POPLA Decisions

Dooogs

11 September 2015
Reference 6061895119
always quote in any communication with POPLA

XXXXXXXXXXX (Appellant) -vParkingEyeLtd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 041617/961220
arising out of the presence at Caunce Street/Church Street, on 25 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 without
payment being made and that 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 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.
Christopher Monk
Assessor

Umkomaas

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

Please take the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

1. Ask the DVLA to stop providing keeper details to PE for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement that they have no authority to operate on this land.
2. Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to PE in view of the POPLA statement.

Well done on your successful appeal by the way. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Link to your original thread with the details when received.

It's imperative we stop these outfits in their tracks if they are flouting requirements placed on them by the BPA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding neither the BPA nor DVLA will do tap all!

Mike172

So are these London Councils or Ombudsman ????

bargepole

Mike172 wrote: »

So are these London Councils or Ombudsman ????

These are all LC. They will complete all the outstanding appeals they hold (which is any submitted before 21 Aug) by the end of September.

Except for the ones stayed pending Beavis, which will sit with OS and be decided some time in November.

g0wfv

Just a thought ... Is it not worth starting a separate thread for OSL based POPLA appeals to aid in better trend spotting? Leave this thread for LC based appeals?

ampersand

I'll second that:-)

blacksta

Thank you guys

First thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5233654

Rebutal Letter - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69090792#Comment_69090792

15 September 2015

xxxxxxxx (Appellant)

-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx
arising out of the presence at Morrisons Stratford, on xxxxxxx, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx.

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

It is not 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 the vehicle leaving the site whilst there was no record of its parking being paid for.

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.

Christopher Monk

Assessor

Umkomaas

Please take the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

1. Ask the DVLA to stop providing keeper details to the PPC for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement that they have no authority to operate on this land.
2. Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to PPC in view of the POPLA statement.

Copy your POPLA decision, emphasise the statement that no authorisation exists, to both the DVLA and the BPA.

Well done on your successful appeal by the way. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Link to your original thread with the details when received.

It's imperative we stop these outfits in their tracks if they are flouting requirements placed on them by the BPA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding neither the BPA nor DVLA will do tap all!

Noob_0001

After a lot of reading on here, getting a little confused, more reading and a lot more lack of sleep, I finally committed to going it alone to avoid keeping the busy 'advisors' here more busy.

So therefore, my first post here.

The result is ....

====================================================================
14 September 2015

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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Welcome Break Leicester Forest East (North), on XXXXXXX, 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 vehicle was parked at the site and received a parking charge notice after the operator’s ANPR system allegedly detected the vehicle parking for longer than the free stay period without a payment being made for the vehicle to park at the site.

The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the signage at the site was not visible, as it was dark at the time of parking.
The operator rejected these representations, stating that the signage was adequate and adequately lit.

Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the only images of the site at night are those provided by the appellant, which do not show any signs obvious enough that the ordinarily observant motorist would notice them. Accordingly, I cannot find that the ordinarily observant motorist in the appellant’s position would have been made aware of the terms of parking, so cannot find that these terms bound the appellant. This means that the charge notice cannot be found to have been validly issued.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Christopher Monk
Assessor

====================================================================

I love the term "ordinarily observant motorist" although it only appears so far on here with an appeal not allowed. This post can redress that balance.

The assessor seems to have put this up against (what I believe to have been 'made law' by a judge in a previous case of this type) "It is up to the person who is seeking to park in an area to make sure that they can validly park in that area. The onus is on the person parking."

Ralph-y

well done ....:j

Ralph:cool: