POPLA Decisions

Edna_Basher

Hi BG

The named customer is Elite Parking Ltd (Registered Office, 9 Huntington Crescent, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS16 5RT) rather than Elite Car Parking Ltd - at least that's what it looks like on the scan.

Companies House details can be found at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08838109/filing-history

With Tangible Fixed Assets valued at £817, could this company really be the landholder of Aire Street Car Park?

Edit: Leeds City Council records that retrospective planning consent is pending for Elite for 15 "non-illuminated signs" and a "car park management system with lighting column and security camera".

https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do;jsessionid=96A1BA2C75A2D26BD8C6368A9AC19F67?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LCEDNYJB05B00

If the link doesn't work, you'll find it at the top of a Google search for elite parking aire street leeds

beamerguy

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Hi BG

The named customer is Elite Parking Ltd (Registered Office, 9 Huntington Crescent, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS16 5RT) rather than Elite Car Parking Ltd - at least that's what it looks like on the scan.

Companies House details can be found at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08838109/filing-history

With Tangible Fixed Assets valued at £817, could this company really be the landholder of Aire Street Car Park?

Edit: Leeds City Council records that retrospective planning consent is pending for Elite for 15 "non-illuminated signs" and a "car park management system with lighting column and security camera".

https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=relatedCases&keyVal=LCEDNYJB05B00

Where and how are PE and Elite related ???

Umkomaas

While I appreciate that the operator has provided POPLA with what appears to be the contract it holds with the landowner, the quality of the document is so poor that I am unable to determine the wording. As a result, I cannot determine whether or not the operator has met the minimum requirements set out by Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice and I cannot determine whether or not the operator has the sufficient authority to issue and pursue PCNs

While POPLA seem to have found this to be insufficient, I rather suspect that WHOPLA would have found it totally persuasive!

Good result EB - but you never fail! :T

Elysander

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Hi BG

The named customer is Elite Parking Ltd (Registered Office, 9 Huntington Crescent, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS16 5RT) rather than Elite Car Parking Ltd - at least that's what it looks like on the scan.

Companies House details can be found at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08838109/filing-history

With Tangible Fixed Assets valued at £817, could this company really be the landholder of Aire Street Car Park?

Edit: Leeds City Council records that retrospective planning consent is pending for Elite for 15 "non-illuminated signs" and a "car park management system with lighting column and security camera".

https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do;jsessionid=96A1BA2C75A2D26BD8C6368A9AC19F67?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LCEDNYJB05B00

If the link doesn't work, you'll find it at the top of a Google search for elite parking aire street leeds

Hi Edna,

Well done on yet another POPLA win. The unreadable Aire Street contract surfaces again!

Elite Parking previously ran a car park on land owned byTaylor Wimpey at Whitehall Road in Central Leeds before the council decided not to renew its long-stay license (link below) As they appear to be a very small company, it is very doubtful that they are the landholder at this prime location.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/central-leeds-rogue-pair-pull-a-fast-one-at-former-car-parking-site-1-6505898

spiderx

Oh ! ...That's telling me ! Sorry mate , . I'm an old git that hasn't a clue what a thread is !!!

Mahone1302

Case: Parking Eye Charge Notice - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Name removed by MSE Forum Team

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was on site for longer than the maximum time permitted.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that the operator’s PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. He says it has failed to meet several requirements of this. • He says that he believes the operator does not have the standing or the authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park. • The appellant says that the signage in the car park was inadequate. He says he has since visited the site and says that the terms and conditions are not clearly readable and the signs are too high up to be easily read. • He says that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done, good win. Some POPLA Assessors dealing with appeals on a similar appeal point have managed to turn themselves inside out and (bewilderingly) decided that as the keeper was appealing the PCN, he/she must have been the driver, handing a win to the PPC.

Well done {Name removed by MSE Forum Team] on getting this one right (for a change ).

Coupon-mad

Mahone1302 wrote: »

Case: Parking Eye Charge Notice - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Name removed by MSE Forum Team

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was on site for longer than the maximum time permitted.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that the operator’s PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. He says it has failed to meet several requirements of this. • He says that he believes the operator does not have the standing or the authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park. • The appellant says that the signage in the car park was inadequate. He says he has since visited the site and says that the terms and conditions are not clearly readable and the signs are too high up to be easily read. • He says that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha! :T

It worked! :T

The suggestion of including this in any POPLA appeal, following point #1 'no keeper liability' has worked as planned. If we suggest this every time, it *should* stop POPLA from saying that the appellant is liable because the PPC is 'only' pursuing the driver so POFA 2012 'doesn't matter'.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

Wording in post #25 here in Mahone'1302s thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5474431

Deliberately written to replicate POPLA's own words they used in Indigo decisions (until they stayed them) where they used to say that there is no evidence that the appellant is the individual who can be held liable (owner). In Mahone1302's case it was just tweaked to read 'driver' and the heading 'the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge' was chosen so that POPLA would recognise their own words and realise they were previously horribly WRONG.

It has worked! So pleased.

Mahone1302, would you mind telling us the POPLA code now please so we can quote this, and the date on the decision?

This one is a groundbreaking decision to stop POPLA from making this daft error again.

magikmarky

hi there , its great to read your success story but i was one of those people who read the OLD advice to ignore with clear messages to stop asking the same question over ad over. i received a an inital fine back in june from UKPC for parking one hour over (4 hours limit) in a free metrocentre car park - i wasnt the driver but have been getting the lovely letters from DRP and now iv got back from hols and seen them quoting beavis vs parking eye and got the fear as the original £30 is now up to £120 ......
i have spent hours researching different approaches but it is unclear what the best approach should be!
can anyone advise what i can do now as at this stage i believe it is too late to appeal to popla. any help will be much appreciated.

thx in advance mark

P.S. Photos on their website show lts of empty spaces if thsts relevant so customers werent been preventd from shopping

ampersand

mm - you need to understand and absorb all that's in the stickies.
This means reading them not just once, but several times.

If you do this, you'll know to remove this post and start your own Thread.

You'll know it's not a 'fine'.

You'll know about UKPC's proven criminal antics.

Stop panicking, read and search forensically, putting UKPC, DPP into 'Search', the 3rd box from the right, jiust above the page no.s

If you have spent hours on research, nowhere has it told you to post a new query on this Popla Success Thread, but we'd all like to see you as a winner.

Internet flitting has got you nowhere so far. Just settle down, do not expect a magic wand and learn to deep read, concentrate, make notes and START YOUR OWN THREAD.