POPLA Decisions

Edna_Basher

Umkomaas wrote: »

Very interesting comment from POPLA.

Indeed. I was very impressed with the assessor; although he had already found another reason to allow our appeal, he decided to also mention the relevant land point because that had been the main focus of our appeal.

With regard to your points 1-4

1. I would imagine that anyone with the knowledge to include the “not-relevant land” argument into a POPLA appeal would throw all sorts of other “winning” arguments in as well; POPLA would then have focused on one of the more usual points to allow the appeal. In fairness to POPLA, I’d be surprised if there had been any cases where an appeal containing the “not relevant land” argument was unsuccessful. I’m aware of one previous POPLA appeal succeeding on Town Quay Byelaws (Benefitmaster) and I believe that this was a single-point appeal.

2. I don’t suppose that POPLA will have been particularly impressed with PE’s behaviour and hopefully they’ll support our complaint to the BPA.

3. The DVLA carried out a so-called “investigation” into Southampton Town Quay last year. Provision of keeper data to PE was suspended temporarily. However, in October 2014 the DVLA decided to lift the suspension. Based on all of the available evidence, it’s very difficult to see how the DVLA could have reached the conclusion that Byelaws were not applicable. Perhaps their decision was Wednesbury unreasonable? Perhaps they should now revisit their “investigation”?

4. If PE has used keeper data unfairly (i.e. by claiming keeper liability where there was no lawful provision to do so) then it would be appropriate for all affected motorists to be refunded. We have the precedent of the MET / Chiltern Railways case.

Umkomaas

I've PMd Pranky.

schooleydoo

I drive a leased company car. My wife was collecting me from the airport and parked 20m before the newly installed ANPR cameras covering the entrance barrier to the car park. Rightly or wrongly, people, myself included, have been doing it regularly for years.

I submitted, among other things the below image with the attached notes. Ultimately, it seems it was unnecessary as Parking Eye messed up their paperwork due to myself not being the registered keeper.

I was parked in the area shown with a blue box, waiting to collect someone. I did not leave the car. Once collected, I turned around in the road before the
barriers and left the area. I did not pass the yellow barriers or enter the car park at any time. The green lines show where the Parking Eye cameras that they
are claim is evidence that I entered their car park, are aimed.
I believe this positioning is deliberate, to “catch” any motorist entering the road (but not necessarily, their car park).
As you can see from the signs, the area before the yellow barriers appears to be land own by Luton Airport.
The land owned by Parking Eye appears to begin after the yellow barriers.

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 that driver of the above identified vehicle breached the Terms by failing to pay for parking. The Operator pursued the registered keeper for payment of the sum outstanding but was informed that the vehicle was subject to a hire agreement at the time of parking. The Operator now seeks to recover the outstanding sum from the Appellant as the hirer of the vehicle.

The right to recover outstanding sums from the hirer of a vehicle is granted by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Paragraph 14(1)(a) states that the ‘creditor’, in this case the Operator, may only recover from the hirer if the creditor is prohibited from recovering from the keeper by paragraph 13(2). It is stated in paragraph 13(2) of Sch.4 that a creditor may not recover from the keeper of the vehicle any unpaid parking charges if the Operator is provided with the documents contained in paragraph 13(2)(a)-(c).

Consequently, I must determine whether or not the keeper provided the documents required by paragraph 13(2) and whether these were given to the Appellant as required by paragraph 14(2)(a). On the evidence before me, I find that the necessary documents were not provided. The Operator has not provided any evidence which demonstrates that these documents, such as a copy of the hire agreement, were provided by the keeper or to the Appellant.

The hirer provisions of Schedule 4 have not been satisfied and I find that the Operator cannot recover from the hirer in this case. Therefore, the Appellant is not liable to pay the parking charge. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Ricky Powell Assessor

POPLA_appeal_allowed

In reply to Coupon-mad, my POPLA code is 3410565003.

