POPLA Decisions

gregsayer

Successful appeal against Norfolk Parking Enforcement!


Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Anthony Davidson

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided any evidence for this case.


Assessor summary of your case
He is the registered keeper, the grounds for appeal are; 1. The charge is a penalty 2. Unfair charges 3. Locus Standi 4. Signage 5. Keeper liability


Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), 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 PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.






thanks everyone who helped, and to Mystrey1 on the legalbeagles forum

Ralph-y

Two in one afternoon ....... :beer:

well done .....:j

and please ..... as above ...

doing your bit .....;)
have you and all your family / friends/work colleagues signed the petition found in the newbies thread ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5365003

it is now getting close to its target ..... and just needs one last push

again well done and thanks for the update

Ralph:cool:

LJJ

Just had an email through from POPLA (appeal submitted on 13/10/15, so only been waiting 15 weeks!!) Has anyone else had the same?

Thank you for contacting POPLA.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has now heard the case of ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis and has recently published its decision.

We have conducted our initial assessment of your appeal and our assessor has determined that your appeal relates to the issues recently considered by the Supreme Court.

As such, we will adjourn your case until we have reviewed the Supreme Court’s decision.

Please note that no enforcement action can proceed once a case is registered at POPLA, so the parking operator should not attempt to pursue payment while a case is adjourned.

Yours Sincerely,

Anthony Davidson

POPLA Team



The court case wasn't the only basis for my appeal !

Umkomaas

Seems a few people have had this. Have a look at this thread from post #147 on. It suggests there will be a follow up email to come.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69940477#Comment_69940477

Can only but wait and see what emerges over the next few days.

Coupon-mad

LJJ wrote: »

Just had an email through from POPLA...

The court case wasn't the only basis for my appeal !

Did you ever get the PPC's evidence pack and rebut it? Please start a thread about it (or revert to your own thread again and reply on it now) if not because this one is only for POPLA decisions. Any queries or discussion will be lost/missed.

LJJ

thanks Umkomaas, didn't see that post - will wait with baited breath

LJJ

I did get the evidence pack and rebutted it, coupon-mad,
Was not sure where to post the info from POPLA - thought this was the right thread as it is "almost" a decision, sorry

Coupon-mad

Glad to hear you are on track to win in the end. New POPLA are sending that out because they got in a real muddle with huge delays because it seems to us that they weren't expecting these cases to be so knotty and legally-argued. And then Beavis seems to have bamboozled them further!

They will get there and if your case turns on other aspects then they have to consider those too.

paulstevens64

Hi All

Another success at POPLA
This was a dispute at Stansted Radisson Blu, with Parking Eye.

They lost on "no authority"



Thanks for the great Forum, and all you help.




Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Lauren Bailey

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant overstayed the paid parking time.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant has stated that signage at the car park is not sufficient.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal and the other grounds raised by the appellant do not need further consideration.

BJ63

Many thanks to all those on the forum who helped advise me on my appeal, and also to the journalist from The Times who published my story. Nearly 5 months on I finally heard today that my appeal against Parking Eye was successful.

The decision seemed to be based on 2 major points:

The signs at the car park do not inform the motorists that their parking time starts on entry to the car park.

The penalty was issued without proper consideration of a grace period as defined in Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Whilst clearly relieved at the decision and grateful for all the support from forum members, I am resentful over the valuable time spent putting an appeal together over a penalty that should never have been charged in the first place. It's time these Cowboys were stopped.