POPLA Decisions

DS90

Successful POPLA appeal.

Assessor: Emily Chriscoli
PPC: AM Parking Services Ltd.
PCN issued in Tonbridge, Kent, 16/08/2015

'Reasons for the Assessor's determination: The operator has not provided any evidence for this case.

The appellant's case is that the signage displayed on site was insufficient. The appellant does not believe that the operator has land owner's authority. No notice to Keeper has been received within the correct timescale. The Parking Charge Notice does not represent a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.

By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with and with evidence that the appellant did not indeed comply with these terms and conditions. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA.

As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notice is valid.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Whilst I note that the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, it is not necessary to investigate these as the operator has failed to provide evidence to POPLA.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.'

Thanks once again to everybody on this site for their advice and assistance. For my full POPLA appeal please see my thread by searching 'AM Parking Services Ltd Appeal Advice' (as a new user I cannot post a link)

I should point out as well that this can be counted as 2 successful POPLA appeals, since my friend was issued a PCN at the same time (we were parked together) and they too were successful using more or less the same appeal.

Thanks again!

ampersand

Excellent news DS90 and thankyou for posting OS adjudication, v. useful.

Gilo65

We appealed to Parking Eye last month through their web form and were rejected. The POPLA appeal went in. We have just had notification that we have won.

POPLA said...

"Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."

Our appeal was two points...

1) We contest the legality of Parking Eye's right to issue parking charges on this land and require to see the contractual agreement between Parking Eye and the landowner.

2) The driver was visiting the premises on a sales call. We provide evidence of this in the form of our official quotation to them for goods and services discussed at the meeting.

Ralph-y

well done :j

will you please consider posting up the full appeal points and POPLA decision .....

as this may help future posters .... especially there it took place, as there has been talk of starting a list where PPC's do not have authority .....

just re read your post ..... if that was the limit of the POPLA reply then ignore ....

Ralph:cool:

Growlybear

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5356337


I received the following email from POPLA this afternoon


An Appeal has been opened with the reference 141XXXXXX.
Civil Enforcement have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely
POPLA Team


The tracking information on the POPLA website states that 'the appeal has been withdrawn by the operator' and under Withdrawal Reasons it says 'Please be advised this notice has been cancelled and as such no longer requires a POPLA review'.

I quoted sub paragraphs 4 and 5 of Paragraph 9 to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and appealed on the grounds that the PCN was issued outside of the timescales set out in the Act.

Edna_Basher

Some three months after lodging our first appeal with “New” POPLA, we have finally received notification that this appeal was successful. This concerned a ParkingEye charge at a Welcome Break service station; the vehicle in question is leased and as usual, our appeal focused upon ParkingEye’s non-compliant Notice to Hirer.

Here is assessor Emily Chriscoli’s determination:

The appellant states that the operator has not adhered to PoFA 2012. The appellant states this is because the operator did not provide a “copy of a signed statement confirming that on the date of the contravention, the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement”, as per PoFA 2012’s guidelines under Schedule 4, 13 (2a). Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, it states that liability for unpaid parking charges can be transferred from the registered keeper to the registered hirer if “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper”. Whilst I note that the balance of probabilities would indicate that the operator did provide these documents to the appellant, the operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I cannot confirm that PoFA 2012 has been adhered to. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I did not consider them.

Although a win’s a win, I’m a little perturbed that the assessor could take a view that the balance of probabilities would indicate that ParkingEye did provide the hire documents required under POFA 2012 (ParkingEye never do so).

I think I need to ask POPLA a few questions.

Umkomaas

I think I need to ask POPLA a few questions.

Like 'On what evidence do you accuse me of lying?'. I'd be writing to the Senior Adjudicator and demanding a written apology.

Edna_Basher

Yep, that’s one of the questions we’ll be asking.

Within our evidence to POPLA, we even included a copy of one of “Old” POPLA’s previous adjudications to demonstrate that ParkingEye has “form” for not delivering compliant Notices to Hirer; so why on the balance of probabilities would we not have been telling the truth?

Perhaps this was just down to the assessor’s inexperience? Nonetheless, we need to nip this in the bud because we have another 15 cases waiting in the wings with “New” POPLA.

Umkomaas

Perhaps this was just down to the assessor’s inexperience?

Or perhaps early emerging evidence of a BPA requirement for an institutional bias towards parking operators?

And we mustn't forget that in the early days, based on their initial decisions, there was a feeling that the IAS would deal with appeals on an impartial basis. And just look where we are now!

eadxw23

Hi all,

thanks to this site i recieved the following email after popla appeal

[FONT=&quot]Dear David White [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An Appeal has been opened with the reference [URL="tel:6062945016"]6062945016[/URL].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Team[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ET6116/001[/FONT]

WHITE 1 PARKINGSCUM 0