POPLA Decisions

Frev

Well well well!

Another successful appeal! thanks for all who helped out on here.
My advice to anyone appealing is to make sure to spend a couple of hours going through everything and double checking all your facts - it will be worth it when you have the satisfaction of beating these cowboys!
I had appealed on No GPEOL, Inadequate/non-conforming signage and no proof of authority; the latter being the reason for successful appeal:

21 July 2015
Reference xxx always quote in any communication with POPLA
xxx (Appellant) -v- Total Parking Solutions Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Heritage Retail Park, on 27 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxx.
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 parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Heritage Retail Park, on 27 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxx for exceeding the maximum permitted stay.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant parked their vehicle at the site in excess of the maximum permitted stay and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions which I do not intend to deal with and will only elaborate on the reason why I am allowing this appeal, namely that the Operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices.
The Appellant has asked to see proof that the Operator has the authority to issue parking charges. The Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they have the authority to issue parking charge notices and therefore I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission. The onus is on the Operator to prove their case against the Appellant and on this occasion they have not done so.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nozir Uddin Assessor

Oakham_JHB

Evening All.

First post and slightly belated at that.

Parking Eye snapped a vehicle registered to myself in the early hours of a Sunday night / Monday morning in a deserted motorway car park, where the driver was grabbing some shut eye and overslept..... but rules is rules and a PCN followed.

Following the brilliant advice found here on the sticky pages, a challenge was made direct to Parking Eye, which was unsuccessful

There then followed a challenge to POPLA and in June a reply was received from POPLA advising that the appeal was successful and that the operator must cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
The key findings were......

The Appellant has made several submissions however it is only necessary to
consider one submission for the purposes of this appeal. This is the submission
that the Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking
charges on the land.
The Operator has not provided a copy of a contract between themselves
and the Landowner which authorises them to operate at the site and to issue
parking charges on the Landowner’s behalf; nor have they provided a signed
witness statement confirming the existence of such a contract. Therefore, I
cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this
case.

I really appreciate all the hard work that forum users like "Coupon Mad" put in, to help others Thanks very much to you all.:T
:beer:

Umkomaas

Well done @OP in getting this killed off at POPLA on your own, without time-consuming handholding from the few regulars on here, and proving that the NEWBIES FAQ sticky is more than 'fit for purpose' and works well for those prepared to put in the effort to do the concentrated research (rather than a skim read and an 'it's too complicated for me' pleading) and get this all sorted.

Excellent result.

fairway76

Hi All,

I've had my appeal allowed by POPLA - the details are on a separate thread but the details of the appeal are below:

Fairway76 (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at Stevenage Leisure Park, on 7 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX.

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

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and a parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s employee allegedly observed the driver leaving the site whilst remaining parked.

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 sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The witness statement provided by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority has been validly granted as it does not name the landowner, from which the authority must flow. 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

Christopher Monk
Assessor


Thankyou to everyone who has helped me on here, I really appreciate it. :beer:

Umkomaas

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.

Time for a serious complaint to both the DVLA (no justifiable cause to apply for your personal details) and to the BPA (operating without landowner authority) and ask whether they will be issuing sanction points.

This will ensure that the PPC has many more hoops to jump through than the ones they gave you to deal with. Make sure they don't forget this particular PCN in a hurry!

I think it essential, when such determinations are given by POPLA, that formal complaints are raised.

fairway76

I'll get on to it - it's the least I can do!

intervest

haha. Awesome. Got a succesful appeal six months after the event. Hopefully cost Excelparking loads of time and money! Details of case in my separate thread. Do I get a letter from ExcelParking confirming charge has been cancelled?

-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)

Shape



ImageThe Operator issued parking charge notice number XL08122905 arising out of the presence at Junction Street, Leeds, on 31 December 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark CF11AOR.


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.
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to and from Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded









Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued a parking charge notice for parking and walking off 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.

It is the appellant’s case that the signage at the site was not clearly displayed. The appellant submits that the signs do not mention not being able to leave the car park.

ImageThe operator has submitted five contravention photographs of the appellant’s vehicle. I find that there are no signs visible near or around the appellant’s vehicle in any of these contravention photographs. I note that the operator has submitted a site map. It appears that the information board is double sided and that on one of the sides the terms and conditions state that anyone parking and leaving/ walking off the site will result in a parking charge notice being issued. There are four such signs in the car park. I am unable to determine by a site map where the appellant’s vehicle was parked in relation to this sign and whether this sign would have been fully visible to the appellant at the time they were parking their vehicle.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that the onus is on the operator to make the terms and conditions of the site absolutely clear to motorists. I find that the contravention photographs do not show any signs displayed near or around the appellant’s vehicle. I also find that I am unable to determine whether or not the signage relating to parking and leaving the site would have been fully visible to the appellant on the date of the alleged breach.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Hot_Bring

Just to show, if the wording of an appeal against Parking Eye is correct you can still win and not have your appeal put on hold.

So someone I've been assisting over TWO fake tickets issued by Parking Eye at an NHS doctors surgey - yes they really are that low - has just had both their appeals to POPLA upheld on the grounds that Parking Eye failed to show they had any rights to issue tickets on the land in question.

I still have 2 other PE cases outstanding, one MET and one, believe it or not, G24. Bring it on !!!!!

Handy_Hubby

Another win for MSE, this invoice was issued 6 months ago. In the meantime I've helped 2 colleagues get charges cancelled at Asda by complainig to customer services :j
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and received a parking charge notice after the operator’s employee concluded that the driver had parked in a parent and child bay without being accompanied by a child under 5.

The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that it was for the operator to prove that the alleged breach of the terms of parking occurred.

The operator rejected these representations, stating that their employee observed the driver not having a child under 5 with them.

Considering all the evidence before me, I find that neither party has presented evidence on the presence or absence of a child under 5, other than their assertions. Therefore, as the burden of proof is on the operator as the party asserting it is owed money, I cannot find that the driver breached the terms of parking, so cannot find that the charge notice was validly issued.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Christopher Monk
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
Assessor
[/FONT][/FONT]

trisontana

How on earth is the PPC goon going to determine the age of a child?