POPLA Decisions

Rez99

Operator: Euro Car Parks
Discussed here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5459863

Decision:Successful
Assessor Name:Sophie Taylor
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has not provided any evidence in response to the appellants appeal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The appellant states that the operator has no authority to pursue charges issued on the land. The appellant advises that the signage at the site is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, and that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
As the operator has not provided any evidence in response to this appeal, I am unable to establish whether the appellant complied with the terms and conditions at the site. As such, I cannot confirm whether the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.


Thank you for all of your help!
E-pints to you!

Umkomaas

ECP seem to be following a similar path to APCOA - bang in a comprehensive POPLA appeal and watch them evaporate.

DoaM

Smart are doing likewise too?

Hodes101

========================================
Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxxxx.

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

=====================================


Thanks for everyones help.

Thread is here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5476825

pappa_golf

since the ombudsman service took over from London councils , the BPA modified the contract , if a PPC fails to submit a reply , they are not charged


all the PPCs are now going down this line , in one final "free" attempt extort monies


the ombudsman service cannot charge where they have to spend time adjudicating , no evidence from PPC is just a rubber stamp

Ross_T_Boss

Smart are doing likewise too?

I recently had a SMART back-down. I parked in an apparrent no-park zone for 5 mins to pick up a pizza.

I challenged signage, and suggested clarification from the land owner as to the intended restrictions - the space was reserved for "Pizza Hut Delivery Vehicles". Evidencing my "Pizza Hut Delivery" receipt with a "Collection Only" requirement (as the store did not offer delivery), I suggested it fair interpretation that I was providing a 'Pizza Hut Delivery' vehicle for my own order, and could therefore park to conduct said business.

After a condescending rejection, I sent the same to POPLA with some land authority challenges in there.

POPLA Response:

"Smart 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."

PE are not backing down for me though!!

I'm due a response to which I'll update the outcome, should be interesting. PE missed POFA 2012 15-day limit (ANPR PCN) and I refused any further correspondence, to which they replied with a POPLA code followed by a new PCN with no mention of POFA 2012. They are looking for a default win by neutralising all my appeal points (they gave good info re: signage, authority, ANPR etc which I expect to be accepted, and said POFA does not apply so my remaining point is irrelevant). I gave POPLA a concise retort including quotes from their own guidelines stating the appeal outcome is based on liability of the appellant, which PE have clarified nicely by sending me to POPLA as the keeper then declaring the PCN outside POFA... we'll see.

Gadfium

Decision: Allowed :j

Assessor:Not identified- letter signed as "Wright Hassall"

Date:18/08/2016

Reported: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445843

Successful Grounds: Breach of 22.8 of the BPA Code of Practice

PPC: ParkingEye

Reasons for allowing the Appeal
• The Appellant stated that the Car Park Operator did not respond to their initial Appeal within the 14
day requirement of 22.8 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “You must acknowledge or reply to
the challenge within 14 days of receiving it.” Evidence shows that the Car Park Operator did not
respond until 16 days after the appeal was received. We have no option but to allow this Appeal

DoaM

:eek:

That's a new one. I thought that was only a guideline and not a requirement. Almost ALL PPCs fail on that 14 days acknowledgement part of the BPA CoP.

Gadfium

DoaM wrote: »

:eek:

That's a new one. I thought that was only a guideline and not a requirement. Almost ALL PPCs fail on that 14 days acknowledgement part of the BPA CoP.

Maybe it sets a new precedent for future use? If it's been used to turn a case over then surely if a PPC falls foul of it again then it can be used against them?

Umkomaas

Gadfium wrote: »

Maybe it sets a new precedent for future use? If it's been used to turn a case over then surely if a PPC falls foul of it again then it can be used against them?

Absolutely. Any newbie reading this who hasn't had an acknowledgement of their initial appeal within 14 days should read Gadfium's thread, linked in post #2289 above, where a scan of the WHOPLA decision is there for copying and pasting into your POPLA appeal.