POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Good stuff, EB.

Presumably anyone who has been pursued as the keeper and has paid has done so as a result of a charge being issued under false pretences.

Wouldn't issuing such a charge under false pretences be a criminal act? Surely the BPA and DVLA (if not the police) should be launching an investigation on behalf of one of their stakeholders (the keeper) in this. It's not just the PPCs who are entitled to their protection in 'driving up standards in the parking industry'.

Northlakes

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception

The offence of getting money dishonestly by lying to someone.

I think the Fraud Act now covers this.

Edna_Basher

I recall a couple of years ago that Benefitmaster reported this matter to the DVLA who then undertook an "investigation". Having received assurances from ABP that they weren't seeking to apply their Byelaws, the DVLA gave ParkingEye the green light to carry on using POFA to claim keeper liability. It was all very smelly.

james_38

how long does a parking enforcement company have to notify you of the alleged offence ?

Coupon-mad

james_38 wrote: »

how long does a parking enforcement company have to notify you of the alleged offence ?

You need to read the 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' thread - and if you have more questions, start your own thread. This is not a help thread, it's for posting POPLA decisions.


ParkingEye are still throwing in the towel where a keeper appeals and the driver is not identified and the appellant points out they've issued a non-POFA PCN (the one with the blank space at the bottom):


''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''

Ralph-y

james 38

you need to have a read of the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

as we can not answer that with out more information .....

so please read and then start a new thread

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Tobster86

Success against Parking Eye, they didn't wish to contest the appeal against non-entry of vehicle reg. Was mostly on grounds of "no legitimate interest with reference to Beavis outcome" with a bit of "failure to prove reg wasn't entered" (full details: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5497674)

Genuinely strong appeal, or just TL;DR;CBA for Parking Eye?

RedVanDriver

POPLA assessment and decision: 04/10/16
Verification Code: 6062386379
Decision: uncontested

Original thread:
(Sorry cant post link)
Thread number 5524238
. moneysavingexpert . com / showthread . php ? t= 5524238
Next step is to complain to DVLA and BPA.

thanks for your help MSE forum!

Umkomaas

RedVanDriver wrote: »

POPLA assessment and decision: 04/10/16
Verification Code: 6062386379
Decision: uncontested

Original thread:
(Sorry cant post link)
Thread number 5524238
. moneysavingexpert . com / showthread . php ? t= 5524238
Next step is to complain to DVLA and BPA.

thanks for your help MSE forum!
.

Well done. Let us know how your complaints go. Here's your original thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524238

chrisotherwise

POPLA Success

Location: Abersoch Beach Car park
Operator: Parking Eye
Reasons: Unclear signage, no landowner authority, doesn't comply with protection of freedoms
Appeal allowed - Operator failed to submit any evidence in their favour.

Original thread (includes full appeal and decision text): https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71412971#Comment_71412971

Huge thanks to all on here. I'm delighted! :j