POPLA Decisions

trisontana

The above was Parking Eye.

PressureDrop

It was Parking Eye & relates to Tower Rd, Newquay.

The full thread can be found in the usual place ...........

Parking Charge Notice - Pressure Drop

Cheers Everyone

Button_Moon

My Birmingham Airport appeal is successful, A nice Christmas treat I guess thanks to all that helped me out as I over complicated matters.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5567565

Myriddin

Total Parking Solutions Ltd shall be known henceforth as Total Parking Plonkers Ltd as they forgot to include any authority to operate in their evidence pack to POPLA - even though they said they had included it!. This was duly pointed out to the assessor who found in my favour on that point alone.

The moral of this tale: always go through the PPC evidence pack with a fine-tooth comb.

LeedsMat

Successful appeal for Tower Road, Newquay, uncontested by ParkingEye.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5553623

Cazilou

My appeal against Premier Park Ltd was successful on the grounds of grace periods. Thank you to everyone on the forum who helped to do this.

Thread: Premier Park- help with appeal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5534325

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: ***********
Assessor summary of operator case:
The appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states she is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states the signage on site is inadequate and unclear. The appellant states the driver was not presented with a reasonable grace period to read the signs on the site. The appellant states the operator does not have landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states the driver was not presented with a reasonable grace period to read the signs on the site. The operator has provided photographic evidence which shows the site is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. From the images provided from the day in question, it shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 20:46 and exiting at 20:53. From this I am satisfied that the appellant remained on the site in question for seven minutes. I note the operator has stated in the case summary that they give five minutes grace period. However, the British Parking Association (BPA), Code of Practice sets out requirements that operators should follow. Section 13.1 of The British Parking Association (BPA), Code of Practice states “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decided not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice”. Section 13.2 of The BPA, Code of Practice states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. Based upon the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the driver on the day in question, exited the vehicle and read the terms and conditions. As the driver felt the terms and conditions could not be complied with, the driver exited the site. Furthermore, I am satisfied that seven minutes is within a reasonable grace period. As such, I conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal on grace periods I do not need to consider any other points.

sniper7

Thanks everyone for your time and effort advising me. I received this email from POPLA yesterday...

Dear X

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 1413346518.

Civil Enforcement 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

ET6116/001

oracle93

My appeal has been successful also - due to the assessor not being convinced that the operator was pursuing the driver. Thanks to everyone who has helped me in this case.

Underlying parking operator (issuer of NTD): Parking Ticketing LTD
NtK issuer: Parking Collection Services

Decision Successful
Assessor Name xxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant did not have a permit on display.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land, they have disputed the charge being a genuine pre estimate of loss. They have stated the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 have not been complied with.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Parking Charge Notices issued are done so out of a driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract, by parking the vehicle on relevant land. Parking Operators are able to transfer this liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if it has not been able to identify the driver. If a Parking Operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. In this case the appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Having considered the photographs provided by the operator I can see a Notice to Driver has been affixed to the appellant’s vehicle. I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest the appellant is the driver and within their appeal there has been no admission to the appellant being the driver. The liability trail provided by the operator shows the appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. In this case it appears the operator is pursuing the driver. 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. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Link to thread: hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5567728

RootieTootie

Just posting regarding my POPLA appeal win - actually it was withdrawn by the Operator

Thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5572194

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

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxx.

Parking Solutions 24 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"

Success!

Danny80s

SUCCESS!

Link to thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5518477

Parking Solutions London Ltd

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Rodney

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant did not display a pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is the operator have not allowed a grace period when arriving at the site and purchasing their ticket., the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued no landowner authority, unclear signage, breach of consumer contracts regulations and using terms which impersonate authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The terms and conditions of the site state “Parking charges apply for not displaying a valid parking ticket”. The operator has issued a PCN to the motorist because they did not display a pay and display ticket. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle XXXXX, at (An address Car Par). The appellant has stated that the driver arrived at the site and went to purchase a ticket, when they returned to the vehicle, the PCN had been issued, the appellant states that the operator has not allowed a grace period when arriving at the site. Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA), Code of Practice states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. As the operator has not provided any evidence to show what time the vehicle entered the site, I am unable to determine the time period between arriving at the site and the time the PCN was issued. As such am not satisfied that the operator has allowed a reasonable grace period. Accordingly I allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.

Win!

Thanks again.
Danny