POPLA Decisions

DollyDee_2

Any chance you could provide your POPLA Ref and the Assessor's name please?

The_Deep

Any chance you can get your landlord to raise this with the Residents Association and at the AGM. Post on all notice boards, and on residents' car windscreens.

dazster

This is a brilliant result: PoPLA has agreed with what we have been saying for years about many of these own-space cases.

What you must do now is give us the PoPLA reference: we need to get lots of other own-space posters to quote it in their own appeals.

You can also write to the managing agents pointing out PoPLA's correct interpretation of the law. Warn them that any further trespass on your property by them or their agent, or any further attempt to interfere with your enjoyment of your property by making unwarranted demands for money, may result in a claim for damages being brought against them, the managing agent.

You can send a similar letter to PTL and yes, while you are at it demand that they remove your personal details from their systems and records. State that this is a Section 10 request.

You could also copy your PoPLA appeal and the resulting adjudication to all your neighbours so that they know what to do in the event of being ticketed.

If you push it hard enough you could make PTL's presence on this site completely untenable.

You could also, as you suggest, write to DVLA. Point out to them that PoPLA agrees that you cannot be ticketed in your own space and that therefore PTL cannot in future have any reasonable cause for requesting keeper details with respect to your property. If DVLA makes any such further release of your details you will hold them liable under the DPA as the data controller.

Oh, and write also to the British Parking Association that PTL has been ticketing without the authority of the lawful occupier of the land (you!). Point out that this attracts a Level 5 Sanction, and demand that the BPA confirms this sanction has been applied.

dr1981_2

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without clearly displaying a valid ticket.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that railway land is not relevant land and the operator has no legal right to enforce this charge as there is no keeper liability. The appellant does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant feels the signage displayed on site is insufficient. The appellant does not feel that the amount of the PCN is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage erected at the site provided to me by the operator, stating that “This car park is subject to railway byelaws”, I consider that the land upon which the appellant parked on this occasion is subject to railway Byelaws, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws. In this case, I have not been provided with a copy of the PCN that would have informed the appellant of what law or regulation they were being pursued under, and also define the standards that I would need to assess the appeal against. Given that the signage in the car park indicates that motorists will be pursued for a Penalty Notice under Byelaws for parking contraventions, that the appellant has stated that he has been issued with a “penalty notice” and given that the response made by the operator to this initial appeal also identifies the charge as a “Penalty Charge Notice”, I am only able to assume that the charge was issued under Byelaws. This is on the basis that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice indicates, under section 14.2 “Misrepresentation of Authority”, that you must not use terms that imply parking is managed, controlled or enforced under statutory authority, such as ‘fine’ or ‘penalty’. Whilst this is not condoned for parking charges issued for non-compliance with the contract, as set out on the signage in the car park, under the BPA Code of Practice, charges issued for contravention of Byelaws are technically penalties and so this restriction does not apply. From the photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in the car park, showing that a yellow wallet had been affixed to the windscreen of the car, and on the basis that the operator has not provided me with any information relating to who the registered keeper of the vehicle is, I must assume that the appellant had been issued with a notice to driver, and that no notice to keeper had been produced at any stage of this alleged parking event. Accordingly, on the basis of the appellant’s statements regarding the event, and the lack of any information about who the keeper of the vehicle is, or a copy of any notice sent to the keeper of the vehicle, I must assume that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle. The railway byelaws state, under 14 (4), that: “In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” Under the Byelaws the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay any outstanding penalty for contravention of the Byelaws. From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I am unable to determine that it has identified the appellant in this case as the owner of the vehicle. Whilst I am willing to consider that a keeper may be held as the owner in the absence of any evidence disproving this fact, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the individual who it is pursuing for the penalty is in fact liable for the penalty. As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with the relevant Byelaws in place on the land, and showing that the appellant is liable for the penalty issued, I must allow this appeal. I appreciate that the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Umkomaas

While the above assessment outcome is correct, the 'rational' (sic - when are they going to correct that schoolboy error?) is all over the shop.

