We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA Decisions
Options
Comments
-
Well I for one would carry on 'ignoring' ...honestly they (parking companies) just want to have an easy life and make money for not too much hard work. Must admit though , first time I had a parking charge notice I was just about to move house and sold the car they had the number plate of before moving so a bit too much hard work to trace maybe ..? Well def think if you realise you have overstayed your welcome the covered number plate is the way to go. Cheers .
Ignoring will not get you a POPLA decision one way ot the other, so why not start your own thread or post on the current "why not ignore" thread instead of hijacking this one?0 -
I haven't a clue what you are talking about !0
-
Ignoring will not get you a POPLA decision one way ot the other, so why not start your own thread or post on the current "why not ignore" thread instead of hijacking this one?I haven't a clue what you are talking about !
This thread from its title is meant to be for successful outcomes for POPLA appeals not a debate about how you have been fortunate in ignoring PE charges or covering up numberplates.
PE do seem reluctant to issue proceedings in Aldi car parks0 -
Not merely reluctant. PE have never been known to issue proceedings for 'crimes' Aldi car parks presumably because their contract with Aldi forbids them taking Aldi's customers to court.parkingwoes wrote: »PE do seem reluctant to issue proceedings in Aldi car parks0 -
Hi, I've just won at POPLA as CP Plus did not wish to contest the appeal, see below:
Dear Kernow Mex
Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXX.
CP Plus have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team
Parking prankster pointed out something very important with this company and I used that as my main point of appeal.
Thanks again!0 -
Dear Motorist
POPLA has decided to adjourn all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws. This is following complaints to POPLA and ISPA that POPLA has no authority to look at these appeals. We are considering our position and will contact you again in due course.
Your case concerns Byelaws and is affected by the adjournment. During this time, you do not need to take any further action.
We do not anticipate the cases to be adjourned for more than two months from today. Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned.
Kind Regards
Eileen Ioannou
POPLA Team0 -
Hi BT68 - that's good news if this relates to your Indigo railway Penalty Charge dating back to April 2016. The adjournment will take your case neatly beyond the six-month point for this penalty to be timed out.:)0
-
Yes the Apr one was appealed successfully already, but I have another from June still in the works, as well as the early 2015 one which WHOPLA ducked and sent back to POPLA...0
-
“Parking Event” at Aire Street, Leeds on 13th May 2016.
ParkingEye actually produced a scanned copy of a contract dated 1st April 2016 with the customer being named as Elite Parking Limited. Too bad that’s all that could be made out.
POPLA assessment and decision: 01/09/2016
Verification Code: 6061956103
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Name removed by MSE Forum Team
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant does not feel that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant states the signage located on site was inadequate.
Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision
In the appellant’s grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has questioned the operator’s contract with the landowner. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (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.” While I appreciate that the operator has provided POPLA with what appears to be the contract it holds with the landowner, the quality of the document is so poor that I am unable to determine the wording. As a result, I cannot determine whether or not the operator has met the minimum requirements set out by Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice and I cannot determine whether or not the operator has the sufficient authority to issue and pursue PCNs. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued correctly*
* this should have read “was not issued correctly”0 -
Edna_Basher wrote: »
ParkingEye actually produced a scanned copy of a contract dated 1st April 2016 with the customer being named as Elite Parking Limited. Too bad that’s all that could be made out.
I wonder how often that would happen with Parking Eye if requested.
I also wonder just how many car parks they do not have landowners permission
Why contract with Elite Parking ? Accounts do not really show they are landowners
Company check on Elite shows
Net worth in 2015 - £2,147.00
Current assets in 2015 -= £65,970.00
Total Current Liabilities in 2015 - £76,347.00
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/08050826/ELITE-CAR-PARKING-LIMITED/companies-house-data
Where is the tie up with PARKING EYE and ELITE ???0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards