POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Another PE erection shafted :rotfl:

Parking-Prankster

A bit of a weird one; this isn't mine, it was sent to me.

POPLA adjourned the case to let the operator send in more evidence, which they should not do, and also asked the motorist to grass up the driver, which they also should not do. They then assessed the case a day early, before the operator sent their evidence in. This left the operator hopping mad.

Full story. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/popla-show-institutional-bias-by.html

23 July 2013
Reference: 731xxx3xxx
A Motorist (Appellant)
-v-
Secure-A-Space (Operator)

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

Ordinarily, liability for a parking charge rests with the person driving at the time of the alleged breach. In his initial representations, the Appellant stated “I wasn’t the driver at the time the car was parked”.

The Operator, declining the Appellant’s initial representations, responded:
“Whether you claim to be the driver or not does not change the process we follow with unpaid Parking Charge Notices. We may request the registered keeper details from the DVLA once time to pay has expired. The registered keeper must then either provide details of the driver or accept responsibility for the Parking Charge Notice themselves.”

The Operator outlined its position accurately. Where a parking charge notice is issued to a vehicle, but the driver’s identity and current postal address remain unforthcoming, an operator may recover the parking charge from the vehicle’s registered keeper. To do so, an operator must issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Appellant appealed to POPLA on various grounds, including the issue that the Operator did not have the driver’s details. The appeal was adjourned on 10 July 2013 until 24 July 2013 for either party to provide the driver’s details or, in the case of the Operator, to show that the registered keeper was liable.

The Appellant responded by declining to provide the driver’s details. The Operator did not respond.

Accordingly, in the absence of the driver’s details, the Operator has not established that the registered keeper is liable for the parking charge as required by the aforementioned act.

I must therefore allow the appeal on this ground.

It therefore does not fall for me to consider any remaining issues.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor

As an aside, the motorist tells me Secure-A-Space have ignored the POPLA verdict and asked POPLA to reconsider.

trisontana

Ex clampers I see.

Custard_Pie

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

A bit of a weird one; this isn't mine, it was sent to me.

POPLA adjourned the case to let the operator send in more evidence, which they should not do, and also asked the motorist to grass up the driver, which they also should not do. They then assessed the case a day early, before the operator sent their evidence in. This left the operator hopping mad.

Full story. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/popla-show-institutional-bias-by.html

23 July 2013
Reference: 731xxx3xxx
A Motorist (Appellant)
-v-
Secure-A-Space (Operator)

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

Ordinarily, liability for a parking charge rests with the person driving at the time of the alleged breach. In his initial representations, the Appellant stated “I wasn’t the driver at the time the car was parked”.

The Operator, declining the Appellant’s initial representations, responded:
“Whether you claim to be the driver or not does not change the process we follow with unpaid Parking Charge Notices. We may request the registered keeper details from the DVLA once time to pay has expired. The registered keeper must then either provide details of the driver or accept responsibility for the Parking Charge Notice themselves.”

The Operator outlined its position accurately. Where a parking charge notice is issued to a vehicle, but the driver’s identity and current postal address remain unforthcoming, an operator may recover the parking charge from the vehicle’s registered keeper. To do so, an operator must issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Appellant appealed to POPLA on various grounds, including the issue that the Operator did not have the driver’s details. The appeal was adjourned on 10 July 2013 until 24 July 2013 for either party to provide the driver’s details or, in the case of the Operator, to show that the registered keeper was liable.

The Appellant responded by declining to provide the driver’s details. The Operator did not respond.

Accordingly, in the absence of the driver’s details, the Operator has not established that the registered keeper is liable for the parking charge as required by the aforementioned act.

I must therefore allow the appeal on this ground.

It therefore does not fall for me to consider any remaining issues.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor

As an aside, the motorist tells me Secure-A-Space have ignored the POPLA verdict and asked POPLA to reconsider.

We all know that the decisions are non-binding on the motorist anyway, so I'd let it play itself out and when the decision is given in favour of the PPC, I'd stick a complaint into The Lead Adjudicator and forget about it.

Computersaysno

Yet again POPLA has one rule for the PPC and another for the public.

POPLA is more and more open about being the lapdog of the BPA/PPCs.

Custard_Pie

Computersaysno wrote: »

Yet again POPLA has one rule for the PPC and another for the public.

POPLA is more and more open about being the lapdog of the BPA/PPCs.

Which makes it more and more funny. PoPLA, BPA and PPC digging themselves deeper and deeper, as they try to by-pass their own rules and regulations.

Can't wait for it all to come crashing down in a spectacular heap.

zzzLazyDaisy

And yet - even playing by the PPC Industry's own bent and biased rules - forum assisted appellants win at POPLA every time

Computersaysno

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

And yet - even playing by the PPC Industry's own bent and biased rules - forum assisted appellants win at POPLA every time

Yeah...I love it!!!

trisontana

This is getting boring. Yet another appeal upheld against PE:-

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
A parking charge notice (PCN) was issued to the above vehicle for exceeding the stay authorised.
The operator’s case is that the site is “2 Hours Maximum Free Stay, Customer Only car Park” as clearly stated on the signage. The operator says that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed on numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site. The operator says that the appellant’s vehicle was parked for 11 minutes longer than the stay authorised. They have produced copies of the parking charge notice and the signage. The operator enclosed a witness statement confirming that they have written authority to enforce parking charges.
The appellant’s case is that she was not improperly parked. She states that the charge exceeds the appropriate amount and it is unfair to Consumer Contract Regulations Act 1999. The appellant claims that the operator does not have a legal interest in the land in order to issue charges.
The operator rejected the appellant’s representation in the notice of rejection they sent because they say that by parking beyond the permitted time, the appellant breached the terms and conditions of parking contract. They say that notice to keeper is fully compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).I am satisfied that the operator has met the Schedule 4 criteria of POFA 2012.
They state that the parking charge amounts to a genuine pre estimate of loss because they incur significant costs in managing the car park. They state that these costs include: erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the ANPR system, employment of office-based administrative staff membership fees and other fees and general costs including stationery and postage. They claim that the charge amount and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner.
The operator does respond to the appellant’s submission that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. However, their submissions do not sufficiently address such issue.
Having considered all the evidence before me, I must find that on this particular occasion, the operator has insufficiently dealt with the issue of genuine pre estimate of loss raised by the appellant. As the appellant raised this point, the burden of proof has shifted to the operator to prove that they do. The operator has not discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

trisontana

This time it's a win against UKCPS, but one that's out of the ordinary and concerns confusing signage:-

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxx, on xxxxxxxx, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx for parking in a xxxxxx only bay.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a xxxxxx only bay and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on the signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions and I do not intend to deal with these but rather just elaborate on the reason I am allowing this appeal, namely that the parking charge amount issued does not match the amount on the signage at the site.
The Operator has issued a parking charge amount of £125, however, on the signage at the site it stated that a breach of the terms and conditions of parking would lead to a parking charge of £100 being issued and this would be reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. The Appellant agreed to pay £100 and not £125. The terms and conditions of the contract cannot be renegotiated.
I must allow this appeal on the basis that the terms and conditions of parking cannot be renegotiated or varied as is the case in this particular instance.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nozir Uddin