POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Stroma wrote: »

Another Parking Eye loss is being reported on pepipoo
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=22826

One of the newbie Assessors - Aurela Querimi. Her (I presume) written assessment is a bit mixed up, at one point she refers to the appellant as 'she', a little later 'he'. In one place she seemingly refers to the Operator as the appellant.

She did seem to make a bodged job of a pretty good appeal a little earlier this week, for which the appellant is now looking to write to the Chief Adjudicator to lodge a complaint.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78054&pid=847607&st=60&#entry847607

Guys_Dad

I am a bit disturbed by posy #157 in which the appellant lost.

One of the appeal points made was

"Site Agreement/Contract with Landowner
As alluded to above, K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC have not supplied a copy of the contract and site agreement between them and the landowner, even though they are at pains to state they “have a duty to the landowners” in their ‘letter of rejection’.
I ask that POPLA request such if not already in possession and scrutinises accordingly, because I contend that K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC may not have a sufficient contract or site agreement which would give them any site ownership/assignment of interest to give them sufficient legal status to pursue Parking Charge Notices with drivers.
Indeed as far as I am aware, the only items relating to K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC on that site are the signs – which I have shown to be even more contentious. There are no permanent staff, nor ANPR/camera equipment present and so K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC appear to have insufficient legal status there whatsoever, that could enable them to make contractual agreements with visitors. "

As far as I can see, the adjudicator completely ignored this fundamental point. As this has been a winning appeal point in many cases, this is a gross error on the adjudicator's behalf and should be brought to POPLA's attention urgently with a view to some sort of re-assessment.

Had the adjudicator said that they had viewed the contract and were satisfied, then that would have been ok, but to ignore it? Seems some basic training needs to be undertaken.

Coupon-mad

Yet another slam-dunk defeat of Parking Eye being reported on pepipoo, details to follow:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78049

QUOTE FROM THE DECISION:

"He also adds that the charge is ‘punitive’.

Also, he adds that the operator did not provide the details of POPLA, until the third time in request.

He makes reference to the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 by saying the charge of £100 exceeds the potential cost or consequential loss to the landowner.

Considering all the evidence before me, I must find that, on this particular occasion, the operator has not dealt properly with the issue of the charge being punitive.

The operator states that the charge complies with the BPA; however this does not necessarily mean that it is justified.

The operator also mentions the case ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores (2011), which I cannot consider in this case as the facts are different in this case.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed".

Rahsanul Islam
Assessor

Custard_Pie

Computersaysno wrote: »

Why does BPA/POPLA allow the PPCs to continue issuing tickets when their signs have been proved to be 'incorrect'.......

Surely once it's been found at fault for a particular location [or even better for obe variant of a sign] all other appeals for that location should be granted by POPLA, irrespective of the case??

POPLA have not jurisdiction to do so apart from keep ruling against the PPC at tribunal. I'd suggest that BPA may get fed up with keep being spanked though as it's them that get's hit in the pocket. Don't forget though that on average, for every 100 invoices issued, 70 pay up straight away without question.

Why would they change?

Custard_Pie

bazster wrote: »

The usual grounds. How much longer can this farce continue?

For as long as legally they are allowed to and for as long as The BPA also allows it, as it's the latter who get hit with the majority of the cost. We are now starting to see delaying tactics by PPC in giving out POPLA codes. They will continue to play the game though as 70% of invoices are paid without question. They will absorb the rest (for now) and write the cost off against expenses.

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am a bit disturbed by posy #157 in which the appellant lost.

One of the appeal points made was

"Site Agreement/Contract with Landowner

As alluded to above, K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC have not supplied a copy of the contract and site agreement between them and the landowner, even though they are at pains to state they “have a duty to the landowners” in their ‘letter of rejection’.
I ask that POPLA request such if not already in possession and scrutinises accordingly, because I contend that K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC may not have a sufficient contract or site agreement which would give them any site ownership/assignment of interest to give them sufficient legal status to pursue Parking Charge Notices with drivers.
Indeed as far as I am aware, the only items relating to K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC on that site are the signs – which I have shown to be even more contentious. There are no permanent staff, nor ANPR/camera equipment present and so K.B.T CORNWALL LTD T/AS ARMTRAC appear to have insufficient legal status there whatsoever, that could enable them to make contractual agreements with visitors. "

As far as I can see, the adjudicator completely ignored this fundamental point. As this has been a winning appeal point in many cases, this is a gross error on the adjudicator's behalf and should be brought to POPLA's attention urgently with a view to some sort of re-assessment.

Had the adjudicator said that they had viewed the contract and were satisfied, then that would have been ok, but to ignore it? Seems some basic training needs to be undertaken.

Pretty sure a complaint is being sent to the Chief Adjudicator about that one.

Coupon-mad

Stroma wrote: »

OLD CASE FROM JUNE ALREADY REPORTED HERE, NOT A NEW ONE, PLEASE NOTE AARON AADVARK!

PCM
Appeal : rejected
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At XX:XX on XX December 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because the vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX was parked in a disabled bay but the Operator’s employee could not see a valid disabled badge on display. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle, one of which shows the parking charge notice on the windscreen.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the site and state that motorists parking in disabled bays must clearly display a disabled badge. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

The Appellant made representations, enclosing a photograph of the disabled badge and stating that it had fallen onto the driver’s seat but was still clearly visible.

The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge. The Operator submits that the photographs taken by the employee show that the disabled badge was not visible in the dashboard or windscreen of the vehicle.

I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the term display means that all details proving the validity of the disabled badge must be clearly visible from the outside of the vehicle, and that the badge should usually displayed on the dashboard or windscreen. I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a valid disabled badge was not displayed. This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

It is noted that the Appellant did have a valid disabled badge, however it is the motorist’s responsibility to check on leaving the vehicle that all the terms and conditions have been complied with. On this occasion the disabled badge was not visible from the outside of the vehicle.

Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Shona Watson

This one from post #54 on this very thread has been 'won' by the motorist by turning the screw with the landowner after his shock POPLA loss to PCM!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79901&st=60&start=60

This was a disabled driver whose Badge wasn't displayed and so to find against him was arguably an Equality Act breach by POPLA IMHO! So he took his revenge, served very cold on PCM who had funded the POPLA appeal and must have thought he would fold and pay!

On pepipoo a Letter before Action was written for him to send to PCM and the landowner but he managed to resolve it without:

''The LBA was going to be my next move; it was the intervention of the Landowner that cancelled the "charges".

I had previously forwarded all documentation "for reference" to xxxx Management and kept a "good rapport" going with them which I believe was key to my result.

PCM had passed my details to Newlyn Debt Collection but I was adamant I was going to see this through to the bitter end...''


:T

bazster

Another defeat for ParkingEye at PoPLA:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77908&st=20&start=20

Failure to demonstrate a genuine loss, yet again.

trisontana

Today I emailed the BPA Ltd. asking them to comment on PE's standard letter which tries to justify a"pre-estimate of loss by including :-
erection and maintenance of site signage. Installation, maintenance and monitoring of the ANPR system. Employment of office-based admin staff. Membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO. And general costs including stationery, postage etc.

I await their comments

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

Today I emailed the BPA Ltd. asking them to comment on PE's standard letter which tries to justify a"pre-estimate of loss by including :-
erection and maintenance of site signage. Installation, maintenance and monitoring of the ANPR system. Employment of office-based admin staff. Membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO. And general costs including stationery, postage etc.

I await their comments

Which POPLA is not accepting as a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is upholding appeals on that basis.