POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

We seem to be seeing all the new assessors getting hold of the pre-estimate of losses issue. But this latest one is based on the PCN 'exceeds the appropriate amount' - are they agreeing that the charge is punitive and therefore a penalty? If that's the case, is this another landmark decision?

Just as an aside, I've not seen anything from Shona lately - is she still there?

Parking-Prankster

Third appeal refused. I'm wondering if the POPLA assessors have special instructions not to uphold any appeals from me :-) seeing as the signage is not complaint, the operator did not make a case and they provided evidence their ANPR was working.

Full blog report is here. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/assessor-rules-lead-adjudictors-witness.html

This case is interesting because the assessor refused to accept my witness statement which was based on the Lead Adjudicator's witness statement for parking operators. I have therefore left the POPLA case references in so that anyone can quote this appeal if they want to quote that POPLA has ruled these witness statements invalid.

Eg

In POPLA case reference 1771073004 the assessor ruled that a witness statement was not valid. This witness statement, based on the template provided by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. This is exactly analogous to the current case if the operator produces a witness statement regarding contract documents between he operator and the landowner; the alleged contract is a document which the operator could produce (if it exists) but chooses not to. I request therefore that POPLA is consistent in its processes and also rules any witness statement produced by the operator invalid.

POPLA Case 1771073004

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 437130327012 arising out of the presence at Moto Leigh Delamere West, on 27 March 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx for exceeding the free parking period.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum free stay of 2 hours and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

It is the Appellant’s case that he went to the site on two occasions on that day and the Operator has captured his first time in and last time out.

I have reviewed all of the evidence and a number of points have been raised by the Appellant and I will go through the most pertinent issues. Firstly, he has raised the fact that he is unsure if the Operator is pursuing him as the registered keeper or the driver. I am satisfied that the Operator sent a notice to keeper to the Appellant and he failed to respond or to object if he was not the driver. The Appellant has not disputed that he was the keeper.

Secondly, the Appellant states that he went to the site on two occasions and the Operator has captured the first in and last out. The Operator has stated that they checked their systems and are unable to find a record of the Appellant’s vehicle entering the site on two occasions as claimed by the Appellant.

Thirdly, the Appellant has provided a witness statement from a xxxx xxxxx, stating that he has seen photographic images that the Appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere on the day of the breach. The Appellant has failed to state where his vehicle was located and has not provided the photographs.

Fourthly, the Appellant has raised a number of other points such as cyber men invading the Operator, I do not feel these are relevant to this appeal and will not determine them.
Having considered all of the evidence and submissions put forward, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking would have been visible to the Appellant from the signage at the site and these made it clear that parking was free for 2 hours and parking charges apply thereafter. On balance, I find that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in excess of the 2 hour free parking period and he did not pay for parking thereafter, as a result, a breach of the terms and conditions of parking occurred. The onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking and on this occasion he did not do so.

Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor

Mr_Mustard

I was wondering if a blog would be a better place than a forum for posting the various POPLA decisions. There is no requirement for POPLA to publish its decisions whereas PATAS ( for council PCN in London) publish every one of theirs.

People who have a result from POPLA could send their result in. It does of course need someone to manage the process.

I write a lot about Barnet Council PCN and Barnet Council in general so sadly don't have the spare time otherwise I would volunteer.

Computersaysno

Gee...you mean like the thread already running on here????

nigelbb

I agree with Mr Mustard the form of a blog with a posting of the POPLA decision then separate comments is better than a forum thread where the decisions are interspersed with equally prominent comments (like this one).

Computersaysno

It's hardly difficult to read/skip until you find the POPLA decisions [here's a clue, look for the posts with lots of text in them].

Parking-Prankster

Another interesting decision. Apparently failure to uphold the BPA Ltd code of practice is not a valid ground of appeal. Also, POPLA have reneged on their website instructions that operators must deal with appeals within 35 days or cancel the parking charge. They have silently updated their website to this effect.

Full story here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/popla-discard-35-day-rule-bpa-ltd-code.html

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]At 13:58 on 29 March 2013 an ANPR camera recorded the Appellant’s car leaving the Yate Shopping Centre car park after having stayed there for 6 hours and 14 minutes which was in excess of the 4 hours 0 minutes maximum free stay period.

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued and that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant’s appeal to POPLA is not regarding the actual contravention. The Appellant has not denied remaining in the car park in excess of the maximum permitted time.

The Appellant’s case is that, as the Operator has not replied to their representations for 35 days, therefore according to the rules published by POPLA, the parking charge notice should be cancelled.

Although the 35 day rule is published on the POPLA website, this rule is part of the British Parking Association’s code and is not a ground for appeal. The Appellant can raise this with the British Parking Association, however I cannot allow an appeal for this reason alone.

Accordingly as the Appellant has not raised any further points, this appeal is refused.

[/FONT]
[/FONT]Sheryar Majid


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Assessor
[/FONT][/FONT]

Umkomaas

Unbelievable. Look forward to your reports following (each of) your Lead Adjudicator appeals. I bet he doesn't know which way to turn on these. Good on you PP for exposing the smoke and mirrors this entire 'industry' relies on.

As an aside, looking at the names of the adjudicators these days, makes one wonder if POPLA has done some outsourcing - like the banks?

Fergie76

Umkomaas wrote: »

As an aside, looking at the names of the adjudicators these days, makes one wonder if POPLA has done some outsourcing - like the banks?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Is that why they take so long? Snail mail to India and back?

Coupon-mad

So with a Council PCN there is 'procedural impropriety' as an appeal grounds - but not with POPLA... even though a registered keeper can only be possibly liable if there has been strict compliance!

So effectively POPLA are sending you a letter saying you 'should now pay the Parking Charge' (LOLOLOLOL!!) knowing full well that you shouldn't and are not even legally liable?!

:eek: