POPLA Decisions

fisherjim

urban_fox wrote: »

Hi, We had been to shop at Matalan Leicester before Christmas and a week later rec'd a PCN in the post from Smart Parking. I couldn't find the till receipt but was able to print off the transaction page of my c/c showing the purchase. Unfortunately it only shows the date the purchase was made. Armed with the documents we went to the Matalan branch and asked to speak to the manager. She said that there is nothing she can do and that I should appeal to Smart Parking. I mentioned that the parking attendant in the booth only asked us if we were shopping at Matalan and then waved us in. She admitted that he should have explained that we would have to pay and display and we would then get the amount refunded at the store. If he had briefed us we would have gladly obliged. That evening we emailed Smart Parking with an appeal. Please see a copy of the email sent (with some editing).

Dear sir/madam
I wish to appeal against the Parking Charge Notice dated 26/12/2016 which I received today, 30/12/2016 on the following grounds:

We arrived at the Matalan car park on 20/12/2016 for the purpose of shopping at the store.
At the entrance of the car park, the parking attendant in the booth stopped us and enquired whether we intended shopping at the Matalan store. We confirmed that that was the case. Upon which he waved us through. we subsequently parked in one of the parking bays. My husband stayed in the car while I went in and purchased some items. I recall that I was in the store for approximately 15 minutes and following the purchase we drove out of the car park and proceeded for home.

Following receipt of the PCN today, we visited the Matalan store and spoke to the Manager, and explained the circumstances. She informed us that following a change in parking policy, we were required to purchase a ticket and display it. She went on to state that we should have been advised of this on arrival by the parking attendant, whose name we now understand to be xxxxxx

We wish to inform you that at no stage was this information conveyed to us by xxxxxx. He only asked if we were shopping at the Matalan store.

We understand that a number of Matalan customers have found themselves in a similar situation to ours following this change in parking policy.

We are unable to provide you with the till receipt relating to the purchases but instead have attached a copy of the credit card transactions which include the purchase of £19 made at the Matalan store on 20/12/2016.

I hope you are able to view this appeal favourably and if there is any further information you require, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

xxxxxx xxxx
We subsequently received a letter upholding the PCN and were suplied with a POPLA verification code.
I am now not sure how to approach this situation and would like some advice before I go any further.
PS I have managed to contact my credit card provider who are sending me a letter which states the amount, date and time of the transaction. I couldn't provide this informaton at the time of the appeal.
uf

No sorry you have gone about this all wrong, including posting in the wrong place this is thread about POPLA outcomes, you won't get help here you need to post this in your own thread first.

meater

ECP withdrew 2/3weeks after popla appeal was sent. Thanks again especially to CM and the others that help to put the awesome templates together!

Thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71774531#Comment_71774531

surreyspurs49

Hi Appeal won against ECP Gatwick Airport North

I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum time permitted. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant does not believe the operator has a proprietary interest in the land. The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) states in section 7.1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided evidence of a contract between itself and the landowner. While the operator may have the authority to operate at the site in question, from the evidence provided, I can see that the contract was signed in September 2015; however, I am unable to see the dates of when the contract ends. As such, I cannot determine that the operator had the authority to operate at the site on the date the PCN was issued and I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

The operator has provided evidence of a contract between itself and the landowner. While the operator may have the authority to operate at the site in question, from the evidence provided, I can see that the contract was signed in September 2015; however, I am unable to see the dates of when the contract ends.

That again!

We must add this to POPLA appeals!!

Umkomaas

While the operator may have the authority to operate at the site in question, from the evidence provided, I can see that the contract was signed in September 2015; however, I am unable to see the dates of when the contract ends. As such, I cannot determine that the operator had the authority to operate at the site on the date the PCN was issued and I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

A similar decision to posts 2484 and 2492. Looks like open-ended contracts (unless specifically stated, I guess) is an appeal winning point now. That should shake lazy, laissez-faire operators into reviewing, renegotiating and formally renewing their contracts with landowners: in the process hopefully landowners might turn the screws on those PPCs who are causing them problems.

Guys_Dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

A similar decision to posts 2484 and 2492. Looks like open-ended contracts (unless specifically stated, I guess) is an appeal winning point now. That should shake lazy, laissez-faire operators into reviewing, renegotiating and formally renewing their contracts with landowners: in the process hopefully landowners might turn the screws on those PPCs who are causing them problems.

I still think that decision is nuts, but since it is in the motorists' favour........

eeq

Many thanks to Coupon-mad
Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5565148
Decision: Successful

The Appellant Appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be Allowed.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.

Reasons for the Assessor's determination:

The operator has stated it was provided with the name and address of the driver, and is pursuing the driver for the parking charge.

Upon review of the appellant's appeal to both the operator and POPLA, I do not consider that the appellant provided the name and address of the driver to the operator. The appellant has only stated that his wife was driving the car and no specific identifying details have been provided.

The operator has stated that driver details were supplied to it on [date]. However, it has not provided evidence of this. Further, it has only included a Notice to Keeper in the appellant's name and a First Reminder in a woman's name, who I must assume the operator states is the driver.

Upon review of the case file, I am not satisfied the evidence is sufficient to show that the driver has been identified and that liability has been correctly transferred from the keeper to the driver.

Therefore, I cannot determine who the operator is holding liable for the charge or that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

syrbag1

“
thanks Coupon-mad,
Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXX

Defence Systems 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Umkomaas

syrbag1 wrote: »

“
thanks Coupon-mad,
Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXX

Defence Systems 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.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

Well done.

How did Defence Systems access your details? Via the DVLA, or did you appeal early after a windscreen ticket?

Are you happy to let things lie now you've won, or are you up for a fight to sue them possibly for misuse of your personal details under the Data Protection Act?

polar-bear

POPLA assessment and decision
13/01/2017
Verification Code

6063496352

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameGeorgina Riley
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at ALDI Blaby car park where the operator issued parking charge notice for remaining at the car park for longer than was made permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that his wife parked at the store and entered the vehicle details. he says either the console was faulty or his wife made a mistake

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence if the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:07 and departing at 12:19 on 7 October 2016, as such the vehicle was at the site for one hour 12 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of the whitelist look up, which provides the vehicle registration numbers for vehicles registered at the car park on that day. This demonstrates that the vehicle was not registered to park at the site on this day. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions in force. The terms and conditions state, “All Customers must enter their vehicle registration to qualify for 1 ½ hours free parking. See in store for details” and “Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of: £70”. The appellant states that his wife parked the vehicle at the store, he says that the vehicle details need to be entered into a screen within the store. He says that wither the screen did not record the vehicle details or his wife made a mistake. The appellant has provided a receipt to validate the parking period. I acknowledge the appellant’s statement and evidence. However, the terms and conditions are displayed throughout the site and it is reasonable to accept that the driver had the opportunity to review these before parking. Furthermore, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check the terms and conditions of a site before parking. By parking at the site, the driver has agreed to the terms and conditions and agreed to pay the parking charge notice if she does not comply with them. Consequently, by failing to enter her full, correct VRN as required in the sites terms and conditions the appellant has not complied with the sites terms and conditions. Additionally, it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure she complies with the sites terms and conditions. Finally, while I understand that the appellant’s wife was shopping in store, by failing to register the vehicle at the site she has contravened the terms of parking. In conclusion, the operator has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the appellant has not complied with the sites terms and conditions. Therefore, I determine that the operator issued the parking charge notice correctly.