POPLA Decisions

Mike172

trisontana wrote: »

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

Handy Hubby on the left, PPC operator on the right!

Guys_Dad

Just how is the PPC supposed to prove a negative? Picture of you without a child? (He had left already with his other parent, of course).

I love this result and Christopher Monk is on my Christmas card list!.

Umkomaas

I said this many moons ago that I thought owd Trev would be working on some Parent & Child age assessment algorithms for use by PPC drongs.

Not yet finished by the look of things. Needs to get his skates on to bring in some wonga - cos he can't be earning much right now!

Handy_Hubby

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Just how is the PPC supposed to prove a negative? Picture of you without a child? (He had left already with his other parent, of course).

I love this result and Christopher Monk is on my Christmas card list!.

It's ridiculous isn't it! I had an under 5 with me at the time too, I'm glad I looked here first before appealing as I would have dropped myself in it as the driver and also used mitigation.

Fruitcake

Handy_Hubby wrote: »

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]

I think Handy Hubby should get an award for this decision. :T:T:T


Does MSE still do a "Post of the month" award?

pMcfly

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 that the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to purchase the appropriate parking time and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued. The Appellant has raised several submissions in relation to their appeal. However, it is only necessary to deal with one of those submissions in my decision. This is the submission that the Appellant had arrived at the site at night and that the signage was not adequately lit. Therefore, they submit that they should not be liable to pay the parking charge. The Operator has not provided any photographic evidence of the signage at the site as it would appear to drivers parking in the evening. The photographs were taken during the day and they do not show if the lighting poles in place enabled drivers to clearly see and read the signage. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I find that the signage was not adequately lit when the Appellant parked at the site. Consequently, I find that the Appellant did not have sufficient ‘notice’, or advance warning, of the Terms and so was not bound to abide by them when parking. The Appellant is not liable to pay the parking charge. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. Ricky Powell

trisontana

The above is yet another loss by Parking Eye.

pMcfly

Was this: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5244840

Yes parking eye....

lottieheaven

ive just got my popla appeal back today allowing my appeal based on a fairly fundamental lack of evidence of permission....which no doubt athena will address fairly quickly now


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 9 May 2015 the Appellant entered the car park at Lidl, St Neots, at 11:30 and left at 13:17. This amounted to a stay of 1 hour 47 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued on the ground that the 1 hour 30 minute maximum free stay period was overstayed.
The Appellant raised a number of grounds of appeal, including whether the Operator had authority to issue the parking charge notice in question.
Where an Appellant raises the question of authority, the burden of proof is on the Operator to show that it had authority to issue the parking charge notice which is the subject of the appeal.
The Operator has produced a letter from a representative of Lidl, which states that the Operator has ‘a contract with us to manage the parking arrangements on some of our properties’. The letter does not state which properties are included in the contract, much less specify whether the site at St Neots is included. I am not therefore satisfied that the Operator is authorised to issue parking charge notices at this particular site.
I must therefore allow the appeal.
It is not therefore necessary for me to consider the other grounds raised by the Appellant.
Jessica Hunter

bombardier

POPLA Decision - 6061465174

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 301578/609369 arising out of the presence at Roaring Mag Retail Park, on 2 May 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site for longer than the maximum permitted period and a parking charge notice was issued after this was detected by the operator’s ANPR system.

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 contract produced by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority was in place because too much of it is blacked out for me to be able to find that there is no provision meaning that the authority was not valid in this case. 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