POPLA Decisions

ampersand

duffs54 - to clarify, does this
'The keeper is now banned from using the said carpark on the grounds that the keeper behaved unreasonably and that they have incurred a significant loss because of this incident. Police action will follow if the keeper ever parks there again as they own the land, it is attached to a shop.'

actually appear in today's letter:eek::eek::eek:?
#
What 'police action' might that be?

Hope you'll pursue this.

Half_way

The keeper is now banned from using the said carpark on the grounds that the keeper behaved unreasonably and that they have incurred a significant loss because of this incident. Police action will follow if the keeper ever parks there again as they own the land, it is attached to a shop.

Who is this "they"? it appears that this They is the Registered keeper.

so the registered keeper has suffered a loss as a result of Napiers unreasonable actions - not sure if the RK owns the land though?

DollyDee_2

I read it that "they" were Napier trying to make out they made a loss.

duffs54

Appeal accepted under don't know the driver rule etc then:

The charge notice has therefore been cancelled and no further action is required in that respect
However we do believe you position to be unreasonable and we beleive the Notice to have been correctly issued in the first instance. We have incurred a significant loss as a result of this incident.

We are therefore banning you from future use of the ******car park. The land is private land and you and your vehicles are no longer allowed on the land. should you ignore this ban we will be contacting the police and requesting they take legal action against you. We also reserve the right to take further action against you should you re enter the land at anytime.

You may wish to seek independant legal advice if you are unsure of you position.

If you wish to contact us regarding this matter you are free to do so

So there you go is that the keeper banned or the driver?

trisontana

The police won't be bothered about this and won't take "legal action". That's just an empty threat.

Umkomaas

No legal action to take!

'It's a civil matter, Sir'.

pvt

duffs54 wrote: »

So there you go is that the keeper banned or the driver?

As the case was against the keeper rather than the driver, then it is the keeper and the car that are "banned".

Which is bad news for anyone who buys the car in the future.

Perhaps the keeper should write back and ask for clarification as to whether there is any obligation for him to inform any future owner of the vehicle of the fact it is banned from said car park?

fkrjd

Thanks to everybody who helped me with this

P
ARKING ON
P
RIVATE
L
AND
A
PPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
enquiries@popla.org.uk
www.popla.org.uk
Parking on Private Land Appeals is
administered
by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
03 February 2015
Reference
8413374023
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Dear Sir or Madam
Mr Frank
Lingard
(Appellant)
-
v
-
Total Parking Solutions Ltd
(Operator)
The Operator
has
informed
us
that
they have cancelled
parking
charge notice number
MT31851474
,
issued in respect of
a
vehicle with
the
registration mark
.
Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead
Adjudicator.
You are not liable for
the parking
charge and, where appropriate, any
amounts already paid in r
espect of this parking charge notice will be
refunded by the Operator.

yours sincerely

Richard Reeve

TGL

Regarding MET Parking ticket received at Virgin Active Stockley Park. Forum thread 67656827 [unable to post link]

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

Shehla Pirwany

Assessor

apsie

Thank you to everyone on this board who helped me directly with this, and also to everyone who has posted advice on here in general. Please see here: for the original thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5135670


Reference ************
always quote in any communication with POPLA
********** (Appellant)
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ********** arising out of the presence at Rear of Frimley Parade, on 5 November 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark *********
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
It does not appear to be in dispute that the appellant parked at the site and failed to make payment within 10 minutes of arrival. This was detected by the operator’s ANPR system, causing a parking charge notice to be issued.
The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacked the authority to issued and enforce charge notices in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The operator’s assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor