POPLA Decisions

Myriddin

yotmon wrote: »

By not charging the PPC for a non contested popla case has left them with nothing to lose.

Why would they bother cancelling at the first appeal stage, better to let the 'victim' wriggle away on the hook. He/she may just pay up without taking it to popla but if they do, then the PPC can just throw in the towel , it's no skin of their nose !

If so, this is hardly in keeping with the spirit of an independent appeals process and seems to be a 'tactic' increasingly pursued by many private parking racketeers!

Maybe we should be bombarding the BPA with complaints in order to highlight this swindler's stratagem?

Computersaysno

Everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions here........where does it say that PPCs are not charged for an uncontested POPLA adjudication???

Northlakes

This is one thread from PG I had seen previously.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71598372#Comment_71598372

GaryUK

Another successful appeal.

Thanks for the excellent input provided on these forums.
Gary

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71646949#Comment_71646949

Fluff15

Success on my case ANPR system, won with POFA 2012 keeper liability. All details found here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5522414

Kiddo79

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: [Removed by Forum Team]
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s parking session has expired or was unpaid.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows:
Keeper Liability not established – The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
Grace periods have not been applied.
No evidence of Landowner Authority.
Unclear signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle ********* entered the site on 29 August 2016, at 12:20 and exited the site at 14:36. The appellant remained at the site for a period of two hours and 16 minutes. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellants parking session had expired or was unpaid. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • Keeper Liability not established – The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012. • Grace periods have not been applied. • No evidence of Landowner Authority. • Unclear signage. As the appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue the PCN, I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the landowner agreement in response to this ground of appeal. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) sets out the requirement for operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has provided a copy of the landowner agreement; however the operator has redacted the names of the people who have signed the contract. As I am unable to determine who has signed the contract, I am unable to conclude if the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Yay! Premier Park do redact their contracts too much:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5523834

Anyone get the impression that POPLA are copping out right now?

Re PP cases, we know that POPLA have got themselves tied up by their previous wrong decisions about the wording 'within 29 days' which is now (hopefully, following complaints) being investigated by the DVLA and is so non-compliant as a stated timeline for liability, that even a blind badger in a bag* could see it.




*hat tip to bargepole for that phrase!

Coupon-mad

Here we go, another Premier Park one, this time on pepipoo and decided this month:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108486&st=80&p=1235100&#entry1235100

Well well well, the Assessor (who will be nameless here on MSE) found on a single point POPLA appeal that Premier Park's 'within 29 days' wording is not compliant:

6662916789
Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice was issued due to either an unpaid or an expired parking session.

Assessor summary of your case: The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the Protections of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant.

As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant.

Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”

Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant, it is evident that it does not clearly state that “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. Instead, it merely states that “If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details”. On this basis, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of this act.


Bingo!

Could the DVLA be taking an interest at last, coincidentally perhaps, after I suggested this email that another poster fired off last week, after receiving the 'decision from Hell' from a sadly misinformed Assessor re Premier Park on non-relevant land:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108486&st=60&p=1233890&#entry1233890 (post #80)

Nicto

Just to flag a successful appeal against Gemini Parking Solutions at POPLA - useful if you ever get a ticket at the London Aquatic Centre, the pool in the Olympic/Queen Elizabeth Park. The link below broadly outlines the case put to POPLA.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524062

Thanks to everyone who gave advice on this, appreciated. (Admins, please delete or move this message if it's in the wrong place)

unwitting_brewer

MET Parking offered no evidence to POPLA for Parking Charge Notice issued at Bicester Village Station (Chiltern Railways).

Thread 5526512 refers but I can't link due to anti-spam rules.