POPLA Decisions

trisontana

A loss for UKPC (from PePiPoo)

August 2013
Reference: xxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
(Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at Riverside Retail Park Northampton, on xxxxx 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.
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.
August 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Parked in a disabled person’s space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed, or that no badge was on display.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The Notice to Keeper sent by the Operator did not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
b) The Operator does not have the right to offer a parking contract in relation to this land.
c) The parking charge does not reflect the loss suffered by the landowner.
Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.
The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, any contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

August 2013
I need not decide any other issues.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Parking-Prankster

This was an appeal to specifically test out the Lead Adjudicator's statement in the May newsletter to parking companies that certain elements are always required in the operator pack.

As Smart Parking did not include the Parking Charge Notice I thought it worth testing this out.

Unfortunately the assessor completely disregarded that appeal point, which is a shame but I have raised a complaint to see what happens.

I have two more appeals in with Smart Parking, so this could get interesting.

Here is The Prankster's appeal

The vehicle visited the site twice on the day in question and was therefore not parked for the duration the operator states. This is a first in-last out error.

The operator does not include a copy of the original parking charge notice (or a true copy of it)

The included extract from the POPLA May newsletter notes that this information is required in every case:

Extract from POPLA May newsletter:
Evidence

Just like every court, tribunal, ombudsman and arbitration service, in order to consider appeals effectively, POPLA requires certain basic information to be provided in every case.

This is what we require:
A copy of any notice issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be produced.
The original parking charge notice (or a true copy of it)
· The appellant’s representations to the operator
· The operator’s rejection of those representations

Here is the adjudicator's decision.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 10 April 2013 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark CST U£27. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time of 2 ½ hours.

The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time. The operator has also submitted the Automated Number Plate recognition images to prove this. The operator submits that the signage at the site clearly displays the terms and conditions of parking.

The appellant’s case is that they were not parked for longer than the permitted time. The appellant submits that they left the car park and then re-visited the site later in the day. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to prove this

Upon considering all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time. I also find that the appellant was in breach of the terms and conditions of using the site.

Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Computersaysno

Outrageous behaviour by the adjudicator....what a total moron.

Needs a good slapping.

Should be interesting to see the outcome of your complaint!!!!!!

Umkomaas

Another forum-assisted (pepipoo) POPLA defeat for Highview. Genuine pre-estimate of loss still seems to be stumping the PPCs.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=78520&view=findpost&p=854476

With all the Prankster bashing they've been getting, and now this, POPLA paranoia could soon set in :eek:

Computersaysno

How can there be a massive backlog at POPLA???

I fail to see how these cases take any longer than 5 minutes to decide.

Open bundle, see the words 'genuine pre-estimate of loss', allow appeal.

Custard_Pie

May I ask all regulars who help people on this forum to read again the original purpose of this particular thread.

"This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

Please add any decisions you are aware of."

Note the last sentence. Decisions, not comments on decisions.

Now if you all use it as a normal comment / discussion thread, the decisions become cluttered and harder to find.

It is a great reference tool, but already it is 10 pages long, much of which is comment, or like the previous post, huge quotations from decisions.

We don't need clutter on this thread, so if I may ask nicely................?

Computersaysno

I love your good intentions, but if you think people will listen to your request then you are deluded.

Newbies just find something saying POPLA and post away.

Whereas oldies like me simply forget or can't be bothered.

Guys_Dad

Computersaysno wrote: »

I love your good intentions, but if you think people will listen to your request then you are deluded.

Newbies just find something saying POPLA and post away.

Whereas oldies like me simply forget or can't be bothered.

Well why not help by deleting your recent comments to help if you love the good intentions?

Seriously, leave them up a day or so, then Edit and delete after people have read them. I just did that

It would help.

Thanks. :beer:

Computersaysno

It won't, trust me it won't.

Ask couponmad who has the patience of a saint, and newbies still post directly under her posts that say [in large font] "Do Not post here, start your own thread."

Umkomaas

Well, here you go, yet another 'pre-estimate of loss' loss for PE. This was posted in another thread on the forum, so I thought I'd bring it here for completeness.

I have successfully appealed a parking charge levied against me by ParkingEye Ltd.

The assessor wrote

"The Appellant has made various submissions but I only propose to deal with the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on which is the genuine pre- estimate of loss. The Appellant submits that no loss was suffered by the Operator and the parking charge is disproportionately high and fails to reflect the actual loss suffered as a result of the breach.
The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £100 being issued. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre- estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has stated that the parking charge is fair and reasonable but has made no attempt to address what loss was suffered by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Hope this helps others.

I hope these PPCs don't start sacking the incompetents who put together POPLA submissions for them; it would make our job all the more difficult