Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 132
    • Molts
    • By Molts 6th May 17, 8:08 AM
    • 64 Posts
    • 157 Thanks
    Molts
    PE Spanked Following Retailer Complaint
    "Good morning Molts
    Thank you for contacting David.
    I am sorry you received a parking charge when visiting us recently, but don�t worry I have now arranged for this to be cancelled.
    Thank you once again for getting in touch and please come back and see is soon.

    Kind regards,
    Mxxxxx Hxxxx
    On behalf of David Potts
    Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC"
    A couple of tweets, a Facebook post and a scathing email to David Potts, CEO. About 10 minutes work, job done. Parking Lie spanked although still awaiting confirmation from those shysters!
    To be fair @Morrisons were very responsive (I forgave the typos!) which goes to show, well worth landowner/retailer complaint coupled with PPC appeal where appropriate.

    Beaten before having to go through POPLA hassle I know but thought possibly not worthy of a new post!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th May 17, 1:53 PM
    • 50,582 Posts
    • 63,964 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    To be fair @Morrisons were very responsive
    And to be fair, so they damn well should be, having signed up to FIVE YEAR contracts which (by all accounts, as we've seen loads reported) allow Parking Eye carte blanche to sue their customers senseless: disabled, elderly, the lot.

    Morrisons, Aldi and Asda should be absolutely flamed and shamed.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • topbloke6
    • By topbloke6 8th May 17, 2:21 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    topbloke6
    POPLA appeal Town Quay Southampton Refused.
    Despite previously allowing appeals on Town Quay, POPLA have now refused my appeal stating that the bylaws so allow them to issue tickets!! Ouch.

    Decision Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a valid payment being made.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the site in question fails to meet the definition of relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). As a result, the appellant believes that the operator has failed to established keeper liability due to the Associated British Ports' Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I feel it is necessary to comment on a ground for appeal raised by the appellant. Throughout the appeal process, the appellant has maintained that the site in question – Southampton Town Quay – is governed by Byelaws. To substantiate his claim, the appellant has included a copy of the Associated British Ports' Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 in his appeal to POPLA. Prior to issuing this decision, I sought advice from POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator regarding this appeal. After discussing the case at length, both myself and POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator agreed with the following: PoFA 2012 only applies on relevant land. Relevant land is defined as anything except: (a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. Under (c), “subject to statutory control” is defined as: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question. The Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 defines a vehicle as: “vehicle” includes any vehicle propelled on rails, any machinery on wheels or caterpillar tracks, trailers, caravans and mobile homes and includes a hovercraft or any other amphibious vehicle; After considering this, we concluded that this definition does not include most on-road vehicles, including cars. Because of this, we concluded that the land is not subject to statutory control for the purpose of parking cars and PoFA 2012 can apply. The Southampton Harbour byelaws do not contain any section on parking. What the District Judge considered was whether Section 37, below, included parking: Obstruction or interference on the dock estate: 37. No person shall: (a) except with the permission of ABP, deposit or place on any part of the dock estate any goods or park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, railway, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto; or (b) without lawful authority, use, work, move or tamper with any plant, machinery, equipment or apparatus at the dock estate. For Southampton Harbour, as the Byelaws do not include any provisions in respect of parking, the land is not under statutory control in respect of parking. The land is therefore relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012. In summary, while this may not necessarily be the case for all harbours, both myself and POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator agreed that on balance, Southampton Harbour is not subject to Byelaws. As a result, I will continue to assess the appeal as normal, taking into consideration the fact that the driver of the vehicle has not been identified and therefore, the operator must meet the requirements 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. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Visitors must log their full, correct vehicle registration using the terminal in reception to obtain free parking for the duration of their stay. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of: £100”. 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 09:28 and exiting the site at 10:02. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of 34 minutes. The operator has provided a system print out, which confirms that the driver failed to make a valid payment on the date in question. At no point during the appeal process has the appellant advised or made reference to why the driver failed to make a payment, nor has the appellant referred to any specific circumstances from the date in question. As such, I cannot take these into consideration. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the driver accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by failing to make a valid payment, the driver has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th May 17, 3:34 PM
    • 14,859 Posts
    • 23,325 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 defines a vehicle as: “vehicle” includes any vehicle propelled on rails, any machinery on wheels or caterpillar tracks, trailers, caravans and mobile homes and includes a hovercraft or any other amphibious vehicle; After considering this, we concluded that this definition does not include most on-road vehicles, including cars.
    Haven't we been through this rubbish before? And didn't John Gallagher accept that the Assessor then was totally wrong in deciding on this basis. And now he seems to be agreeing with our budding authoress of steamy renditions, that a caravan is a vehicle, but a car pulling it is not?

