POPLA Decisions

SafetyCatch

Further proof that MET are completely full of it.


Threatening letters, backed up with zero substance.


I urge everyone to appeal against these jokers. :rotfl:


********** (Appellant)
-v-
MET Parking Services Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number MP******** arising out of a presence on private land, 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 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

ChaliWires

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 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.

Umkomaas

Good result ChaliWires. The PPC sent nothing, won nothing, lost £27 + VAT! Nice one

lola-909

Meteor Vinci ticket Marden station car park
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking (“the Terms”) were clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to display a valid ticket and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued.
The Appellant has made several submissions however it is only necessary to consider one submission for the purposes of this appeal. This is the submission that the Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charges on the land.
The Operator has not provided a copy of a contract between itself and the Landowner which authorises it to operate at the site and to issue parking charges on its behalf; nor has it provided a signed witness statement confirming the existence of such a contract. Therefore, I cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this case.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell
Assessor

lola-909

We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that it is not a ‘penalty’ for a number of reasons. We incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified, including but not restricted to the following;
 Employment of parking attendants to patrol the parking location (inc. Equipment)- £25.00
 Erection and maintenance of the site signage, machines, etc. - £20.00
 Employment of office-based administrative staff - £25.00
 Membership and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA and ICO - £35.00
 General costs including stationery, postage etc - £15.00
Total Costs per PCN: £120.00

waamo

Most of those costs are fixed business costs. The numpties still don't get GPEOL after having it explained to them ad infinitum.

matttye

waamo wrote: »

Most of those costs are fixed business costs. The numpties still don't get GPEOL after having it explained to them ad infinitum.

I'm sure they do get it but it's not in their interests to get it, is it. So they play dumb.

lola-909

I wrote a very very long letter using all the points suggested here and more. I think POPLA cut to the chase - look for a clause that prevents them having to spend time answering each point raised for quick end solution and that makes success more likely - thanks to the guys on here for the information.

debsydoodah

POPLA accepted an appeal on a PCN from my employer, who did not ask for my permission before doing so.

My employer is not the registered keeper of my car and the refusal letter makes no mention to any points that I raised by sending in letters after the appeal was lodged.

POPLA refuse to speak with me as I am not the appellant - I have been disadvantaged by my employer (who acted albeit with the best of intentions).

However, I maintain that they should not have accepted the appeal and instead should have told my employer to tell me to do so. Could I possibly get anywhere with this?

My initial emails are being returned by POPLA stating they will only deal with the appellant (grrrr)

waamo

Please no questions in this thread. Information gets scattered all over the place and threads get dragged off topic which makes it difficult to help you. Start your own thread and keep all the information in it. It helps us to help you.