POPLA Decisions

Precision

TPS gettin rekt :cool:

Initial thread & appeal: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5286565

Rebuttal
http://docs.google.com/document/d/13uLICVZ13MeT7Q_4qzJUIyAn-jtVJUIVeCaaINpI2U8/edit?usp=sharing

POPLA response:

17 September 2015

Reference xxxxxxxxxx

always quote in any communication with POPLA
Heather S (Appellant)

-v

Total Parking Solutions Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Jubilee Retail Park, on xx 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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of
the presence at Jubilee Retail Park, on XX May 2015, of a vehicle with
registration mark XXXXXXX for exceeding the maximum permitted stay of XXX
minutes.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant parked their vehicle at the site in
excess of the maximum permitted stay of 120 minutes 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 provided a witness statement,
however, this witness statement is made and signed by their own employee
and therefore not valid.

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

bod1467

Precision wrote: »

The Operator has provided a witness statement,
however, this witness statement is made and signed by their own employee
and therefore not valid.

PWNED! :rotfl:

Precision

bod1467 wrote: »

PWNED! :rotfl:

right?!

complained to DVLA and BPA

if you're interested you can read them here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69199071#Comment_69199071

pugger

Got this through today. This will be the second (and final, now that AS Parking have bottled it and gone to the IPC) POPLA appeal they have dealt with, both lost and aided by me :-) Proud to be a thorn in your side Kev!

Umkomaas

Why not exact some more pain on Kev, seeing that POPLA confirm that he has no authority to operate at this site.

Please take the following action which will dish out a bit of revenge!

Complain/write to the DVLA:

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.

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

Well done on your successful appeal by the way. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaint 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 ATA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding, neither the ATA nor DVLA will do tap all!

pugger

Great idea. I will pursue this and let you know.

Mike172

2 more allowed against UKCPM (London councils of course)

Both because operator did not submit evidence.

Clap clap clap!!!

Umkomaas

Mike172 wrote: »

2 more allowed against UKCPM (London councils of course)

Both because operator did not submit evidence.

Clap clap clap!!!

Going to be interesting to see how TOS deal with the outstanding ones. Obviously if UKCPM don't submit evidence, the same result should be returned, but maybe UKCPM will want to test the TOS water and put forward a detailed evidence pack.

As I said, interesting times ahead on this.

Well done on another success. Keep hitting them on the head with that sledgehammer, eventually it will sink in to their thick skulls that they can't beat you!

Vangirl

Thanks to everyone for the help on this thread: forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5239170

XXXXX (Appellant)
-vExcel
Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX arising
out of the presence at The Moor Centre-Brierley Hill, on 22 December 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXX.
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 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 there is no keeper liability as they received the parking charge notice 128 days after the alleged parking contravention and the notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

(there was more text, but this seems to be the main bit)

Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

Mike172

Umkomaas wrote: »

Going to be interesting to see how TOS deal with the outstanding ones. Obviously if UKCPM don't submit evidence, the same result should be returned, but maybe UKCPM will want to test the TOS water and put forward a detailed evidence pack.

As I said, interesting times ahead on this.

Well done on another success. Keep hitting them on the head with that sledgehammer, eventually it will sink in to their thick skulls that they can't beat you!

Ombudsman? Yeah not looking forward to that one. Ive only 1 with them. 3 more remain with London Councils. The two above were 15 days past the stated 'hearing date' on the acknowledgement letter.