist forms a contract with the operator by parking their vehicle on the site. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the site. In this case, as the motorist has remained at the car park for longer than the time paid for, the terms and conditions of the contract have not been met. As such, I conclude that on this occasion the operator has issued the PCN correctly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 19, 9:03 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    R some of these assessors inexperienced?
    Yes, but not A B, she's been an Assessor for over a year or two.

    Can’t I ask for it to be checked again by a superior??
    Yes (you'll know that, from the POPLA website FAQs about 'complaints') but there's no reason that it will change, if the overstay was 22 minutes. This is not just about two minutes.

    She's right, IMHO, you needed to pay for up to 4 hours stay.

    But you are lucky, it's not a litigious firm, it's ECP!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5943888

    Ignore them, like everyone else does who loses v ECP at POPLA.
    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
    • AliceBanned
    • By AliceBanned 17th May 19, 6:18 PM
    • 2,515 Posts
    • 1,187 Thanks
    AliceBanned
    Successful appeal against Secure a Space - North London Business Park (see my separate thread).


    Grounds for appeal: poor signage, no evidence of landowner authority, no proof of contract/out of date page and signature was all they could provide.


    If you need me to post more info please let me know.


    Thanks for your thorough advice. Was a lot to plough through but I was certain this was unauthorised ticketing. I was nervous as it was at my workplace but then decided to go ahead and appeal.
    DFW. PayDBX 2019#163
    Debt at LBM: £18,335
    Current debt: £9,430
    Mort overpaid £800 EF: £180
    _________________________
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 17th May 19, 6:32 PM
    • 11,227 Posts
    • 15,121 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Successful appeal against Secure a Space - North London Business Park (see my separate thread).


    Grounds for appeal: poor signage, no evidence of landowner authority, no proof of contract/out of date page and signature was all they could provide.

    Originally posted by AliceBanned
    Good stuff

    Just another BPA scammer still on the loose
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • AliceBanned
    • By AliceBanned 19th May 19, 8:45 PM
    • 2,515 Posts
    • 1,187 Thanks
    AliceBanned
    Details of my successful appeal against Secure a Space who issued a ticket at North London Business Park:


    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to display a valid permit.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that 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.


    She adds that there is no evidence of land owner authority. The appellant states the PCN does not comply with POFA. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.




    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has not identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper.


    When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The appellant explains that 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. She adds that there is no evidence of land-owner authority.


    The appellant states the PCN does not comply with POFA. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and evidence provided. It is clear why the appellant was issued with a PCN. I have reviewed the evidence pack and the operator has provided land owner authority.


    I must point out to the operator however, that the PCN postcode and the land owner authority have two different postcodes. The PCN states N11 1NP and the land owner states N11 1GH. The BPA Code of Practice 7.3 (a) states: The written authorisation must also set out: the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined. As the postcode for the PCN and land are different I find that the operator does not have authorisation to issue PCN’s on this land As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.


    Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the Parking Charge Notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.
    DFW. PayDBX 2019#163
    Debt at LBM: £18,335
    Current debt: £9,430
    Mort overpaid £800 EF: £180
    _________________________
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th May 19, 9:00 PM
    • 23,375 Posts
    • 37,248 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I find that the operator does not have authorisation to issue PCN’s on this land
    That's pretty conclusive, and damning for the PPC.

    Please read my post #3468 above and give this shower of shyyte a dose of your own grief to deal with by asking the DVLA to now get involved.

    There's also the issue of obtaining your personal data without reasonable cause, and potentially breaching the DPA and GDPR regulations, for which you could sue for up to ~£750.
    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.
    • AliceBanned
    • By AliceBanned 19th May 19, 9:14 PM
    • 2,515 Posts
    • 1,187 Thanks
    AliceBanned
    That's pretty conclusive, and damning for the PPC.

    Please read my post #3468 above and give this shower of shyyte a dose of your own grief to deal with by asking the DVLA to now get involved.

    There's also the issue of obtaining your personal data without reasonable cause, and potentially breaching the DPA and GDPR regulations, for which you could sue for up to ~£750.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Oh! Hadn't thought of this. !!





    I am finding it hard to gloat because it hasn't sunk in - is this final ie they can't touch me on the parking?! I actually though they were incompetent but not necessarily fraudulent..how can they be a BPA member and be ticketing for land they have no authority for?!!
    DFW. PayDBX 2019#163
    Debt at LBM: £18,335
    Current debt: £9,430
    Mort overpaid £800 EF: £180
    _________________________
    • AliceBanned
    • By AliceBanned 19th May 19, 9:19 PM
    • 2,515 Posts
    • 1,187 Thanks
    AliceBanned
    And Trading Standards?
    DFW. PayDBX 2019#163
    Debt at LBM: £18,335
    Current debt: £9,430
    Mort overpaid £800 EF: £180
    _________________________
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th May 19, 9:24 PM
    • 23,375 Posts
    • 37,248 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    They can't touch you now.

    how can they be a BPA member and be ticketing for land they have no authority for?!!
    Precisely, but to put the skids under them, that has to come from someone who has been wrongly and malevolently pursued. Don't forget, they purport to be the 'professionals (ho ho) in all this, yet goes feral if it suits to rinse a motorist.

    I wish we could do it, but we do not have the direct locus to do so. But the one thing to know is that anyone prepared to go for their jugular will get expert advice and support from regulars.

    If you're up for it, please continue with any proposals on your original thread, and we'll be all over it like a rash.
    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

466Posts Today

4,124Users online

Martin's Twitter