POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

''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.''

I like that decision, unusual.

This appeal reasoning will suit any windscreen ticket for non P&D and indeed would be better than talking about fluttering tickets, better not to mention that and not even to show the earlier-purchased P&D ticket, but instead to put the PPC to strict proof of when the car entered and the grace period allowed to purchase and display a ticket.

mnkut

Another successful POPLA appeal - massive thanks to Coupon-Mad!!
Link to thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5554969
POPLA Code: 5163136007
Assessor: Louise Dack

Here's the comments:

"Whilst I note that the appellant has brought forward numerous grounds of appeal, my assessment will be based solely on the appellant stating that the operator having no standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, however I am not satisfied that this meets the minimum requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as there is no expiry date.

The contract given was signed in 2011, however due to no expiry date being given I cannot confirm if this is still valid. Upon consideration of the evidence, the operator has failed to provide a copy of a valid contract with the operator. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the standing or authority to issue PCNs on the car park. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."


However I'm quite appalled that POPLA didn't even address P4Parking's abysmal excuse, illegible font, contract formed in darkness, misstating their charge sums on signage, consequently misleading the assessor within their evidence letter and referencing charge sums as an Excess Charge.... POPLA's comments below addressing this:

"When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’For health and safety and enjoyment of all residents and visitors to xxxx you are politely advised that your vehicle may be issued with a ticketed excess charge when; Parked without displaying a valid permit…If you park on this land contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay an excess charge to the sum of £100.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has failed to display a valid permit."

beamerguy

mnkut wrote: »

However I'm quite appalled that POPLA didn't even address P4Parking's abysmal excuse, illegible font, misstating their charge sums on signage, consequently misleading the assessor within their evidence letter and referencing charge sums as an Excess Charge.... POPLA's comments below:

You won, that's the main thing. WELL DONE :T
Don't really want P4 to get a grip on their failings, let them do it again and again and lose

mnkut

beamerguy wrote: »

You won, that's the main thing. WELL DONE :T
Don't really want P4 to get a grip on their failings, let them do it again and again and lose

Very true!

prjohnsonnn10

Well done - any chance that you could post up the POPLA reference number and Assessor name as i have a similar case where the contractual authority has no expiry date. Thanks

Anagram

Another win for the MSE forums! Thanks to all involved in helping me

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5570188

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 6013476004.

Britannia Parking Group 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

Coupon-mad

Anagram was that a 'throwing in of the towel' within 24 hours?!

Anagram

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Anagram was that a 'throwing in of the towel' within 24 hours?!

Yes it was, my appeal was only submitted yesterday afternoon!:rotfl:

Umkomaas

Anagram wrote: »

Yes it was, my appeal was only submitted yesterday afternoon!:rotfl:

Up, off and running almost immediately following a forum-assisted appeal. Typical reaction of a bully who's just had a swift smack on the snout!

Well done Maranga

Guys_Dad

mnkut wrote: »

"The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, however I am not satisfied that this meets the minimum requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as there is no expiry date.

The contract given was signed in 2011, however due to no expiry date being given I cannot confirm if this is still valid. Upon consideration of the evidence, the operator has failed to provide a copy of a valid contract with the operator. ."

I can't understand this point, although I am very pleased that the appeal was upheld.

The adjudicator seems to be saying that open ended contracts are not valid on their own. They seem to work for mobile phones. I believe that if this was in court, the appellant would need to disprove that the contract was not still in force.

I agree that it would have been better if the adjudicator had gone with the other appeal points.