POPLA Decisions

spikyone

Disappointingly ParkingEye decided not to contest my appeal, although they've waited until a couple of days before the deadline to pull out.

Bit of a shame, really - I went with the usual stuff on signage, no authority, etc, but also threw in a few novel points questioning whether their "POFA compliant" NtK was really compliant; particularly relevant as I wasn't driving. I don't think it is compliant, especially when ANPR has been used, but sadly won't get the chance to find out.
Given that they had used ANPR-on-a-pole without planning permission (another appeal point) and my initial "appeal" to them was to tell them to stop breaching the DPA, I'm seriously considering sending them a LBA...

thegentleway

Thank you everyone for the help with my successful POPLA appeal. Case is detailed in this thread against Car Parking Partnership, operator name: Liberty Services.

Decision: Unsuccessful
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 has raised a number of grounds of appeal which I have listed below: • The appellant has raised landowner authority. • She explains the parking charge does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). • The appellant states the operator has failed to show no valid permit was on display. • She says the signage at the car park is inadequate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park which state “Resident Permit Holders only…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to display a valid permit. 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 8(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 12 May 2017, rather than the date of the notice to keeper itself, which is 13 June 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. I note the appellant has raised additional grounds of appeal; however as I have allowed the appeal on the above basis I have not considered them.

Coupon-mad

And just to clarify, the decision shows it was SUCCESSFUL, despite the heading from POPLA!

Thank you everyone for the help with my successful POPLA appeal. Case is detailed in this thread against Car Parking Partnership, operator name: Liberty Services.

Decision: Unsuccessful

:T

Castle

thegentleway wrote: »

. 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) …’.

POFA actually says Date posted not Date issued.

Dr_N

Thank you to all for your help.

3 tickets led to 3 appeals all of which were successful.

h t t p://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5659140#topofpage

Umkomaas

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5659140#topofpage

The_Deep

Does this mean that GPEOL still has wings?,

Casey1709

Another Euro Car Parks successful POPLA appeal;

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Alexandra Wilcox
Assessor summary of operator case
The driver remained on site for longer than permitted.


After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle, on the date of the alleged parking contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. PoFA 2012 states: “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;” Therefore, transfer of liability occurs ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’. However the PCN that has been received states “…29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …”. This is incorrect because the field titled “Date Issued” is actually the date the PCN was issued not the date the notice to keeper was sent out. As such I can confirm that the PCN issued is not compliant with PoFA 2012 and I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal; however I do not need to look at these as I have allowed the appeal.

Shadax

I have just received this POPLA decision, the PPC is Anchor Security Services t/a Care Parking.
Although I believe that I had a strong case and supplied sufficient evidence none of it seems to have made a difference. I am happy with the outcome but I actually don't understand it, I didn't complain about the specifics quoted in the appeal decision. Perhaps someone could point out what I did right!

Decision Successful
Assessor Name xxxxxx xxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that that the appellant failed to park within the markings of a bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • Inadequate and ambiguous signage. • No Grace Period Given contravening the British Parking Association Code of Practice. • No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. • Non-compliance with requirements stipulated in Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). • No evidence that the PCC had obtained planning permission from the local council prior to erecting its parking signs. • Non-compliance with Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “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 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 states “If within 28 days, we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle”. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012. I can only conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued incorrectly.

Umkomaas

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • Inadequate and ambiguous signage. • No Grace Period Given contravening the British Parking Association Code of Practice. • No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. • Non-compliance with requirements stipulated in Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). • No evidence that the PCC had obtained planning permission from the local council prior to erecting its parking signs. • Non-compliance with Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

That's the appeal point which has delivered the assessor's verdict.

Well done on your win. :T