POPLA Decisions

Kat_2017

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.

The operators evidence pack was meticulously gone through and each point addressed-4 pages of comments were sent by email to POPLA at the "motorist comments" stage with assurance these were added to the case. This was at lunchtime Monday, 10 something am Tuesday the appeal had been rejected. The comments not even read (not mentioned at all by POPLA and scarcely time for them to be read and a decision made). They ask for motorists comments and then ignore them completely.

Didn't have this evidence until the operator sent it-that's why it was so important the comments were read as they were not in the original appeal, just that the landowner authority was disputed. After the evidence came through it was pointed out it was just between ECP Holdings which are not the actual landowner, and yeh this wasn't even read at all and they just believed everything ECP said! If POPLA aren't going to even read the comments what can you do? And nowhere to complain about the decision either-joke!

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').

Yes I have read the stats-something like 0 court cases in 2015, 1 in 2016 and 2 in 2017. I wanted this to be all over with, but hey ho, lesson learnt if it ever happens again to family or friends. When you look at it courts not even a big deal-something like £150-£200 max I think if you lose? Not great, but not a huge deal, seeing as it's already up to £100. Hopefully the court would see sense anyway if in the very unlikely event it came to that-unlike POPLA.

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

Yes, unfortunately I have come to learn that now! Waste of time.

DoaM

Kat_2017 wrote: »

The operators evidence pack was meticulously gone through and each point addressed-4 pages of comments were sent by email to POPLA at the "motorist comments" stage with assurance these were added to the case. This was at lunchtime Monday, 10 something am Tuesday the appeal had been rejected. The comments not even read (not mentioned at all by POPLA and scarcely time for them to be read and a decision made). They ask for motorists comments and then ignore them completely.

In which case a procedural error has been made and you can raise a formal complaint to the lead adjudicator.

AIMINGHIGH123

Hi everyone, I can't find my original post but my POPLA appeal was successful.
Thank you everyone for your help. :-)

jackg1988

Hi everyone!!

POPLA appeal successful - PE decided not to contest the appeal.

Main grounds for appeal was that they didnt comply with POFA 2012 where they pursued a company and not the driver. Also their PCN didn't include the text regarding transfer of liability to registered keeper after 28 days.

Original thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5668301

The last message from Edna Basher on there is pretty much the main grounds of my appeal.

Massive thanks to RedX. Coupon mad and Edna Basher!

Boygould_2

Successful POPLA appeal for Euro Car Parks PCN issued in April 2017.


For detail see the link below (replace hxxp with http)


hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5650101&highlight=boygould

Fruitcake

Boygould wrote: »

Successful POPLA appeal for Euro Car Parks PCN issued in April 2017.


For detail see the link below (replace hxxp with http)


hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5650101&highlight=boygould

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5650101&highlight=boygould

ProstetnicVogonJeltz

Successful POPLA appeal for Secure A Space for North London Business Park, PCN issued in May 2017.

Decision: Successful
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a pay and display permit.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant as raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows; • The appellant states the signs are not prominent, clear or legible. • The appellant states there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • The appellant states the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charges. • The appellant states the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states “Contractual agreement; Parking restrictions apply 24 hrs; Terms and conditions below; A valid Secure a Space authorised permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times; Parking charge notice £100 per day”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle FV60 VUF at the site, on 30 May 2017. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to display a pay and display permit. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, I will focus my report on the appellant’s grounds of appeal where they have states the signage is not prominent, clear or legible. From the operator’s evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, I can see that there is a sign to the front of the vehicle. However, this signs does not contain the terms and conditions. The operator has provided close up images of the signage at the site. However, I cannot determine where the signs are in relation to where the appellant parked their vehicle. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Based on the photographic evidence provided by the operator I am not satisfied that it is both clear and conspicuous that upon entry to the site the appellant would have been able to establish that there was signage and what the terms and conditions of the site are. As such, I am unable to determine that the PCN has been issued correctly and I must allow the appeal.

Original thread here: forums. moneysavingexpert. com/ showthread.php? t=5680764

Molts

Original thread here: forums. moneysavingexpert. com/ showthread.php? t=5680764

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?%20t=5680764

thegentleway

Another POPLA victory;
I didn't start a new thread as it was so similar to this thread.

Thank you to everyone for their help.

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Eileen Ioannou
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking without a valid permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the notice to keep was not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. They state that the operator has not identified the driver. The appellant says that the signage at the car park is not prominent or legible and does not give sufficient notice of the charge itself. They state that there is no contract offered through the signage. Further, the appellant says that there is no evidence that the operator has sufficient landowner authority to operator on the land in compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator issued a PCN to the appellant for parking without a valid permit. The appellant states that the notice to keep was not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. They state that the operator has not identified the driver. The appellant says that the signage at the car park is not prominent or legible and does not give sufficient notice of the charge itself. They state that there is no contract offered through the signage. Further, the appellant says that there is no evidence that the operator has sufficient landowner authority to operator on the land in compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within their appeal the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal that require consideration. However, after reviewing the operator’s evidence they failed to provide a contract from the landowner to be reviewed while making a decision. Accordingly, as the appellant has stated that they do not believe the operator has the authority to pursue charges or form contracts at this car park. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the BPA Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As I have based my decision on this one grounds for appeal that has not been addressed any other points raised will not be considered. Based on the evidence provided I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the decision correctly. As such, I must allow this appeal.

KobeAlt

Successful appeal against NCP for a PCN at a London Underground Station car park (LUL).

NCP 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.

Original Thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5662041

Special thanks to Coupon-mad. Until I visited this forum I would have either written a crappy appeal and ended up paying for it or just point blank payed for it. Now I'm much wiser and all thanks to everyone who gave me advice. Keep doing what your doing