POPLA Decisions

Fair_Dinkum

Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator :T
Withdrawn on 08/08/2017

Verification Code
6011737174

Withdrawal reasons
Gesture of goodwill
Thanks everyone:A

I'm new so can't post the link, but it is tread 5682127

Umkomaas

I'm new so can't post the link, but it is tread 5682127

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5682127

There you go. :T

Like I said in my post on your thread:

They've more chance of pinning fog to a jelly than they have of pinning this on the keeper (or even the drivers!).

winjaninja

Success! PE "no contest" at POPLA stage.

Southampton, Town Quay, Parking Eye

RE thread hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5679512

POPLA responded by email (I'll post in the above thread but here too):

Dear Mr X

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference nnnnn.

Parking Eye 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

ET6116/001

There was also a note from PE:

Dear Sir / Madam,
We refer to the Parking Charge incurred on xx May 2017 at x oclock, at Town Quay (Short
Stay), Southampton car park.
As a gesture of goodwill, we can confirm that this Parking Charge has now been
cancelled and there is no outstanding payment due.
We understand that receiving a Parking Charge Notice may be inconvenient, however,
issuing Parking Charges for breaches of the parking terms and conditions at this car park
is necessary to ensure a better overall parking experience for all users of the facilities.
To avoid potential future inconvenience, we would kindly request you follow the parking
terms and conditions displayed on the signage throughout the car park.

Does anyone have any idea why PE just pulled out without explanation? Could be lack of resource I guess but I wonder if there was anything I said that could have put the willies up them?? If there was then it's annoying that they get to pull out without saying why.

Anyway, thanks to all posters for providing such a valuable resource as this forum! Keep it up!

trisontana

winjaninja wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea why PE just pulled out without explanation? Could be lack of resource I guess but I wonder if there was anything I said that could have put the willies up them?? If there was then it's annoying that they get to pull out without saying why.

!

I am afraid it's just a cynical numbers game by PE. Sadly there are enough people who will cave in to their bullying threats and they will just cave in and pay. And, just like bullies that they are, they will run away with their tale between their legs when somebody stands up to them. A nasty company in a nasty "industry".

winjaninja

That's exactly right. Beyond that, it makes it look, at least in the bye-laws cases, that they really can't expect to win these cases if they make it that far; therefore, doesn't that show they are a) operating very dishonestly by asking for money and b) actually quite vulnerable to greater public awareness?

Umkomaas

winjaninja wrote: »

That's exactly right. Beyond that, it makes it look, at least in the bye-laws cases, that they really can't expect to win these cases if they make it that far; therefore, doesn't that show they are a) operating very dishonestly by asking for money and b) actually quite vulnerable to greater public awareness?

Many of these non contested appeals could be potential targets for DPA breach claims for distress. But now is not the time to rush headlong into these. See how the early pathfinder cases (still to emerge) play out and learn from those.

You have 6 years to instigate litigation in the small claims court.

Kat_2017

Deleted by poster.

Edna_Basher

In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided evidence of the agreement it holds with the landowner

Even though you highlighted that the contract included in the Operator's evidence pack was actually between Euro Car Parks Limited and its parent company ECP (Holdings) Plc - essentially a contract with itself and not the landholder - the assessor chose to ignore this.

Sadly, your case is yet another example of why the cut-price POPLA service delivered by cut-price Ombudsman Services assessors is inferior to the old London Councils POPLA service.

Umkomaas

At the end of the day, you're not obliged to pay the PPC, despite 'losing' at POPLA (what a joke decision!).

Ultimately, this is only ECP, so just ride it out for 6 years. They are not really litigious - just 3 cases from almost two thirds of a million tickets issued in the last 2.5 years. And there's no confirmation that those 3 cases had anything to do with parking.

Do the math to work out your odds (aka 'sleep easy').

beamerguy

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Even though you highlighted that the Operator's evidence pack was actually between Euro Car Parks Limited and its parent company ECP (Holdings) Plc - essentially a contract with itself and not the landholder - the assessor chose to ignore this.

Sadly, your case is yet another example of why the cut-price POPLA service delivered by cut-price Ombudsman Services assessors is inferior to the old London Councils POPLA service.

POPLA assessors are a joke, their understanding is joke, in simple words ... POPLA are as useless as the IPC scam run by the Gladstones boys