POPLA Decisions

Mr_Mash

POPLA



01 August 2016



Sent by email to the Car Park Operator



Dear Sir/Madam



Car Park Operator J.A.S. Parking Solutions Ltd also t/as J.A.S. Parking Solutions
Appeal Verification Code (“the Appeal”) 3160545005


Wright Hassall Reference POPLA Appeal Outcome Rejected :eek:



We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.
We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.
Reasons for dismissing the Appeal
• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.
• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.
• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.
To the Appellant

To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.



To the Car Park Operator
As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.



This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.



Yours faithfully



WRIGHT HASSALL LLP



On behalf of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)

Fruitcake

Joanie3999 wrote: »

I visited the Peel Centre Stockport car park 25 June 2012 and was completely unaware that it was a Pay & Display car park. There are no barriers and, on entering, you need to watch for pedestrians using the crossing as well as the normal traffic situations.

I was in Hobbycraft for a short time and suddenly thought "Oh, is it Pay & Display?" I went out to my car but it already had a ticket on in. [Are "they" lying in wait to pounce upon innocent and unsuspecting motorists?]

In due course I received the usual fine, letters etc and after such a long time thought it had gone away. However I have now received debt collector's letter saying thaat the £60 fine became £100 and their charges are £64 so there is £164 to pay!!! Their charges are completely outrageous and out of all proportion. I note that a retired solicitor, Eric Pyle, took them on and won his case. Before this there was a lengthy fight with another motorist. His case went to court and the Magistrate visited the site and, I understand, ordered the signs to be made easier to read.

However, my question is, should I now pay this after four years? How likely is the company to pursue me to court?

No, don't pay.

Please read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES then start your own thread. This thread is specifically for completed PoPLA decisions, which does not apply to you.

Aaron_Aadvark

Mr_Mash wrote: »

POPLA

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the appeal.

On behalf of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)

I'm amazed that the seven Supreme Court judges wasted their time writing up a comprehensive judgement taking up many pages when Wright Hassall can cover it in one sentence!

The_Deep

Indeed, they are comparing apples and oranges, to all intents and purposes, PE were owners of this site.

maydenover

I contested my parking fine fromNCP on the grounds that I'd paid the right amount of money, but on one ticket instead of two separate ones. NCP Refused my claim in the first instance, but decided not to contest it when it went to POPLA. NCP were obviously trying it on and hoping I would just pay up!

t1germ1lk

Sent by email to the Car Park Operator


Dear Sir/Madam

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Car Park Operator [/FONT][/FONT]UK Parking Control Limited
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Wright Hassall Reference [/FONT][/FONT]POPLA
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Appeal Outcome [/FONT][/FONT]Rejected


We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body,
under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider
both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are
not instructed to act on behalf of either party.
We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying
the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the
Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to
the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.


[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Reasons for dismissing the Appeal
[/FONT][/FONT]• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant
to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in [FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]ParkingEye v Beavis [/FONT][/FONT]and in accordance
with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park
Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.


• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the
site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park
Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge
Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.


• The Appellant stated in their Appeal that there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked. Upon
reviewing evidence provided from the Car Park Operator it is clear that the Appellants vehicle was
parked, and was in breach of the Terms and Conditions. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.


[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]To the Appellant
[/FONT][/FONT]To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in
the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.


[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]To the Car Park Operator
[/FONT][/FONT]As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not
forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.


This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either
party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.
Yours faithfully
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]WRIGHT HASSALL LLP
On behalf of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)


"We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park
Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge
Notices." - strange that they've got this because I've only ever seen a 3rd party witness statement!




[/FONT][/FONT]

bod1467

Another WHOPLA fallacious ruling which probably doesn't address the entire appeal that was made.

t1germ1lk

You're right - it definitely doesn't! Oh well, will wait for the court letter if/when it arrives....

toctoc

I haven't posted on here before now but this forum was an invaluable resource in putting together my appeal - thanks to all those who have contributed (I should particularly mention Coupon-mad who has some serious commitment to this forum!)

In summary, I was issued with several PCNs by Parking Ticketing Limited for having a vehicle parked in my own space. Succeeded with POPLA in my appeal and have copied the outcome of my case below.

Clearly very satisfied with the outcome, but nevertheless angry that I have had to waste considerable time in researching and forming this appeal. I want to take further action if possible to ensure that this operator is not able to cause further distress to me or to other residents who have been ticketed in their own spaces.

Grateful if any of you could offer any pointers for action you would advise. I was considering the following:

1. Letter threatening legal action against the operator for trespass if they ever ticket me again (and demanding they destroy any record of my personal details - Data Protection)

2. Letter to managing agents threatening legal action unless they sack the operator

3. Letter of complaint to DVLA

********************************************************************************************

POPLA reference: 5961676500
Assessor Name: Eileen Ioannou

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant for parking without displaying a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he is the legal occupier of the space. He states that he has held a tenancy agreement for the space that predates the introduction of the parking operator and overrides any contract that could exist with the parking operator. The appellant says that he has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his space irrespective of any latter arrangement made by a third party. The appellant says that as the legal occupier he has not given authority for the parking company to issue Parking Charge Notices PCNs on the land that he legally occupies. The appellant says that the operator does not have a legitimate interest in controlling parking on the land and the charge therefore constitutes an unenforceable penalty.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has provided a copy of his parking permit issued by the operator, Parking Ticketing for location []; number [], the permit is valid until []. The appellant has provided a parking space rental agreement set on 1 September 2015. The operator has provided a contract signed on 1 April 2016. This contract came into effect after the lease agreement was set with the parking space owner and the appellant. The appellant has a lease which gives exclusive possession over the land which gives him exclusive right to exclude everyone from the land including the landowner or landowner’s agent. Landowner authority in such circumstances can only be granted if permission is granted from the lease or an agent of the lease. If the operator enters leased land without authority or relevant permission then the parking operator will be a trespasser. On the basis that a lease has been provide by the appellant and has been validated I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on this occasion has been issued incorrectly. Upon consideration of the evidence sent to me, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly this appeal should be allowed.

Umkomaas

Excellent, resounding thumping of a PPC operating on your land. For inspiration in pursuing the PPC further, have a read of the following:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**