POPLA Decisions

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Daniel Kelley

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that they were a genuine user of the facilities on the day in question. The appellant advises they supplied the operator with receipts as the operator allows ‘Genuine customers’ to have the Parking Charge Notice’s (PCN) cancelled. The appellant advises the signage on site does no advise customer of this secret clause. The appellant has requested to see the contract between the landowner and the operator, to see the 'discretionary criteria'. The appellant has provided examples of PCN’s that have been cancelled by the operator.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage located around the site in question. The signage states, “Parking limited to 1 ½ hours…Failure to comply with the following will result in a Parking Charge of £70”. The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:04 and exiting the site at 15:45. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant remained on site for a total of one hour and 41 minutes. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted. The appellant in their statement has raised a number of grounds for appeal however; I will concentrate my report on landowner authority. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly.
The operator in this case has not provided me with either a contract with the landowner or a witness statement. I am therefore unable to confirm that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. As such, I cannot confirm that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Computersaysno wrote: »

Because if the ppc knows it's going to lose, the smart ones withdraw the claim and popla doesn't get paid anything.