POPLA Decisions

walabala

Appeal Allowed :
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued a parking charge notice to the appellant for breaching the terms and conditions of the site.

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

The appellant has not admitted to being the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged breach.

Liability for parking charges lies primarily with the driver; however, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides that, in certain circumstances, the registered keeper of a vehicle may be held liable for parking charges incurred by the driver of the vehicle.

In order for the operator to be able to recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper, four conditions must be met:

1) The first condition is that the operator has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid charges, and the operator does not know the name and address of the driver.

In this case, it appears the driver of the vehicle parked the vehicle and then walked off site, and that the operator does not know the name and address of the driver. Accordingly, I find that the first condition is met.

2) The second condition is that: either a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7 of the schedule, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 is given; or, a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 is given.

The operator has not provided any evidence of a notice to keeper being issued.

As keeper liability is statutory, it is for the operator to produce evidence that all of the requirements laid out in the Act have ben met. Accordingly, copies of all Notices relied on must be produced.

In this case, the operator has failed to produce evidence of the notice to keeper relied on, and so I am unable to find that the requirements laid out in paragraph 8 of the Schedule have been met. Consequently, I must find that





the operator has failed to show that the appellant is liable as the keeper of the vehicle.

The operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle and also has not produced any evidence to show that the appellant is liable for the parking charge as either the driver or registered keeper.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

ezerscrooge

Helped a friend with this one. PE did not provided any contract or witness statement. The site was sold on 22nd Jan, so clearly the new landowner had not authorised PE to continue operations (PE have since gone from Two Saints, to be replaced by another bunch of parasites). Anyway POPLA outcome was Appeal Allowed.

---

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 15 February 2015, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the site without authorisation.

The Operator’s case is that the site is a 1 hour free stay car park after which tariffs apply as stated on the signage and the vehicle in question remained at the site for 11 minute longer than the stay authorised.

The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the Operator does not have authority to pursue parking charge notices.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the site without authorisation. They advise that they have written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices at this site
from the landowner.

The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities.

Once an Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority to pursue parking charge notices, the onus is on the Operator to show otherwise.

The Operator has not provided any evidence to address the Appellant’s submission such as a valid contract or a witness statement and they have not discharged the burden of proof.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

Aurela Qerimi

Assessor

---

I've now got 2 evidence packs with 'witness statements' to try and debunk (for other cases at other car parks). Any advice appreciated on thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5240769

beamerguy

UNREAL PARKING CHARGES ?

POPLA is a 50/50 thing, I personally would not use them as this is a perfect DIY job.

These are not fines, only the authorities like the police or councils can issue parking fines.
These parking companies can only issue parking TICKETS which really mean nothing.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Section 56 and Schedule 4 clearly states the following:-
Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be
set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver "

If you were shopping in one of these areas, keep the receipt. Send the ticket to the company concerned, Lidl or Aldi or whatever, telling them to pay or they lose your custom.

Ask the cowboy company who issued the parking ticket, to provide this information:---
"Give me a breakdown of your charge"

It's like the bank charges whereby banks would not give a breakdown, they refunded them.
Despite all the stupid threats they make about debt collectors, solicitors, court action, if they cannot answer a simple question they just lost.

nigelbb

beamerguy wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Section 56 and Schedule 4 clearly states the following:-
Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver "

THIS IS INCORRECT INFORMATION.
POFA 2012 says nothing of the sort. This is a paragraph from the DfT Guidance on POFA 2012 & while the words are possibly what those who drafted the Act intended they are a recommendation only & do not have the force of law. In fact an intention to penalise the driver has already been held to be permissible by the Court of Appeal

fisherjim

beamerguy wrote: »

UNREAL PARKING CHARGES ?

POPLA is a 50/50 thing, I personally would not use them as this is a perfect DIY job.

These are not fines, only the authorities like the police or councils can issue parking fines.
These parking companies can only issue parking TICKETS which really mean nothing.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Section 56 and Schedule 4 clearly states the following:-
Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be
set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver "

If you were shopping in one of these areas, keep the receipt. Send the ticket to the company concerned, Lidl or Aldi or whatever, telling them to pay or they lose your custom.

Ask the cowboy company who issued the parking ticket, to provide this information:---
"Give me a breakdown of your charge"

It's like the bank charges whereby banks would not give a breakdown, they refunded them.
Despite all the stupid threats they make about debt collectors, solicitors, court action, if they cannot answer a simple question they just lost.

Unfortunately you are not only posting on the wrong thread, but also are giving misguided advice.
I suggest you read the Parking forum more deeply and see what the real world of the PPC's is like!!

Maybe start with the Beavis V Parking eye case!

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

Unfortunately you are not only posting on the wrong thread, but also are giving misguided advice.
I suggest you read the Parking forum more deeply and see what the real world of the PPC's is like!!

Maybe start with the Beavis V Parking eye case!

I think most people know of this case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3052063/Victory-parking-cowboys-Appeal-court-throws-chip-shop-owner-s-challenge-unfair-charges-park-private-land.html

Does not follow that a lower court will follow the lead ?

Beavis stated: - He claimed the £85 charge against him was disproportionate and vowed to fight the companies who 'extort money by threatening and bullying people into paying up'.
This is what was judged. What was not judged was the breakdown of the cost and how the parking company arrived at the figure. One would assume that any judge would query a bill he/she received which did not show how the bill was made up. Therefore, we all know that these amounts are disproportionate BUT .... the public have a right to know a breakdown of the amount claimed and even the percentage paid to the company who employ them.

No different to your energy bill, you must be told how many units and the price of the units make up the bill.
So, whilst the case was in favour of the PPC, it will not end there.
PPC's will not give a breakdown of the amount and therefore it is unfair to expect anyone to pay when it is a "pie in the sky" amount

pogofish

beamerguy wrote: »

I think most people know of this case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3052063/Victory-parking-cowboys-Appeal-court-throws-chip-shop-owner-s-challenge-unfair-charges-park-private-land.html

Does not follow that a lower court will follow the lead ?

Beavis stated: - He claimed the £85 charge against him was disproportionate and vowed to fight the companies who 'extort money by threatening and bullying people into paying up'.
This is what was judged. What was not judged was the breakdown of the cost and how the parking company arrived at the figure. One would assume that any judge would query a bill he/she received which did not show how the bill was made up. Therefore, we all know that these amounts are disproportionate BUT .... the public have a right to know a breakdown of the amount claimed and even the percentage paid to the company who employ them.

No different to your energy bill, you must be told how many units and the price of the units make up the bill.
So, whilst the case was in favour of the PPC, it will not end there.
PPC's will not give a breakdown of the amount and therefore it is unfair to expect anyone to pay when it is a "pie in the sky" amount

So please explain how you think this has anything to do with a POPLA decision?

Or are you just trying to be disruptive or rule-avoidant for the sake of it?

beamerguy

pogofish wrote: »

So please explain how you think this has anything to do with a POPLA decision?

Or are you just trying to be disruptive or rule-avoidant for the sake of it?

Neither, my post stated I would not use POPLA

fisherjim

beamerguy wrote: »

Neither, my post stated I would not use POPLA

So why post on a POPLA decision thread, where more enlightened people than you have posted their outcomes?

pogofish

beamerguy wrote: »

Neither, my post stated I would not use POPLA

Then why are you posting on the POPLA Decisions thread then?

Which is not the place for wider discussion - Anything else should be discussed on its own thread!