POPLA Decisions

Ah well at least we know a POPLA appeal can be won on this instead of the usual no GPEOL.

Merulius52 wrote: »

Circs: overstay in shopping mall car park, free for 3 hours.

Adjudicator said

failed to show that they complied with the relevant requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

WOW!!!!!!!!!


This is a rare occurrence indeed [if it were a bird the twitchers would be flocking for a sighting of it]....something other than GPEOL or PSDSU.


Would be interesting to see more of the relevant appeal points.

Previously though they've homed in on GPEOL even though there have been PoFA non-compliance issues raised within the appeal.

It does seem to me that Assessors are either starting to get a better grip and understanding on the nuances and subtleties of PoFA non-compliance and/or GPEOL is sitting on slightly thinner (albeit rather thick) ice now?

DollyDee wrote: »

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92529

Is it this one?

Ooooh that's interesting!

No (unless there was a typo about the PPC) it can't be the same case as the above one was v 'Civil Enforcement' so the thread said?



The pepipoo single decision case was v CP Plus at a Motorway Services (same sort of case where CP Plus actually WON at POPLA last month!):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92529


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 parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at XXX, on XXX, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX for exceeding the maximum permitted stay and not making payment for parking thereafter.

It is the Operator's case that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in excess of the maximum permitted stay and they did not make payment for parking thereafter and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

The Appellant states that they have never admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and therefore the parking charge notice is not valid. The Appellant states that the Operator has not complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to establish keeper liability.

Having reviewed the evidence, the Operator states that they are pursuing the Appellant as the driver of the vehicle and not the registered keeper and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not applicable. As the Operator is pursuing the Appellant as the driver of the vehicle, the burden rests on the Operator to prove that the Appellant was the driver. The Appellant has not admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and I am not satisfied that the Operator has shown that they were the driver. The onus is on the Operator to prove their case against the Appellant and on this occasion they have not done so.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor

I have just had an appeal allowed on failing to show the keeper liable.

This was slightly different however as the copy of the one produced to POPLA was not the actual one they sent me, it was just the template for it.

POPLA claimed they are unable to rely upon that as evidence.