POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

I can't give the POPLA codes but I have had two 'different' wins for people I was assisting against ParkingEye and UKPC recently (and have lost none):





1 - UKPC case won on 'no proof that the driver left the site'.
Assessor Christopher Monk found:

''Considering all the evidence before me, I find that neither party has produced any evidence on the leaving the site issue other than their competing assertions. As the burden of proof is on the operator, as the party asserting it is owed money, I cannot find on the balance of probabilities that the driver left the site, so cannot find that the charge notice was validly issued.''






2 - ParkingEye case was won on 'genuine customer exemption' clause ''discretionary criteria'' not mentioned in signage nor rebutted by the operator (the first case that I know of decided on that basis!):

''The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that there is a term in the contract or contracts under which the operator has the authority to operator on the site which requires them to exempt ‘genuine customers’ from charges and that the driver was such a genuine customer.

The operator rejected the representations, but has failed to deal with this submission.

As it is not clearly incredible, I therefore cannot find on the balance of probabilities that it is not accurate. As the status of the driver as a ‘genuine customer’ has also not been challenged by the operator, I cannot find that the appellant’s vehicle would not have fallen under this provision, should it exist. As I cannot find that the provision did not exist, and the burden of proof is on the operator, as the party asserting it is owed money, I cannot find that the charge notice was validly issued.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.''

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Christopher Monk [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic] [/FONT][/FONT]




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

Umkomaas

Very interesting C-m (and very well done), quite different approaches. GPEOL was get a bit boring!

Coupon-mad

No ParkingEye cases are being won currently on 'No GPEOL' - none at all. But none are lost by well-versed appellants either. They will all be adjourned as long as the appellant has argued 'no GPEOL/Beavis doesn't apply/this is an unconscionable and extravagant charge'.

That's why cases are being won on other grounds, because POPLA look to see if PE cases can be decided on other grounds and if not they are all stayed for Beavis v ParkingEye - which will be months yet for the decision as has been discussed in other threads.

I've also won PE cases on 'no evidence of what the signs looked like in the dark' and 'no landowner contract or witness statement' recently but never 'no GPEOL' now. Not that people can miss it out, it's important - it's the way to get a safety net of an adjournment, hence the blue wording I have posted in post #3 of the Newbies thread now to make it obvious to POPLA that the case should be adjourned if not decided on other factors.

But people must go for those 'other factors' and rebut ALL evidence packs (unless there is no witness statement or contract, in which case stray schtum!). Rebuttals should point out obvious stuff, like signs shown in daylight if the event was in darkness.

Umkomaas

Thanks for the additional advice points C-m. You're always more than a few steps ahead of the PPCs. Kudos!

atilla

Not so Smart roll over again.
3 days before appeal at Popla due to be 'heard' they inform popla they've cancelled.

That's everyone since their new guy moved in.
Odd behaviour.

Turnip13

Another win......

The appellant has at no point admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided. Therefore in order for the appellant to be liable for the charge the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with.

One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions. In these circumstances, these provisions are found in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act.

I find that the operator has failed to show that it has complied with paragraph 9(2)(e) as it has not, in a single document known as a ‘notice to keeper,’ both stated that the operator does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for them and invited the appellant to pay the charge or provide this information. These are clearly separate requirements which must be met separately. The operator has fulfilled the latter but not the former. Therefore, I cannot find that the requirements for pursuing the appellant for this charge have been met.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal and need not consider the substantive case.

bod1467

Which PPC was this, Turnip13? And who was the assessor?

Turnip13

Local Parking Security Ltd and Christopher Monk.

steffijade

Many thanks for the sticky advice on the forum, which was a HUGE help in drafting an appeal and getting this charge from ParkingEye cancelled:



16 June 2015

Reference XXXXXXXXXX always quote in any communication with POPLA

XXXXX (Appellant) -v- ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Morrisons Louth, on 2 February 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

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.

17 June 2015

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 2 February 2015, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX by remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.
The Operator’s case is that the site is a 2 hour maximum free stay customer car park as stated on the signage and the vehicle in question remained at the site for 38 minutes in excess of the permitted stay.

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 a contractual authority to issue and 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 remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or 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 a contractual authority to issue and 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 considering carefully all the evidence before me they have not discharged the burden of proof.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

Aurela Qerimi Assessor

Coupon-mad

Yep no decisions currently on 'no GPEOL' (all adjourned) but anything else they omit will be spotted by POPLA. Witness statements are hit and miss.

I am not surprised Morrisons didn't cough up a witness statement to help PE...I get the impression that PE are perhaps not flavour of the month at Morrisons - but I could be wrong!

If anyone has an Aldi witness statement - because PE always produce one from there - compare the signature with the example in the Parking Prankster's Blog (Google 'Prankster Rachel Organ's signature'). There are a lot of strange swirly 'B' signatures around which look nothing like the one in the public domain...either that or Rachel hasn't settled on a signature yet...