POPLA Decisions

henrik777

freester wrote: »

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Safoora Sagheer

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the vehicle registered under XXNN YYY failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the site by unauthorised parking on site.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he arrived at the hotel and he was late meeting someone. He states he unloaded his bags and parked on double yellow lines.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of sufficient clear signage located throughout the car park which clearly states vehicles parking with a valid permit, ticket or written authority fully on display in the windscreen area. No exceptions. Park in a marked bay only where present. The signage also explains that failure to adhere to the terms and conditions will result in the operator issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the value of £100. The British Parking Association Code of Practice mentions under section 18.3 “specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle”. I note the appellant states parked on double yellow lines whilst he was unloading his bags, however, this does not detract from the fact it remains the appellant’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions on site by ensuring he is parked within a marked bay rather than double yellow lines. After reviewing the operator’s evidence I can see the appellant parked on double yellow lines, double yellow lines mean no waiting at any time unless there are signs that specifically indicate restrictions. As such, the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the site. I also note the appellant’s comments, however, the onus is with the appellant to comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As the appellant has failed to adhere with the terms and conditions of the site by unauthorised parking, I am satisfied that the PCN issued is valid. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

You must give clear information to the public about what
parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.
You must not misrepresent to the public that your
parking control and enforcement work is carried out
under the statutory powers of the police or any other
public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you
suggest to the public that you are providing parking
enforcement under statutory authority.




Using proper traffic signs as defined under statute certainly implies statutory powers are in force. I'll wager a few quid the signage did not define the yellow lines either so it also fails as clear. "everyone knows what double yellows are" indeed we do, statutory controls.

nigelbb

henrik777 wrote: »

Using proper traffic signs as defined under statute certainly implies statutory powers are in force. I'll wager a few quid the signage did not define the yellow lines either so it also fails as clear. "everyone knows what double yellows are" indeed we do, statutory controls.

If the PPC must misrepresent authority they should do it properly. Ordinarily unless specifically forbidden stopping on double yellow lines for the purposes of loading or unloading IS permitted.

Joefranpar

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameTimothy Jessop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage displayed was insufficient and that the evidence issued is not sufficient to prove the contravention. The appellant also states the operator does not have the authority to issue the PCN and that the charge amount is not allowable due to the operator having no legitimate interest in the land. They also state that the operator has failed in attempting to transfer liability to them as the keeper, and finally that a grace period has not been considered in this case.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
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.

freester

henrik777 wrote: »

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

You must give clear information to the public about what
parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.
You must not misrepresent to the public that your
parking control and enforcement work is carried out
under the statutory powers of the police or any other
public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you
suggest to the public that you are providing parking
enforcement under statutory authority.




Using proper traffic signs as defined under statute certainly implies statutory powers are in force. I'll wager a few quid the signage did not define the yellow lines either so it also fails as clear. "everyone knows what double yellows are" indeed we do, statutory controls.

nigelbb wrote: »

If the PPC must misrepresent authority they should do it properly. Ordinarily unless specifically forbidden stopping on double yellow lines for the purposes of loading or unloading IS permitted.

I know it's enraging.

The truth of the matter was - the driver MISSED the inadequate sign at the entry to the private land.

Saw the double yellows but no other signage. Assumed it was OK to unload then got the ticket.

I'm ready to go to court if that's what it comes to.

salmosalaris

adammorr wrote: »

Assessor Name
Sophie Taylor

Assessor summary of operator case
The operators case is that the appellant has not paid for parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the app that they used to pay for parking made an error when inputting the vehicle registration number.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellants vehicle, registration number XYZ parked in the car park at 13:11. The operator has provided evidence of the online payment record, this shows that no payment has been registered for the appellant’s vehicle on the day of the contravention. The appellant states that they did pay the correct amount for parking; however the registration was submitted incorrectly. The appellant has provided evidence of the VAT receipt. This confirms that the appellant made payment for a vehicle to park, however entered the wrong registration. As such, the appellants vehicle has not been registered to park. While this indicates that the appellant has paid to park, it is clear to me that they did not correctly enter the vehicle registration number. As such, the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check they input the correct details. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the location which lists the terms and conditions, and states that “A parking charge of £85 will be issued to unauthorised vehicles”. As the appellant did not enter the correct vehicle registration number, the vehicle was not authorised to park. From this evidence provided I can only conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

Cobblers ! Nuff said

adammorr

Is it fair to say I should not bother paying them the £146 (inc fees) then?

Coupon-mad

adammorr wrote: »

Is it fair to say I should not bother paying them the £146 (inc fees) then?

Yes, search the forum for these suggested keywords: 'POPLA lost ISPA' or 'complaints@popla.co.uk' to find out what other people do when they lose at POPLA. No-one pays.

adammorr

Thanks coupon-mad. My charge is due tomorrow then litigation will start so is it still suitable to contact POPLA complaints?

Coupon-mad

adammorr wrote: »

Thanks coupon-mad. My charge is due tomorrow then litigation will start so is it still suitable to contact POPLA complaints?

Yes, please read other relevant threads urgently by doing the search I suggested and reading how others are getting on after losing at POPLA weeks ago. Then start your own thread once you've read others (not before, please, no need for us to have to repeat what's been said on other threads all over again). Forget the deadline and do some reading over the weekend.

Your charge is not due tomorrow and nor will litigation start.

adammorr

Ok will do, thank you for your help!