POPLA Decisions

Joe_Bloggss

Had an appeal I was dealing with. Used all of the advice in the Newbies thread and won my appeal! Thanks Forum!

Umkomaas

Joe_Bloggss wrote: »

Had an appeal I was dealing with. Used all of the advice in the Newbies thread and won my appeal! Thanks Forum!

This is a different case to the thread about Parking & Property Management you currently have running?

Any more details on this POPLA appeal, like who us the PPC and on what grounds did you beat them?

Joe_Bloggss

Yes unfortunately I did not have the justice of being able to appeal that one through POPLA and as such I am left to fight that one in court. Thus showing the fairness of the IPC and IAS.

Details of POPLA Appeal below. This was against One Parking Solution/Limited.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Gemma West
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the notice to keeper does not meet the requirements set by the Protection of Freedom’s Act 2012. He explains the operator has not shown the individual of who is liable for the charge. The appellant states no contract was entered into with the driver or the registered keeper. He explains the signage at the site is not clear and does not meet the requirements set by the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park which state “Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid permit in the front windscreen and fully parked within the confines of a marked bay…By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms: You agree to pay a ‘Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the sum of £100”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to display a valid permit. The appellant states the notice to keeper does not meet the requirements set by the Protection of Freedom’s Act 2012. He explains the operator has not shown the individual of who is liable for the charge. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (f) states the notice must: “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given”. On review of the Notice to Keeper I am not satisfied the operator has met the requirements set by the BPA Code of Practice. As such, I am not satisfied the PCN meets the requirements set by PoFA 2012. I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal; however as I have allowed the appeal on the above basis it is not requirement to consider the further grounds of appeal.

Umkomaas

Nice one!

Joe_Bloggss

Cheers. Was so happy when I saw it was successful. Goes to show that having an appeal service that isn't corrupt that we can get the right results.
Thanks again.

MIkeb_2

Thank you everyone that has posted info on this forum. I have just appealed with POPLA using information provided through this forum and the Parking Prankster site. This was a UKPC parking ticket that should never have been issued in the first place. However once issued you do have to fight it. UKPC rejected my appeal to them with what looked like a standard letter not even mentioning my appeal points.
I contacted the land owners agent who I don't believe is able to cancel directly but put some pressure on.
Apart from the obvious reasons regarding the signs I also included other items that I had gleaned from this site. Such as questioning their authority to issue the charge. I requested a copy of the contract or letter of authority with a valid start and end date.
I think the more points you can include will help your case. UKPC are not contesting my POPLA appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done MIkeb. Another fine example of good research work and good use of the forum resources, without needing any advice from regulars.

Shows it really can be done. Hat tip, sir. :T

sods_law

Had a letter from UKPC today informing me they have cancelled their Parking Charge following my POPLA appeal

Thanks forum!

Edna_Basher

As reported on this thread last year, POPLA ruled against us in our dispute over a ParkingEye PCN issued to our company regarding an alleged trespass at the now-infamous Montpelier Health Centre in Bristol.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70366547&postcount=2060

A couple of weeks ago, we finally had our day in Court - Case Ref. C9FC0J9D heard in Darlington County Court. I'm pleased to report that we won

The main cause of PE's downfall was their inability to prove that they had the authority to operate across the whole extent of the car park. We used pictures from PE's POPLA evidence pack to highlight to the judge that part of the car park was directly adjacent to a neighbouring pub and that that there were no PE signs in that part of the car park, thus casting doubt that that piece of the car park belonged to the Health Centre.

Last week we received a PE cheque for £89.50 covering the cost of four and a half hours of witness time @ £19 per hour plus £4 parking. I'm sure I saw the judge give a wry smile when I explained that in order to keep costs down, I'd parked in a council car park across town rather than using the more expensive ParkingEye-controlled car park round the corner.

Ironically, had POPLA done their job properly in the first place, ParkingEye wouldn't have been so much out of pocket.

Umkomaas

Well done EB. Who was the legal gun that PE fielded? Did you query their Right of Audience? I bet Mesdames Ledson and Breaks were nowhere near!