POPLA Decisions

trisontana

This from PePiPoo regarding AS Parking at Falmouth Harbour:-

"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 and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued.
The Operator has provided no evidence which demonstrates what the Terms were, what signage was present or whether the alleged contravention in fact occurred. The appeal was adjourned for this evidence to be provided by the Operator failed to respond. Therefore, I am unable to find that the Appellant breached the Terms and I find that the Appellant is not liable to pay the parking charge.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal."

kayu

15 June 2015
Reference 000000000

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




The Operator issued parking charge notice number 1111111/111111 arising out of the presence at XXXXX Retail Park, on 14 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX
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 for exceeding the maximum permitted stay of 2 ½ 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 does not have authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices.
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 issue 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

Gmc_2

POPLA APPEAL

ME v PE

It does not appear to be in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and the appellant received a parking charge notice after the operator’s ANPR system detected it overstaying the free stay period without a payment for it to park being made.
The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The operator’s assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Thanks guys

james201411

Won a case with parking eye in Dartford, Kent. I stated that I had not overstayed as I had visited more than once.......

"The onus is on the Operator to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant breached the terms of parking.
The Operator has produced time and date-stamped photographs of the Appellant’s vehicle which show that it entered the car park at 11:19, and left at 14:09; however the Operator has not produced a copy of its records, or any other evidence, to demonstrate that these were the only two occasions on which the Appellant’s vehicle entered or left the site. Once an Appellant submits that he or she had left the site and returned, it is not sufficient for the Operator to simply state that these were the only records it has of the Appellant’s vehicle between the times in question, as the Operator would be expected to have these photographs according to either party’s account.
I must find that, on this occasion, the Operator has not produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Appellant had breached the terms of parking. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
I need not decide any other issues."

Umkomaas

Once an Appellant submits that he or she had left the site and returned, it is not sufficient for the Operator to simply state that these were the only records it has of the Appellant’s vehicle between the times in question, as the Operator would be expected to have these photographs according to either party’s account

Well that's very interesting. Because if there wasn't a double dip, but a motorist claimed there was, on the basis of the above decision how could any ANPR PPC 'be expected to have these photographs according to either party's account'

It would be impossible to disprove a double dip claim.

Well done james201411

bod1467

To be fair to a PPC (did I really just say that? :eek: ) such a claim is impossible - you can't realistically prove such a negative. So this is a really surprising POPLA decision. Who was the assessor?

Unless of course the appellant provided evidence that the vehicle WAS elsewhere, in which case the PPC would have to try to prove it wasn't - which they couldn't.

Umkomaas

bod1467 wrote: »

To be fair to a PPC (did I really just say that? :eek: ) such a claim is impossible - you can't realistically prove such a negative. So this is a really surprising POPLA decision. Who was the assessor?

Unless of course the appellant provided evidence that the vehicle WAS elsewhere, in which case the PPC would have to try to prove it wasn't - which they couldn't.

I guess this could be progressed on the basis of basic British justice - innocent until proved guilty! Maybe this needs testing.

A bit like War of the Worlds, where the simple common cold brought down an alien invasion, where the best of military might failed.

And, given the smoke and mirrors of PPC PLC, they should be the very last to start crying 'Foul'.

james201411

Hi, no I didn't have to prove anything about leaving. They just took my word.

Umkomaas

james201411 wrote: »

Hi, no I didn't have to prove anything about leaving. They just took my word.

Hi James.

Could you please provide us with:

1. The name of the Assessor
2. The case reference number
3. Date of decision

These will help us advise others with similar issues and where we can give them chapter and verse to quote in their POPLA appeals.

Alternatively, would it be possible to post a redacted scan of the POPLA decision - that would be really helpful.

james201411

Here you go Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
Date was 19th June. Not to happy about putting refreece numbers etc as does this not link back to my personal information?


It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘By remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The Appellant made two visits to the site, neither of which exceeded the maximum stay time.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.
c) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could have been caused by the alleged breach.
The onus is on the Operator to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant breached the terms of parking.
The Operator has produced time and date-stamped photographs of the Appellant’s vehicle which show that it entered the car park at 11:19, and left at 14:09; however the Operator has not produced a copy of its records, or any other evidence, to demonstrate that these were the only two occasions on which the Appellant’s vehicle entered or left the site. Once an Appellant submits that he or she had left the site and returned, it is not sufficient for the Operator to simply state that these were the only records it has of the Appellant’s vehicle between the times in question, as the Operator would be expected to have these photographs according to either party’s account.
I must find that, on this occasion, the Operator has not produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Appellant had breached the terms of parking. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
I need not decide any other issues.
Christopher Adamson Assessor