POPLA Decisions

Computersaysno wrote: »

Interesting that once the adjudicator sees 'pre-estimate' they refuse/are not required to adjudicate on the other reasons put forward [in this case, it's lack of title and proprietary interest].

That's why parking prankster's approach of running a defence using one sole reason in each case is an excellent approach as it will allow each 'defence' to be tested.

I agree with this as a strategic approach, and Parking Prankster is a well versed 'veteran' campaigner of the scene and is willing and able to try the 'one reason' appeal.

However, for the first-time appellant, it is their one chance of getting rid of this for good and having a number of alternative appeal points, should the first one fail, is the most comfortable (and probably most certain) way of winning.

I think the more strategic approaches should really be left in the hands of those who really know what they are doing.

Computersaysno wrote: »

umkomass...I agree completely with you on this topic.

A newbie should throw everything at popla.

PPrank is deffo in the category of 'really know what they are doing'...lol.

As any of us would be after being bitten by a radioactive spider :rotfl:

Decision: Allowed

Assessor:Amber Ahmed

Date: 05 September 2013

Reported: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4645375

Successful Grounds: None

PPC: G24 Limited

xxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
G24 Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Maybird Retail park, on 31 May 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX. The Operator recorded that the vehicle was at Maybird Retail Park for 315 minutes. The Operator states that permitted free parking period for this site is 240 minutes.

The Operator’s case is that there is clear signage across the site informing drivers that the site allows a maximum parking period of 240 minutes. The Operator submits that the Appellant exceeded the permitted parking time and therefore, breached the terms and conditions of using the site.

The Appellant does not dispute that they exceeded the permitted parking time.

The Appellant made various submissions; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing the appeal on the following ground.

The Appellant made representations, alluding that in the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that without landowner rights of possession, they cannot make a contract with a driver using this facility. The Appellant submits that the Operator does not have this authority.

The Operator has not dealt with these representations.
The case of VCS v HMRC concerned Value Added Tax but, In Paragraph 46 of the Decision, it states:

VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action.

This case has now been considered by the Court of Appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 186) where, in allowing the appeal of VCS, the Court held:

In the present case the contract between VCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an Operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner) to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking charge notices. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. A copy of the written authority the Operator submits they have from the landowner has not been produced.

Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notice. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Computersaysno wrote: »

I think the adjudicator must skim through the papers and obviously stops reading as soon as they identify a 'PPC loses' item.

To be fair that is all they need to do. It's not a court & not subject to appeal or scrutiny so it would be pointless for them to rule on all the points brought up by the Appellant if one is already good enough to have the charge cancelled.

Most importantly all POPLA decisions should be published with the appeal text just as all appeal decisions on proper parking fines are reported by PATAS.