POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

It's a valid point and you can show us pictures in your own thread, not here which is just for POPLA decisions.

Mike172

Is there a thread for IAS decisions as well or would that be just full of failed appeals lol?

Out of interest do IPC PPC's pursue people with court action yet? I keep my eye on these forums from time to time and not a lot seems to have changed since the whole Beavis thing.

Umkomaas

Mike172 wrote: »

Is there a thread for IAS decisions as well or would that be just full of failed appeals lol?

Out of interest do IPC PPC's pursue people with court action yet? I keep my eye on these forums from time to time and not a lot seems to have changed since the whole Beavis thing.

There's no IAS appeal thread. Have you succeeded at the IAS?

Gladstones and BWL have been serving court papers on thousands of motorists mainly for IPC members for the past 9 months or so. If you use the following link on a daily basis (the court list changes daily) you will see how many private parking cases are appearing at court each day. Many of the claims made by G's and BWL are still in the pipeline, yet to be allocated to a court.

http://www.bmpa.eu/court.html

There used to be only a handful of cases each week (mainly ParkingEye), but since Beavis it's more like 20-30 per day.

Mike172

Umkomaas wrote: »

There's no IAS appeal thread. Have you succeeded at the IAS?

Gladstones and BWL have been serving court papers on thousands of motorists mainly for IPC members for the past 9 months or so. If you use the following link on a daily basis (the court list changes daily) you will see how many private parking cases are appearing at court each day. Many of the claims made by G's and BWL are still in the pipeline, yet to be allocated to a court.

http://www.bmpa.eu/court.html

There used to be only a handful of cases each week (mainly ParkingEye), but since Beavis it's more like 20-30 per day.

No I avoid IPC operator carparks like the plague to the point where I will actually get back in my car and park/shop elsewhere now.

Interesting they actually proceed to court now. Thats dreadful. Do many on here succeed with appeals in court against an IPC operator?

Gets worse all the time the private parking firm industry..... How has it got so bad?

Coupon-mad

Do many on here succeed with appeals in court against an IPC operator?

The vast majority succeed and we are fighting back with claims against the PPCs where appropriate, too. I guess this is not the thread for discussing this issue though!

plynch66

POPLA assessment and decision
20/01/2017
Verification Code
2413376910
Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Steve Macallan

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration XXXX XXX, “parked longer than the maximum period allowed” at Church Farm on 28 October 2016.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant is questioning the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site. He is also questioning the accuracy of the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. He states the operator is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act (UTCCA) 1999 and that the amount of the PCN is “disproportionate” and also “punitive and unreasonable”.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration XXXX XXX, “parked longer than the maximum period allowed” at Church Farm on 28 October 2016. The appellant is questioning the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site. He is also questioning the accuracy of the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. He states the operator is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act (UTCCA) 1999 and that the amount of the PCN is “disproportionate” and also “punitive and unreasonable”. The terms and conditions state: “Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £90 parking charge notice”, which includes “Parking limited to 1½ hours”. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 13:25 and departing at 15:17, for a total stay of one hour and 52 minutes.

The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site.

The operator has provided a copy of a witness statement which has been signed the day after the date of the contravention, and does not confirm authority prior to this date. In combination with the only date stamped photograph of a sign being from 12 January 2017, I am not satisfied the operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it had the appropriate landowner authority on the date of the alleged contravention. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal. For clarity, any issues the appellant has regarding potential breaches of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regulations by the operator are outside of POPLA’s remit. This would be a matter between the appellant and the ICO.

Umkomaas

For clarity, any issues the appellant has regarding potential breaches of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regulations by the operator are outside of POPLA’s remit. This would be a matter between the appellant and the ICO.

But no reason for the OP not to contact the ICO themselves, as well as considering suing for wrongly accessing his/her data in breach of the DPA.

beamerguy

Well done :beer:

It is unreal that Euro try to con people including POPLA

"The operator has provided a copy of a witness statement which has been signed the day after the date of the contravention"

There are a few rooms left at Broadmoor

plynch66

Thanks :-)

FWIW - I've got one more shot to fire across their bows - I have lodged a complaint with Warrington Council's Planning Enforcement Team to the effect that ECP gave a false reason on their application to install their ANPR system. They described its purpose as follows :

"The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and
restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by Burley Development Group. The
ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to
see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods.
It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations."

I believe this to be false.

Fruitcake

plynch66 wrote: »

Thanks :-)

FWIW - I've got one more shot to fire across their bows - I have lodged a complaint with Warrington Council's Planning Enforcement Team to the effect that ECP gave a false reason on their application to install their ANPR system. They described its purpose as follows :

"The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and
restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by Burley Development Group. The
ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to
see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods.
It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations."

I believe this to be false.

Also complain to Trading Standards, the BPA, and the DVLA about their lies. Local and national press, your MP and Mrs May should also be made aware of the underhand methods used by parking scammers.
Do you know if Euro Scammers Inc got Advertising Consent for their signs as well? That is a criminal offence if they didn't.

Well done on your win.