POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Can't give details of the appeal, as it was one connected to a certain other interest I can't mention here. But I can confirm that new POPLA will find in favour of an appellant re 'no landowner authority' and it looks like the BPA CoP is worth quoting more than it used to be:


''Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice clearly defines that a parking operator must have written authority of the landowner (if they do not own the land themselves)...Ultimately, the operator has failed to document it has the authority required by Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal and so I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.''

These decisions come from a named Assessor and the above was about UKPC.

Parking-Prankster

A decision which has been reported to me

Operator: P4Parking
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Eileen Ioannou
Assessor summary of operator case
The Operator’s case is that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly because the vehicle with registration X was parked without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The Appellant’s case is that: • the Operator has not met the requirements of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation, and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013; • the charge is for a breach of a contract and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; • the contract fails the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999; • the Operator does not have authority from the landowner to form or enforce contracts with drivers; and • the signage was not sufficient to form a contract.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The Appellant has appealed on several grounds. This report focusses on just one, as it has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The Appellant’s initial submission to POPLA claimed that the Operator did not have authority from the landowner to form contracts with drivers or enforce those contracts. The Operator’s evidence pack included a copy of a contract between the Operator and Consort Property Management for the site at St David’s Square. The evidence pack was made available to the Appellant, who made a number of comments, including that the Operator did not meet the conditions of issuing a PCN, as set out in the contract. Section four of the contract states: “4. The company agrees to issue a Parking Charge to any vehicle parked on the location(s) in contravention of permissions given by the Client in accordance to the SCCD (Site Conditions Control Document).” The site conditions control document sets out five conditions of service including: I understand this to mean that the landowner only permits the Operator to issue PCNs once the Operator’s warden has observed a vehicle for 10 minutes. The Appellant says the PCN was issued at 21.01. He highlights that all photographic evidence is from after this time. The Appellant says there is no evidence that a warden observed the vehicle for more than 10 minutes “Condition 4: Warden must observe 10 min time” before issuing a PCN. Neither party has provided me a copy of the PCN but the operator has not disproven the Appellant’s claim that it was issued at 21.01. The Appellant is correct that all photographic evidence is from after this point, so I have no evidence that a warden observed the vehicle for 10 minutes before issuing the PCN. The evidence does not show that the PCN was issued in line with the landowner’s requirements. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the operator had the landowner’s authority to issue the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow appeal and the other grounds raised by the third party on behalf of the Appellant do not need further consideration.

DaveyJones

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5297551



(Appellant)-v UKPS 'TR Luckins' (Operator)

Reasons for the Assessor's determination:

The operator has submitted photographic evidence of the signage at this site; the photographic evidence of the 'specific parking terms signage' cannot be taken into consideration due to the poor quality of the image, and is not clear enough for me to establish the Terms and Conditions of the car park.

Further four photographic of the signage have also been submitted by the operator which have been taken at a distance and do not allow me to see sufficient detail of the terms and conditions that are displayed.

As such, it is impossible for me to determine what Terms and conditions are in place for this site.

The operator states that the appellant did not meet the terms and conditions at the site but as I am unable to establish what the terms and conditions were, I am unable to establish that the operator issued the parking charge notice correctly, therefore I must allow this appeal.

The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however as i have allowed the appeal on this basis i have not considered these.


Yours sincerely
Sharon Kerr






Im not a computer person. Im a builder by trade so all the searching through the internet and reading through pages of information was fairly new to me. At times I wanted to give in and pay the fine but with the help of people on here and the guides I won my appeal. To anyone who is two minded on appealing I would say aslong as its POPLA give it a go.

matthewmaudsley

Hello guys,
I over stayed in an aldi car park by 16 mins (1hr 46 mins)
I appealed to ParkingEye, with numerous points. One being their authority to issue PCNs on the land. They said in their reply they did have authority but did not (as I asked) provide evidence of this. They rejected my appeal. So I have gone to Popla with it. I a,m hoping to win my appeal on the grounds that they have not provided evidence of being authorised to issue tickets. Can they send the contract to Popla and not me? And win? I am concerned that they can. They should send it to myself in my opinion when asked.

Also I made a few other arguments, one being it is an unfair charge and for them to explain how much loss they occurred, and that it should prove to me that their was a loss suffered. In there reply they just quoted the old chestnuts.. Court cases! Which to me were utter !!!!!!!! and meant nothing.

Finally the signage in the car park itself is small and very high up, and on their PCN they said the signage is clear on entry to the car park. I did not see these signs, I have sent the photos to Popla. The sign on entry is on a left hand bend and placed on the left hand side at such an angle it is not clear and you would have to take your eyes off the road ahead to see it.

Do you think I will win at Popla guys? I am dreading not!

Browntoa

you need to :-


1) read the Newbies thread at the top of this section


2) start your own thread for advice after doing that, not tag onto this one

matthewmaudsley

I have read the newbies thread. Apologies if I have posted in the wrong section. I will now learn how to make my own thread (Not savvy with these things, my apologies again)

Mike172

Are all the above Ombudsman then?

g0wfv

I'm guessing the recent ones after the slight drought are OSL, Mike.

Coupon-mad

Ombudsman cases are from October onwards.

I've not heard about any others yet except where the PPCs folded/did not offer any evidence.

g0wfv

Original thread



Thanks to all who offered their input.