POPLA have no place in adjudicating byelaws cases. What are they saying here, that if the operator could have proven 'ownership', POPLA would have ruled in their favour?

I was rather hoping, in reading the opening POPLA remarks, that the fragrant Emily was starting to get the hang of all this.

Nevertheless, a win is a win. Well done OP.

mas4rr

Ringside Refreshments
Neachells Lane
Willenhall
WV13 3RG
5 July 2016

Your Ref. Number:xxxx

Vehicle registration number:xxxx

Dear Sirs,

We write further in relation to your two separately received correspondences both dated 27 June 2016 that is in response to our previous letter of 15 June, to which you have provided the narrative of the legal principles and to your auspicious case studies in order to be furnished aptly with the actual drivers particulars, the contents of which have been noted.

Attention is drawn to one of your letter subsections by now clarifying that we never asserted in our letter to you that our business were working on site at this car park.

The factual background is that unfortunately our company does not hold any daily log records of the several employed drivers that freely use any of these vehicles. We have diligently challenged all the drivers on this matter and as expected none of them have admitted liability to this dispute. It is assumed at the alleged time of day that the driver for private use has used this vehicle without permission, as the nature of our business has no material cause to use this said car park.

In the relevant “Act(s)” you have notified that your firm is entitled to be provided with details of the responsible driver. Therefore, by reason of the above paragraph, your firm essentially now needs to irrefutably identify the driver by providing evidence that clearly shows imageries of the responsible driver in charge of that vehicle at that time on that actual car park, as it has not been helpful with the inadequate PCN invoice images you have previously provided. Therefore, please furnish this information in order that this can be taken further, as with all the parties concerned it cannot fulfill these “Act(s)” so as to be in compliance.

Furthermore, for transparency purposes, please provide genuine copies of satisfactory evidence that you do hold a complete and valid “contract(s)” which also shows the names, addresses and signatures that your firm “Parking Eye” has the permitted authority from both the Landowner and its managing agent to this particular car park grounds.

Our business is governed by the “Partnership” and it reiterates that it still does not accept and rejects your directed and untenable PCN invoice demand for settlement. This is prejudiced as it indeed did not knowingly agree to enter into any such legal binding contact with your firm as a registered company keeper, it cannot therefore be held accountable for the activities or debt of this unknown driver, irrespectively.

We now await the aforesaid information in due course.

Yours faithfully
Mark Smith
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17 August 2016 reply xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Mark Smith

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 6xxxxxx.

Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

barba

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Samuel Connop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant had remained at the site for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Hirer has failed to meet the requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant claims that the operator has no land owner authority to operate on the land in question. The appellant feels that the signage was unclear and that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system is unreliable.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on the Protection of PoFA 2012, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. As the driver has not been identified in this instance, I must ensure that the operator has complied with the requirements of the PoFA 2012.

The operator has provided evidence of sending a Notice to Keeper and subsequently sending a Notice to Hirer as they have been informed by the keeper that the vehicle had been hired and as such they should not be held liable.

Section 14
(1) of PoFA 2012 states “If –
(a) The creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and
(b) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met, The creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2) The conditions are that –

(a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to firer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;” Section 13 (2) defines the relevant documents as: “ (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; and
(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” Although the operator may have issued the notice to the hirer along with the above documents, they have not provided these within their evidence to myself. As such I am unable to conclude that the operator has issued this PCN in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

sdk72

Dear steve

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

original thread is here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5472583

thanks again :beer:

Umkomaas

Another APCOA retreat. Looks like any decent POPLA appeal relating to APCOA will end this way. Well done Steve.

fisherjim

sdk72 wrote: »

Dear steve

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

original thread is here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5472583

thanks again :beer:

Ha ha, the Muppets knew they were stuffed, but anyway what were you supposed to do, mow down the pedestrians on the crossing, and shoot the passenger trying to jump in the car?