Yes, that's a good point. In their evidence pack, LCP cited the POPLA cases that they won and it seemed to me that this was an unfair advantage because in general the appellants don't know about and can't cite the cases where LCP lost. I hope what this forum is doing helps to restore some balance.

choice4

Hi
I would like to thank all on this site, as the popla appeal was successful against PE
If you want to see my story please read all my posts.
In summary, don't pay PE notice, appeal, and if you are outside the appeal window, reset the clock by naming, the driver, or anyone who might have been the driver
then appeal to PE , if they reject the appeal then appeal to popla.


From the email below from POPLA, PE did not send all the documents to defend their case so appeal allowed!!








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 [FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[/FONT][/FONT]The operator issued a parking charge notice to the vehicle for remaining at the site for longer than 4 hours.
The appellant has made various submissions; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.
The appellant’s case is that the operator has no standing authority to pursue parking charges.
After reviewing the evidence I find that the operator has not provided a copy of a contract between them and the landowner and that neither has the operator provided a signed witness statement by the landowner which gives the operator the authority to pursue parking charge notices.
Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that on this particular occasion, the operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to pursue parking charge notices. As the appellant submits that the operator does not have this authority, the burden of proof shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. I find that the operator has not discharged this burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Amber Ahmed
[/FONT][/FONT]Assessor

ampersand

Good for you: good for Amber.

Umkomaas

Well done choice4.

I notice your opening appeal point was GPEOL, which a couple of months ago would have been the one on which you won this. Looks like POPLA is now sidestepping GPEOL and finding the next option on which to uphold.

Interesting times ahead: maybe Beavis has opened an alternative set of doors!

takewhatyoucan

Thanks to all who helped with my appeal and to others who have posted details of their own appeals.

NTD issued on 21st January; POPLA appeal submitted on 5th April; POPLA decision on 27th May.

---

Reference 8660905997

takewhatyoucan (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ************* arising out of the presence at ********* *****, ****** ***, on 21 January 2015, 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

The operator issued a parking charge notice to the vehicle for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

The appellant has made various submissions; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have authority to levy parking charges.

After reviewing the evidence, I find that the operator has submitted a letter which states that the operator has an agreement with ***** ********** Limited c/o ********* PLC which is dated 24 March 2014. I find that this letter does not state who the landowners are. I find that the letter states that ***** ********** Ltd have sufficient contractual authority from the landowner to authorise the operator to issue parking charge notices. I find that nowhere in this letter does it state who the landowners are and therefore I find that this letter is not sufficient evidence to show that the operator has authority from the landowner to levy parking charges.

Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that on this particular occasion, the operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices. As the appellant submits that the operator does not have this authority, the burden of proof shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. The operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

BrokeStudent91

My appeal was allowed

Original thread here if you want to see the appeal wording I used:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5214761

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 driver breached the Terms by failing to park within the markings of a bay and therefore the Appellant is liable to pay the parking charge issued.

The Appellant has made several submissions however for the purposes of this appeal it is only necessary to deal with one. This is the submission that the notice to keeper was not properly given and is not compliant with the provisions of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the Appellant is correctly pursued as the driver of the vehicle as the Appellant has not been shown to have admitted he was the driver. Therefore, the Operator was required to establish ‘keeper’ liability under Schedule 4 of POFA in order to recover from the Appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The Operator has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that a notice to keeper was issued or that, if one was issued, it was compliant with POFA. Consequently, on the balance of probabilities, I find that the Operator did not comply with POFA and the Appellant is not liable to pay the parking charge.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Ricky Powell Assessor

AppleYumYum

Thank you to these forums for showing me that I didn't just have to pay up, and a huge thank you to Private Parking Appeals for sorting out my POPLA appeal for me, highly recommend them if you haven't the time to do it yourself :T


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]29 May 2015 [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Reference xxxxxxxx [/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]xxxxxxxxx(Appellant) [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]-v- [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator) [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Toft Road Knutsford, on 10 January 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. [/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Assessor’s reasons are as set out. [/FONT]


[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]‘Maximum 2.5 hours free parking’[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Appellant’s case that: [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]a) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could have been caused by the alleged breach. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]b) There was insufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of motorists. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]c) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]I need not decide any other issues. [/FONT]


[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Christopher Adamson [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Assessor [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]