Yesterday, 07:03 PM
Appeal unsuccessful.
As I expected I suppose, but I did have some hope given the Moto Kendal case.
Here is the full response:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the car park for longer than the free parking period and no record of a payment being made.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • No keeper liability. The notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e) and PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h). • The operator has not shown that the appellant was the driver. • The operator has not shown a valid period of parking as required for keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the contractual terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver. • The operator has not shown that it holds valid landowner authority. • ANPR evidence is insufficient without strict proof of accuracy and calibration. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant comments on the operator’s response saying it has failed to answer the principal ground of appeal in regard to PoFA, Paragraph 9(2)(h). They comment further on the trading name and refer to prior POPLA decision. They state PoFA requires complete compliance and not approximate compliance. The operator’s purported posting and delivery reasoning is defective. The last-minute landowner statement carries limited evidential weight and does not identify the creditor. The driver has not been identified. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The notice was posted within 14 days of the event and specified the date, time, and location of the infringement. I am satisfied the operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012). I acknowledge the attached judgement in the case of ParkingEye vs Ghansah the appellant has raised, however I am satisfied the notice to keeper does comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e). As such, I am considering the appellant ’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise ‘Charges apply for all vehicles after 2 hours’ and refers users to see separate signs in the car park for full details. Additional signage provides details of the tariffs that apply based on type of vehicle for 24hrs parking. Terms and conditions for parking on site are also shown on the signage. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map to demonstrate that the signs were clearly visible and located throughout the car park. The operator has also provided ANPR photographs showing the appellant entered the site at 15:16 and left at 18:10, a total stay of 2hrs 54mins, exceeding the maximum allowed free period. The operator has provided a copy of their payment logs which shows the appellant’s vehicle had not paid to park beyond the free period. The appellant has stated that the operator has not shown that the contractual terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver. I have assessed the signage in relation to the relevant codes that apply. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows clear entrance signage which tells motorists the car park is privately owned land and that there are terms and conditions attached to the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. In this case the operator's evidence clearly demonstrates the signage complies with the code and clearly communicated the terms and conditions to the appellant and that a valid parking contract could be formed. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown a valid period of parking and that the notice to keeper relies on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. They also state that the ANPR evidence is insufficient without strict proof of accuracy and calibration. As the site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park, this will be used for the car park management and enforcement rather than time parked in a bay. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if a vehicle has remained on the site for longer than authorised, or without payment located for the vehicle registration, a parking breach of the terms is identified. It is the responsibility of the parking operator to show it has issued the PCN correctly, and if it does this by providing ANPR images to support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology is unreliable. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the parking operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown that it holds valid landowner authority. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator, CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus, has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. I note the appellant has expressed concerns regarding how the operator responded to their initial appeal. POPLA is an appeals service and as such we do not become involved with complaints of this nature. However, the appellant can raise a complaint with the operator, the details of the operator’s complaints process can be found on their website. Once it has issued a response letter the complaint can then be escalated to the BPA. Whenever a motorist uses a private parking facility, it is their responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms of the site being used. This includes making the correct payment for their duration of stay. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.
As I expected I suppose, but I did have some hope given the Moto Kendal case.
Here is the full response:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the car park for longer than the free parking period and no record of a payment being made.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • No keeper liability. The notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e) and PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h). • The operator has not shown that the appellant was the driver. • The operator has not shown a valid period of parking as required for keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the contractual terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver. • The operator has not shown that it holds valid landowner authority. • ANPR evidence is insufficient without strict proof of accuracy and calibration. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant comments on the operator’s response saying it has failed to answer the principal ground of appeal in regard to PoFA, Paragraph 9(2)(h). They comment further on the trading name and refer to prior POPLA decision. They state PoFA requires complete compliance and not approximate compliance. The operator’s purported posting and delivery reasoning is defective. The last-minute landowner statement carries limited evidential weight and does not identify the creditor. The driver has not been identified. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The notice was posted within 14 days of the event and specified the date, time, and location of the infringement. I am satisfied the operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012). I acknowledge the attached judgement in the case of ParkingEye vs Ghansah the appellant has raised, however I am satisfied the notice to keeper does comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e). As such, I am considering the appellant ’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise ‘Charges apply for all vehicles after 2 hours’ and refers users to see separate signs in the car park for full details. Additional signage provides details of the tariffs that apply based on type of vehicle for 24hrs parking. Terms and conditions for parking on site are also shown on the signage. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map to demonstrate that the signs were clearly visible and located throughout the car park. The operator has also provided ANPR photographs showing the appellant entered the site at 15:16 and left at 18:10, a total stay of 2hrs 54mins, exceeding the maximum allowed free period. The operator has provided a copy of their payment logs which shows the appellant’s vehicle had not paid to park beyond the free period. The appellant has stated that the operator has not shown that the contractual terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver. I have assessed the signage in relation to the relevant codes that apply. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows clear entrance signage which tells motorists the car park is privately owned land and that there are terms and conditions attached to the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. In this case the operator's evidence clearly demonstrates the signage complies with the code and clearly communicated the terms and conditions to the appellant and that a valid parking contract could be formed. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown a valid period of parking and that the notice to keeper relies on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. They also state that the ANPR evidence is insufficient without strict proof of accuracy and calibration. As the site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park, this will be used for the car park management and enforcement rather than time parked in a bay. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if a vehicle has remained on the site for longer than authorised, or without payment located for the vehicle registration, a parking breach of the terms is identified. It is the responsibility of the parking operator to show it has issued the PCN correctly, and if it does this by providing ANPR images to support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology is unreliable. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the parking operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown that it holds valid landowner authority. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator, CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus, has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. I note the appellant has expressed concerns regarding how the operator responded to their initial appeal. POPLA is an appeals service and as such we do not become involved with complaints of this nature. However, the appellant can raise a complaint with the operator, the details of the operator’s complaints process can be found on their website. Once it has issued a response letter the complaint can then be escalated to the BPA. Whenever a motorist uses a private parking facility, it is their responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms of the site being used. This includes making the correct payment for their duration of stay. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.
