Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

[mystery1]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Depends what the evidence is really ?

Post it up (suitably sanitised)

M1

[Norman270811]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Hi, i've attached a pdf with their evidence to this post, if it doesn't work then I will try something else.

Regards

[mystery1]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Watermark is annoying but the only page i can't get enough info from is the letter of authority. Any chance you can post it up again ?

M1

[Norman270811]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Hi, I think this is what you are looking for.

Regards

[mystery1]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

The operator has enclosed a letter pre dating the alleged contravention which does not prove they have the require permission as per the BPA code of practice para 7.

M1

[Norman270811]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Thank you, I have submitted the comments. It's just a waiting game now.

Regards

[Norman270811]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Hi, today I received the outcome from our appeal to POPLA, they rejected our appeal. Here is the decision in writing below:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Samuel Connop

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant had exceeded the 90 minute free stay allocation.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the charge is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. The appellant has questioned the landowner authority. The appellant states that the signage was not sufficient.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The British Parking Association Code of Practice under, section 18.1 states, “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. The operator has provided me with photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The signage states, “This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes” and indicates that a parking charge of £100 will be issued for non-compliance of the terms. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided a witness statement from the landowners from 2013 stating that they have had authority to operator on the land since 2010. The signage is still at the site, also I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that that the operator does not have the landowner’s authority to operator on the land. The balance of probability is that the operator has the authority to operate. Therefore, the operator has complied with section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The appellant says the parking charge [does not represent a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. 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.” 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Whilst the appellant had raised several grounds for their appeal, I am satisfied that the operator has sent sufficient evidence in response. I am satisfied that that operator has complied with section 18.1 and section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and as a result the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss cannot taken into consideration as the signage was sufficient. As the appellant had remained at the site for longer than the free time allocation would allow, I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

[mystery1]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

I'm working for 3 days but will reply as they have said section 7 has been complied with which is untrue.

M1

[Norman270811]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Thank you

[mystery1]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Ok, bearing in mind you have no further right to appeal and a complaint may yield nothing, i would complain to popla.




complaints@popla.co.uk , director@ispa.co.uk , aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk


Ref popla #xxxxxxxxx


Dear Sir/Madam,


I wish to highlight the failure of your system to both be consistent and take in to account information presented to it. I appreciate that you will not consider the appeal any further but regardless your appeals service needs to avoid repeating such errors and inconsistencies in the future in order to maintain a certain level of trust with the public unlike your competitors TheIAS who are routinely referred to as a "kangaroo court".


Firstly i would like to list some of the reasoning for upholding appeals in other popla cases recently.




Decision
Successful








Reasons for the Assessor's determination
While the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land.
The operator has provided a signed statement regarding the landowner authority. However, as it does not set out all of the conditions covered in section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I am not satisfied that the document provided demonstrates sufficient landowner authority, as the date that the agreement started has not been completed.
In conclusion, the operator has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that it has the relevant landowner authority. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I do not need to consider the appellant's other grounds for appeal.














Decision
Successful




Assessor Name
Lauren Bailey




Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant overstayed the paid parking time.








Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant has stated that signage at the car park is not sufficient.








Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal and the other grounds raised by the appellant do not need further consideration.














Decision: Successful




Assessor summary of operator case:




The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the parking time he had paid for.




Assessor summary of your case:




The appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:
• The appellant does not believe the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).
• The appellant does not believe the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).
• The appellant does not feel the operator has applied a reasonable grace period.
• The appellant believes the signage displayed on site is insufficient.
• The appellant feels the PCN is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.




Assessor supporting rational for decision:




The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:06 and exiting the site at 14:16. The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 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 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.” The operator has not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.








of the landowner to issue and pursue parking charge notices (PCN). Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, but as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have not considered them.










Decision: Successful




Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay on site.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he does not feel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant does not believe the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. The appellant believes the Notice to Keeper did not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant believes the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are unreliable.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 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 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.” The operator has not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.










Decision




Successful








Assessor summary of operator case




Insufficient time was purchased.




Assessor summary of your case




She is the registered keeper and wishes to appeal as follows. 1. The charge is a penalty 2.
Unfair charges 3. Locus Standi 4.Signage




Assessor supporting rational for decision




The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on
Landowner authority as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. "Section 7 of the
British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have
written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide
any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required
authority to operate on the land in question. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision.












There are other results reported with far briefer synopsis than this for the same thing.














Contrast this with the decision in my case.














Decision
Unsuccessful


Assessor Name
Samuel Connop


Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant had exceeded the 90 minute free stay allocation.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the charge is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. The appellant has questioned the landowner authority. The appellant states that the signage was not sufficient.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
The British Parking Association Code of Practice under, section 18.1 states, “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. The operator has provided me with photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The signage states, “This car park is for the use of McDonald’s customers whilst on the premises only. Maximum stay is 90 minutes” and indicates that a parking charge of £100 will be issued for non-compliance of the terms. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided a witness statement from the landowners from 2013 stating that they have had authority to operator on the land since 2010. The signage is still at the site, also I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that that the operator does not have the landowner’s authority to operator on the land. The balance of probability is that the operator has the authority to operate. Therefore, the operator has complied with section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The appellant says the parking charge [does not represent a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. 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.” 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. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Whilst the appellant had raised several grounds for their appeal, I am satisfied that the operator has sent sufficient evidence in response. I am satisfied that that operator has complied with section 18.1 and section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and as a result the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss cannot taken into consideration as the signage was sufficient. As the appellant had remained at the site for longer than the free time allocation would allow, I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.









Nowhere in the evidence supplied does it say that the BPA code of practice must be adhered to. Nowhere is the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined explained. There is a name for the land but clearly you cannot tell the boundary, as required, from that. Nowhere does it state who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs. Nowhere does it state the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. You cannot ever decide for the person who has the burden of proof when there is no proof at all in an independent manner unless you err, are badly trained or are corrupt. At the time for rebutting the operators evidence i made it clear that what was provided was not proof. "The operator has enclosed a letter pre dating the alleged contravention which does not prove they have the require permission as per the BPA code of practice para 7."




Clearly as demonstrated your systems are inconsistent and further training is required. You should not decide many appeals on a point in one way and others in a different way.


Yours sincerely










Hopefully they'd take a 2nd look even if they say officially they won't.


M1

[Norman270811]

Re: Rejected Appeal For MET PCN.

Hi, thank you for this, I have just sent this off.

Regards