POPLA Decisions

bluetoffee1878

Got my first Ombudsman POPLA win against Legion Group (OCS). Details below.
POPLA appeal was in October 2015
N.B. The operator info and evidence submission date was 01/01/001 which seems to be a default that POPLA use when the operator submits no evidence.

Decision - Successful

Assessor - Timothy Jessop

Summary- The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this PCN

The appellants case is that the PCN does not demonstrate a GPEoL and that the operator does not have authority to issue and pursue PCN's on this land. They have also stated that the signage displayed is insufficient and that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of PoFA 2012.

I note the appellant's grounds of appeal in relation to this PCN. However, the operator has failed to provide any evidence for my consideration. Because of this, the operator has failed to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant's grounds of appeal do not require any further consideration.

Bluetoffee1878 - 9 (plus 1 pending) PPC's - 0

Thanks once again to all you regulars for the great info you provide

Umkomaas

Bluetoffee1878 - 9 (plus 1 pending) PPC's - 0

Impressive - good score record!

bluetoffee1878

Thanks mate - although not all popla. Couple of court claims for Mrs blue toffee and a friend of hers, and a few initial appeal successes.
:beer:

trisontana

Once again a PPC has shown a typical snivelling bully's behaviour when somebody stands up to them and submits a robust defence. They run away with their tail between their legs, not bothering to provide any evidence for their case. What a despicable "industry" this is.

bluetoffee1878

Couldn't agree more. Hope to be reporting another win in a few weeks against Anchor Security Services.
Same MO no evidence submitted by operator. I hope they still have to pay for the appeal though.

trisontana

What makes it worse in the above case are the words "Legion Group" with people thinking that this bunch of chancers are associated with the British Legion.

It's true that this parking company used to be owned by the BL, but they sold if off a couple of years ago. It's a pity they did not insist that the name was changed. Perhaps the new PPC is trading on the error that motorists might make,

robonn

New POPLA win to report.
vs Indigo (aka Meteor, aka Vinci park)
They managed to mis-label the PCN on the vehicle as being in Cheam station car park, instead of Dorking. Easy win.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5356740

Pesty1977

Successful appeal against Parking Eye at Aire Street Car Park Leeds

They basically made a decision even before I had chance to comment on the case file from PE!


Below is the link with the events of my appeal - I hope it is of use to someone else in a similar situation.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5373260

Decision
Successful


Reasons for the Assessor's determination
While the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land.
The operator has provided a signed statement regarding the landowner authority. However, as it does not set out all of the conditions covered in section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I am not satisfied that the document provided demonstrates sufficient landowner authority, as the date that the agreement started has not been completed.
In conclusion, the operator has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that it has the relevant landowner authority. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I do not need to consider the appellant's other grounds for appeal.

Once again I would like to thank everyone for the help and advice I have received along the way - sorry "Parking Cry" - another victory!

Umkomaas

As 'new' POPLA's apparent focus on PPCs meeting the absolute criteria of the BPA CoP is somewhat underwritten by the Supreme Court judgment, PE can hardly complain. 'Hoist by one's own petard' springs to mind.

Beavis may well prove as much a help as a hindrance.

tenbar

I've just been notified of a successful appeal against the above "company".

the decision from POPLA read:

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on landowner authority, as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided me with a copy of the agreement. However, I am unable to establish the identity of the client. As such, I cannot conclude that the operator had any authority from the landowner, or its agent to operate on the land in question. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.

one up for the little man!