POPLA Decisions

sk82

Thank you, I hope they drop it

Coupon-mad

No, they won't drop it but you can ignore it. See your thread.

AlexTodd97

Thanks all for your help with my 2x PCN's from F1rst Parking in Winchester. F1rst threw the towel in as soon as they saw my appeal. Thread: F1rst Parking PCN - Winchester University

Dear #####

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 2613206723.

First 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

AlexTodd97

2/2

Dear #####

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 2613136170.

First 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

hd3246

Hi can anyone help the highview pcn? Have never been on here before but would appreciate some help.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

hd3246 wrote: »

Hi can anyone help the highview pcn? Have never been on here before but would appreciate some help.
Thanks

You simply need to read the NEWBIES sticky thread, that's why it's in capitals, literally calling to newbies to read the FAQS first:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

This thread you posted on is for POPLA decisions so you clicked on the wrong sticky thread.

backward_finesse1

My wife, with my help (or to be fair, MSE Forums help, esp the Aardvark Birmingham APCOA thread) has just had the stock "APCOA Parking has told us that they do not wish to contest Appeal".


Thank you to all whose combined knowledge and wordings made this outcome possible. (It was another Brum Airport APCOA one: took exactly 5 months from "offence" to successful outcome).
:T


Now as a stubborn cuss, I am inclined to push further, if only for the benefit of others; I propose to write to the CEO of Brum Airport asking him to re-consider his company's association with these legitimised scammers: It simply cannot do Birmingham Airport any good for a situation to exist where the top Google answer for Birmingham Airport parking takes the browser to this forum, which over and over again shows that APCOA play a cat-and-mouse game to extort money from those who are not equipped with the knowledge and experience needed to fight the charge.


Clearly APCOA can make enough money out of persistently pursuing cases identical to other previous failed cases to make it worth their while; and in answer to the comments on p122 of this thread, I would venture to suggest that APCOA's strategy for maximising revenue is to continue as far as the POPLA appeal and then withdraw, and that this withdrawal is tactical, to keep their "failure rate" at POPLA down: interestingly, the last annual review by POPLA before it was moved to the Ombudsman gave a list of "worst offenders": APCOA, despite its poor record manages to avoid being named here, presumably because it chooses not to contest at POPLA level.


This doesn't make them any better than the "worst offenders": just exposes the unfairness of the system; whilst it is good that there is a pathway (a highly successful one too, thanks to this forum) for people to defeat them in their attempts to help themselves to our money,


a) there is no pathway back for those who are conned by the initial (and highly, deliberately, misleading) Parking Charge Notice, and pay up, thinking it will go on their record etc;
b) there is no way of (people like my wife) going beyond "winning" as in not having to pay, and actually going after these crooks and putting THEM in the dock.


Searching for an analogy:


Football striker (=APCOA) dives in the penalty area (= dodgy attempt to gain £100)
Defender (=innocent driver/car owner) says, No; I didn't commit a foul
Referee (=POPLA) looks at the incident, and concludes that Defender is in the clear


Now, in football, the referee now gives a yellow card to Striker; and all this on the spot.
In the PCN world, the process of establishing Defender's not owing any money takes 5 months;
And the process still does not automatically lead on to sanctions being taken against the real offender....




If there is a thread I should be looking at in pursing my wish to chase the Birmingham CEO, could you point me there? (Of course I know that I will need to ensure no admissions etc in writing to him)

Umkomaas

BHX is jointly and severally responsible for the actions of its agents. The fact APCOA have withdrawn from your POPLA case more than suggests they had no case against you in the first place and knew they had no case against you. Yet they pursued you and put you and your wife through 5 months stress and anxiety of having to research and appeal to them initially, then to POPLA.

They accessed your personal data from the DVLA without reasonable cause and are likely to have breached the requirements of the Data Protection Act. The potential proof of them having no reasonable cause, and knowing that, is in the fact that any airport POPLA appeal (we see on the forum) is always discontinued by APCOA.

Have a read of the following Parking Prankster links to cases where DPA breaches have been occasioned, and legal remedies pursued.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

Also, a thread from MSE which links to the VCS/Liverpool Business Park case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5569859

But the real case law is covered in 2 landmark court judgments.

Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd, and

Vidal-Hall v Google Inc

Google both to read the detail.

On PePiPoo there is a growing momentum to hit back at PPCs (and those who employ them) who wantonly pursue cases and breach the DPA laws in doing so. Look particularly for letters constructed by regular contributor 'Lynnzer' who has taken a lead in pushing this all forward. Have a look through the threads on pages 1 and 2 over there.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

So you could issue a LBA to BHX for (up to) £750 for their agent's breach of the DPA using one of Lynnzer's constructions and see what that brings. Beyond that, with no positive response from BHX, issue a MCOL which they will have no option other than to pay or defend. You could link APCOA into the LBA and claim too.

MrFluffy

Received the following just before Christmas:

[FONT=&quot]Dear XXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An Appeal has been opened with the reference 6063356055.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Team[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ET6116/001[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This relates to my case in the thread named [/FONT]"Draft POPLA appeal: any suggestions please?".


Naturally I'm delighted to have won my appeal against these licensed gangsters.Thanks to all those who put this forum together and provided all the information, especially to Coupon-mad, who kindly took the time to read through my draft letter to POPLA.

PressureDrop

Your appeal was successful

As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action.

POPLA assessment and decision
22/12/2016
Verification Code
6063016340
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant case is that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Associations Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. 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 am satisfied the Notice to Keeper complies with PoFA 2012. The appellant has advised they accidentally turned into the site in question looking for the council car park. They advise once they discovered it was a private car park they left. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 13.1 “must allow a driver who enters the your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a PCN. In the BPA Code of Practice section 13.2 it also states “you should allow the driver a reasonable grace period to decide whether to stay or go” The BPA Code of Practice also sets out that a grace period is to allow a motorist an opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions, and to choose whether to park or not. It is the appellant’s responsibility to choose whether to remain on site in line with the terms and conditions. From this, I consider 11 minutes falls within a reasonable grace period. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Once again thanks to forum users, particularly Coupon-mad in guiding me through this process to the eventual outcome in my favour.

I feel so sad for the poor unfortunate people who do not have access to such invaluable help and who will simply pay up at the first sight of such demands.