POPLA Decisions

Ralph-y

And add in that you will be complaining to the ISPA as well ....

Ralph:cool:

Edna_Basher

Better late than never, I suppose.

POPLA assessment and decision
07/01/2016

Verification Code
6062785103

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Nial Vivian

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle remained on the site for 2 hours and 56 minutes without purchasing the appropriate parking time, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator did not issue a Notice to Hirer in accordance with the provisions set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), that the operator does not have the relevant authority of the landowner to pursue charges from or form contracts with motorists using the car park in question, that the signage in place at the car park was not sufficient for the purpose of forming a contract with motorists at the car park in question, and that the Automatic Number-Plate Recognition (ANPR) system in use by the operator is not reliable.

Assessor supporting rationale for decision

The appellant has stated that they do not believe the operator has the relevant authority of the landowner to pursue charges from or form contracts with motorists using the car park in question. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Upon reviewing the evidence, the operator has provided me with a copy of a signed contract. However, the quality of the document renders it unreadable, and as such I am not able to confirm that it is a contract between the operator and landowner confirming that the landowner has conveyed such authority to the operator.

Myriddin

Complaints on the way and to quote a great man, Winston Churchill:

“It is wonderful what great strides can be made when there is a resolute purpose behind them.”

luke123456

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameSiobhan Gooley
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided a response to the appeal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been complied with. He also states that the operator does not have authority to carry out parking management, that the signage is not clear, that the terms are unreasonable and unfair, and that there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

prjohnsonnn10

Appeal Successful against Carflow


So annoying..... yes we won at POPLA against Carflow in the Chalfont car park......... BUT on a technicality... they failed to submit evidence pack in time ....some mention of 21 days? First I knew of this as a hard deadline for a PPC to submit .

rolllobollo

Thanks to all on this site that helped with my appeal. I appealed on grounds of no NTK sent plus no authority to fine, poorly illuminated signage & NOT no GPEOL. They couldn't be bothered to respond to POPLA. Happy to share appeal wording if interested.


POPLA assessment and decision
13/04/2016
Verification Code




Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide a case file.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds of appeal.




Assessor supporting rational for decision
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. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal within the agreed time limits, it has not demonstrated that it issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.

Joe_Totale

I have received a £40 fine for overstaying by 20 minutes at my local Asda. Had been to Asda, used cash, don't have receipts still. Then went for a meal. On returning and leaving it seems I'd gone over the "3 hours" limit. What is the best route to follow, please? Should I just pay up?

Redx

Joe_Totale wrote: »

I have received a £40 fine for overstaying by 20 minutes at my local Asda. Had been to Asda, used cash, don't have receipts still. Then went for a meal. On returning and leaving it seems I'd gone over the "3 hours" limit. What is the best route to follow, please? Should I just pay up?

for info - this thread is for decisions, not new questions

please use the RED new thread button on the forum to create a new topic and paste your query into it

also please read the NEWBIES sticky thread near the top of the forum as well

thank you

Coupon-mad

VERY USEFUL info on pepipoo about the contract between Sainsburys and H0riz0n Parking:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105392

''Luckily for us, whoever looked at the appeal at POPLA did study the documents and noticed a paragraph in the contract that stated thus: "Overstaying the parking time limit for repeat offences, from the second occurrence onwards, when parking within a time allowed restricted car park"

So basically, Sainsburys have employed Horizon on the basis they issue warnings for the first 'offence' and then charge for subsequent 'offences'. This was the first 'offence' and therefore the appeal was upheld by POPLA.''

A 'MUST INCLUDE' POINT WHEN DOING A H0RIZ0N POPLA APPEAL IS 'SHOW US THE EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER CONTRACT AND THAT THIS IS A REPEAT 'OFFENCE' BECAUSE WE BELIEVE SAINSBURYS ONLY ALLOWS PCNS ON THE SECOND OCCASION ONWARDS.

Credit where credit is due - POPLA spotted it.

trisontana

That contract also raised questions about unauthorized data retention and whether this matter should be raised with the Data Commissioner