IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

POPLA Decisions

Options
12223252728481

Comments

  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 43,354 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    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?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • 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
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
  • 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.
  • Gee...you mean like the thread already running on here????
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,819 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    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).
  • 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].
  • 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]
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 43,354 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    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?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • Fergie76
    Fergie76 Posts: 2,293 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    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
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,702 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    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:
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.