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
    • AIMINGHIGH123
    • By AIMINGHIGH123 6th Dec 17, 8:22 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 9Thanks
    AIMINGHIGH123
    POPLA unsuccessful
    • #1
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:22 PM
    POPLA unsuccessful 6th Dec 17 at 8:22 PM
    Hello,
    My POPLA descision was unsuccessful.

    The real reason I couldn't pay for my ticket was because the machines I tried wouldn't take my card, had no cash on me and no phone to call the number. I didn't use this reason I used the information on this site when contesting it.

    Popla descision was made 21 days after my appeal but it says I can appeal this to the ombudsman. Is that the next step or shall I just wait and go to court?
    My other worry is I am potentially taking a job abroad at the end of next year, what would happen if I get a summons after leaving the country?

    Also parking eye didn't even submit any information.

    Here is there response:

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant advises that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. He states that a contract was not entered into between the operator and the motorist. The appellant has also disputed the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking Tariffs Apply. Up to 3 hours…£16.00. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 13:32 and exited at 15:34 on the day in question, staying for a total of two hours and one minutes. A copy of its whitelist payment lookup has also been provided, showing that the motorist did not make a payment to park at the site that day. The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012. The appellant advises that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. He states that a contract was not entered into between the operator and the motorist. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of PoFA 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability and is able to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has disputed the operator’s authority to issue PCNs on the land. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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”. The operator has provided a copy of its supply agreement with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice’s requirements. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist did not make a payment for their parking session, they have failed to adhere to the site’s terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 17, 8:57 PM
    • 15,888 Posts
    • 24,635 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:57 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:57 PM
    Did you give us the early stage details of this PCN? I can find one previous thread for Euro Car Parks, but not ParkingEye.

    You argued to POPLA that the NtK was not PoFA compliant. Why was it not compliant?

    Are you also saying that PE did not provide you with their evidence pack, once you submitted your POPLA appeal, for you to rebut?
    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.
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 6th Dec 17, 9:02 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:02 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:02 PM
    As you admitted that you were the driver in post 1, why did you appeal to POPLA saying that you wasn’t the driver? Maybe POPLA smelled a rat and decided to find any old excuse to rule against you?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 17, 9:16 PM
    • 15,888 Posts
    • 24,635 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:16 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:16 PM
    As you admitted that you were the driver in post 1, why did you appeal to POPLA saying that you wasn’t the driver? Maybe POPLA smelled a rat and decided to find any old excuse to rule against you?
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959
    POPLA can no more assume who the driver was than can the PPC. That’s why PoFA provides for the keeper to be pursued in the absence of the driver’s details. They can’t have two bites of the cherry. Surely you realise there is absolutely no legal obligation on the driver to ‘out’ him/herself, or for the keeper, even if known, for them to provide the driver’s details. Otherwise PoFA would have included that obligation.

    No driver details provided - go down the PoFA route. Can’t comply with PoFA requirements, then no Keeper Liability. Go whistle.

    So from which element of the laws of the land are you suggesting POPLA has the legal capacity to judge/assume who was driving? Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films have regularly hit the dirt when PPCs have desperately tried to hoodwink the judges using them to argue who the driver was/might have been.

    So which side precisely are you on? A bit of honesty?
    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.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th Dec 17, 9:37 PM
    • 332 Posts
    • 329 Thanks
    claxtome
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:37 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:37 PM
    Suggest you edit your opening post to use the wording 'driver of the vehicle' as some PPCs search this forum's posts and use as evidence. ;-)
    • AIMINGHIGH123
    • By AIMINGHIGH123 6th Dec 17, 10:11 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    AIMINGHIGH123
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:11 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:11 PM
    No eurocarparks was a seperate case which I won.
    In the eurocarparks case I did say I was the driver. In this case I did not mention myself as the driver.

    I can't find my posts regarding PE but yes I am saying PE provided no evidence to POPLA. It even says on POPLA no evidence submitted.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 17, 10:27 PM
    • 15,888 Posts
    • 24,635 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:27 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:27 PM
    I am saying PE provided no evidence to POPLA. It even says on POPLA no evidence submitted.
    If that’s the case, how come POPLA were quoting from their signage, their NtK and the landowner’s authority.

    If you didn’t receive PE’s evidence pack (check your email spam folder), I would complain to John Gallagher, POPLA Lead Adjudicator to tell him that due process wasn’t followed, PE provided you with no evidence pack for you to understand and comment on their case.
    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.
    • AIMINGHIGH123
    • By AIMINGHIGH123 13th Dec 17, 10:48 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    AIMINGHIGH123
    • #8
    • 13th Dec 17, 10:48 AM
    • #8
    • 13th Dec 17, 10:48 AM
    Ok I contacted POPLA via there enquiries email address, I could not find how to contact John Gallagher directly.
    They have said that as the decision has been made they can't change it.
    PE provided no evidence or it wasn't uploaded by POPLA. I have checked all of my emails, spam/junk everything but didn't receive any other email only the email that said a decision had been made.
    I have been waiting for ages for them to get back to me and am very disappointed in the way this has been handled.
    I guess the next stage is to complain to the ombudsman on the way this has been handled?
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

1,607Posts Today

7,622Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @SF_England: @MartinSLewis Thanks Martin, just so everyone is aware- check your payslips between when you graduated and the following Ap?

  • Sorry to bubble burst. But each day a lot of people tweet me this. I think it doesn't show any other votes until t? https://t.co/uRny62NRc1

  • Today's Twitter poll: I want to find out are people generally happy. So how happy are you today? PS I did the same? https://t.co/3Gw9ylu2H2

  • Follow Martin