    Right, off to find that previous thread!

    EDIT TO ADD

    Here we go:

    It was covered on PePiPoo re Marina Car Park, Torquay. Same descriptions used as above. Have a read of the following:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108912

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108486&st=80&p=1237681&#entry1 237681

    John Gallagher confirmed in that second link that POPLA had got it wrong - exactly the same wrong decision that he seems now to be endorsing? Wtf is going on? Have PE put pressure on POPLA?
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 08-05-2017 at 3:54 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 8th May 17, 6:50 PM
    • 2,063 Posts
    • 2,474 Thanks
    waamo
    "Any machinery on wheels" doesn't include a car? That really needs addressing.
    This space for hire.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th May 17, 8:23 PM
    • 14,859 Posts
    • 23,325 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    "Any machinery on wheels" doesn't include a car? That really needs addressing.
    Originally posted by waamo
    It was - by John Gallagher, POPLA Lead Adjudicator, who disagreed with his own Assessor's previous judgement that 'machinery on wheels' does not include cars. Now he's turned turtle on that, now agreeing with Ms Chriscoli (Google time!), that said machinery no longer includes cars.

    Either his precedent recording systems are poor, his memory is poor, his judgement is poor, or he's been influenced by PE/BPA pressure (his paymasters after all).

    Just further reduces public confidence in POPLA as a professional and impartial ADR provider - now moving closer to IAS style judgements than ever before.

    I hope the OP takes this up robustly and challenges this appalling inconsistency.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 08-05-2017 at 8:26 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 8th May 17, 11:13 PM
    • 584 Posts
    • 1,518 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Appalling inconsistency against a previous adjudication by one of POPLA's more competent assessors (whose name the MSE Forum Police saw fit to remove from this post).

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71378601&postcount=2372
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 9th May 17, 9:41 AM
    • 796 Posts
    • 595 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    This needs to get into court ASAP....I doubt a judge will agree with their interpretation....but then again...
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 9th May 17, 1:46 PM
    • 584 Posts
    • 1,518 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    As reported a few weeks ago by The Engineer on their pepipoo thread, Judge Gold at Portsmouth County Court (Case Ref. C8FC9G7W) considers that a car counts as "machinery on wheels" and that parking of cars in the Port of Southampton is subject to the ABP Byelaws.


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105849
    • miser69er
    • By miser69er 19th May 17, 1:01 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    miser69er
    Birmingham Airport APCOA
    First post so go easy on me!!

    Received a PCN from APCOA for a 5 second stop at Birmingham Airport where a friend jumped into car. I have appealed using the standard blue template letter but can't seem to find any relevant or should I say new post on this matter.

    Question being is the information still relevant and what chance do I have of this being rejected?

    Many thanks
    • waamo
    • By waamo 19th May 17, 1:07 PM
    • 2,063 Posts
    • 2,474 Thanks
    waamo
    The information in the Newbies thread is relevant and up to date. For advice you need to start your own thread.
    This space for hire.
    • miser69er
    • By miser69er 19th May 17, 1:13 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    miser69er
    Thanks waamo

    Will do just that when I figure out how to!!
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 19th May 17, 2:20 PM
    • 7,635 Posts
    • 7,698 Thanks
    pogofish
    Will do just that when I figure out how to!!
    Originally posted by miser69er
    This was fully explained in the info you confirmed you had read and understood as part of your signup - maybe go back and read it again?
    • miser69er
    • By miser69er 19th May 17, 2:50 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    miser69er
    Thanks pogofish, you have a lovely mannerism and a way with words......

