POPLA Decisions

pogofish

miser69er wrote: »

Will do just that when I figure out how to!!

This was fully explained in the info you confirmed you had read and understood as part of your signup - maybe go back and read it again?

miser69er

Thanks pogofish, you have a lovely mannerism and a way with words......

For info, I set up this account 8 years ago and my memory is not what it was then. But, I have now started a thread which you are more than welcome to comment on in your own eloquent way.

Should have obviously put 'remembered' how to

Couldey

Verification Code
2410967437

POPLA assessment and decision
19/05/2017

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Kirsty XXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist’s vehicle was parked without the motorist purchasing a valid pay and display/permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and has not named the driver. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCN. • The appellant does not feel that the signage at the site is prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • The appellant says that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The appellant does not believe that the signage warns drivers of what the data that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras capture will be used for. • The appellant does not believe that the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in transferring liability to the registered keeper of the vehicle or the driver. • The appellant says that the grace periods are unclear and have not been applied properly.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Reviewing the information provided in relation to this appeal, it appears that the registered keeper is appealing the charge. The appellant has not provided a full name and address for the driver to the operator, and as such, the operator is pursuing the keeper. 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 PoFA must be adhered to. The operator has provided evidence of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) that has been issued. Paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of PoFA states: “(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2) The notice must – (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under the paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).” Upon reviewing the NTK provided by the parking operator, I can see that the date issued is 12 March 2017. The NTK states “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”. The date the letter was given was 21 March 2017, however it states the date issued is 12 March 2017. As such, the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012 and I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN incorrectly. While I appreciate that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, as I have already allowed the appeal on this ground there is no need for me to further consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.



Thank you Coupon-mad :j

Umkomaas

Excellent win Couldey.

Link to original thread to above:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5624170

Couldey

All the credit goes to Coupon-mad :beer:

Fiddledy_D

Thanks to the 'experts' here who have generated and consolidated a great deal of useful information. I am very happy to say I took MET Parking Services to POPLA appeal and I received a response yesterday that MET did not wish to contest the appeal. WINNER!!!

sli88

Just got my decision for parking without displaying valid payment in and Indigo Car Park:

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Mark xxx
Assessor summary of operator case
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notice is valid.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is only the courts can impose a penalty for breach of the Byelaws. He has demonstrated that he was not parked in a manner to justify the Parking Charge Notice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid.

Thanks the for the help everyone!

mae

Euro Car Parks Success

POPLA assessment and decision
26/05/2017

Verification Code
2410897186

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Graham XXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver exceeded the maximum parking time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is the signage was insufficient and they doubt the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper provided by the operator. Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA 2012 provides that the notice to keeper must: ‘warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’ The notice to keeper has not satisfied the above requirements of PoFA 2012. This is because it does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states ’… 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …’. The Date Issued is specified on the notice to keeper as 7 March 2017, rather than the date of the notice to keeper itself, which is 15 March 2017. PoFA 2012 has strict requirements for the transfer of liability and these requirements have not been met in this case. The operator has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has raised other issues, it is not necessary to consider them in this appeal. Because the operator has failed to transfer liability, the parking charge is not enforceable against the registered keeper.

Thanks everyone for your help. The truth is I would have just paid up if it wasn't for all those on here willing to help and share facts and experience.

Original Thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5619848

beamerguy

mae wrote: »

Euro Car Parks Success

POPLA assessment and decision
26/05/2017

Verification Code
xxx

Decision Successful

Assessor Name xxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver exceeded the maximum parking time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is the signage was insufficient and they doubt the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue PCNs.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper provided by the operator. Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA 2012 provides that the notice to keeper must: ‘warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’ The notice to keeper has not satisfied the above requirements of PoFA 2012. This is because it does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states ’… 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …’. The Date Issued is specified on the notice to keeper as 7 March 2017, rather than the date of the notice to keeper itself, which is 15 March 2017. PoFA 2012 has strict requirements for the transfer of liability and these requirements have not been met in this case. The operator has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has raised other issues, it is not necessary to consider them in this appeal. Because the operator has failed to transfer liability, the parking charge is not enforceable against the registered keeper.

Thanks everyone for your help. The truth is I would have just paid up if it wasn't for all those on here willing to help and share facts and experience.

Original Thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5619848

Well done:T

Do tell your friends about this forum please just in case they have problems.

Coupon-mad

Couldey wrote: »

All the credit goes to Coupon-mad :beer:

Couldey, would you mind telling us the POPLA code and date of decision, like mae has done please? Your cases are so similar that this looks a slam-dunk winning point for POPLA appeals against Euro Car parks at the moment. They have a huge problem with a wrong 'date issued'.

It would be great if we could tell newbies to quote your decision/POPLA code/date of decision, as well as mae's, in support of their appeals.