    For info, I set up this account 8 years ago and my memory is not what it was then. But, I have now started a thread which you are more than welcome to comment on in your own eloquent way.

    Should have obviously put 'remembered' how to
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 21st May 17, 9:44 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    Verification Code
    2410967437

    POPLA assessment and decision
    19/05/2017

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Kirsty XXX
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist’s vehicle was parked without the motorist purchasing a valid pay and display/permit.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and has not named the driver. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCN. • The appellant does not feel that the signage at the site is prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • The appellant says that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The appellant does not believe that the signage warns drivers of what the data that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras capture will be used for. • The appellant does not believe that the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in transferring liability to the registered keeper of the vehicle or the driver. • The appellant says that the grace periods are unclear and have not been applied properly.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Reviewing the information provided in relation to this appeal, it appears that the registered keeper is appealing the charge. The appellant has not provided a full name and address for the driver to the operator, and as such, the operator is pursuing the keeper. 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 PoFA must be adhered to. The operator has provided evidence of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) that has been issued. Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of PoFA states: “(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2) The notice must – (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under the paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).” Upon reviewing the NTK provided by the parking operator, I can see that the date issued is 12 March 2017. The NTK states “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”. The date the letter was given was 21 March 2017, however it states the date issued is 12 March 2017. As such, the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012 and I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN incorrectly. While I appreciate that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, as I have already allowed the appeal on this ground there is no need for me to further consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.



    Thank you Coupon-mad
    Last edited by Couldey; 27-06-2017 at 8:39 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st May 17, 9:54 PM
    • 14,859 Posts
    • 23,325 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Excellent win Couldey.

    Link to original thread to above:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5624170
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Couldey
    • By Couldey 21st May 17, 10:20 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    Couldey
    All the credit goes to Coupon-mad
    • Fiddledy_D
    • By Fiddledy_D 23rd May 17, 12:25 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Fiddledy_D
    Thanks to the 'experts' here who have generated and consolidated a great deal of useful information. I am very happy to say I took MET Parking Services to POPLA appeal and I received a response yesterday that MET did not wish to contest the appeal. WINNER!!!
    • sli88
    • By sli88 26th May 17, 12:20 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    sli88
    Just got my decision for parking without displaying valid payment in and Indigo Car Park:

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Mark xxx
    Assessor summary of operator case
    In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notice is valid.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is only the courts can impose a penalty for breach of the Byelaws. He has demonstrated that he was not parked in a manner to justify the Parking Charge Notice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid.

    Thanks the for the help everyone!
    • mae
    • By mae 28th May 17, 7:59 AM
    • 1,445 Posts
    • 818 Thanks
    mae
    Euro Car Parks Success

    POPLA assessment and decision
    26/05/2017

    Verification Code
    2410897186

    Decision Successful

    Assessor Name Graham XXXXXX

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver exceeded the maximum parking time permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is the signage was insufficient and they doubt the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper provided by the operator. Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA 2012 provides that the notice to keeper must: ‘warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’ The notice to keeper has not satisfied the above requirements of PoFA 2012. This is because it does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states ’… 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …’. The Date Issued is specified on the notice to keeper as 7 March 2017, rather than the date of the notice to keeper itself, which is 15 March 2017. PoFA 2012 has strict requirements for the transfer of liability and these requirements have not been met in this case. The operator has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has raised other issues, it is not necessary to consider them in this appeal. Because the operator has failed to transfer liability, the parking charge is not enforceable against the registered keeper.

    Thanks everyone for your help. The truth is I would have just paid up if it wasn't for all those on here willing to help and share facts and experience.

    Original Thread
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5619848
    Last edited by mae; 28-05-2017 at 8:18 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,597Posts Today

8,792Users online

Martin's Twitter