POPLA Decisions

bluetoffee1878

No problem CM - It is the Aldi located in the Old Swan area of Liverpool post code L13 5SG.

The photo I showed of the potential second entrance I have used a bit of artistic licence with lol. I do not think it is an official access point, but could be used at a push.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like my sort of appeal!

Photos at angles just like they do, and arguing things 'at a push'!

KeithP

bluetoffee1878 wrote: »

The photo I showed of the potential second entrance I have used a bit of artistic licence with lol. I do not think it is an official access point, but could be used at a push.

Hmmm... I see what you mean by 'artistic licence'.

https://goo.gl/maps/pwWYJsWhSim

bluetoffee1878

I believe the vehicle in question had off road capability, so there was potential

On a serious note though, the signage is absolutely shocking at this site

Skew

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Steve Macallan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration ******* “[Parked] without displaying a valid ticket” at Oystermouth Square.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that she had her two year old son with her and had to take him to two different payment machines to purchase a ticket. She says that a third payment machine accepted her card and she purchased a ticket. She states that when she returned to her vehicle the PCN had already been issued. She says operator has advised her that she purchased a ticket for the wrong car park. She has raised issues regarding the signage. The appellant has provided photographs of her PCN and the parking ticket she purchased.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions state: “All car park users must pay and display a valid parking ticket”. The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms and the amount of the charge at £85. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle displaying an invalid ticket. The appellant has said that she attempted to pay at two different payment machines before having to try a third one. She says that the payment machines must not have been signed properly. The operator has provided a system print-out showing payments being successfully made throughout the day in question. It has also provided photographs of payment machines which show they are clearly signed as belonging to the operator. When parking on private land it is the motorist’s responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions of the site they are entering before deciding to park. While I do not dispute that the appellant purchased a ticket, the terms are clear and no valid ticket was purchased and displayed for the car park her vehicle was parked within. Therefore, I am satisfied that she did not park in accordance with the terms and conditions at the site. As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal.



What are my options now?
How likely are the company to take me to court and what sort of fees would we be looking at in a worst case scenario?

pogofish

Skew wrote: »

What are my options now?
How likely are the company to take me to court and what sort of fees would we be looking at in a worst case scenario?

Post Three of the Newbies Sticky covers this.

The_Deep

As you paid, albeit to the wrong company, they might struggle in court with signage. Court is entirely different from PoPLA, where adjudicators often display a lack of common sense.

Coupon-mad

Skew wrote: »

What are my options now?
what sort of fees would we be looking at in a worst case scenario?

You already had that answer in 2016 when you lost at POPLA, nothing has changed:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70164496#post70164496

How likely are the company to take me to court

You haven't said which company! But this 'outcomes' thread is not the place to discuss it - you will need to start a new thread if you get court papers.

The NEWBIES thread post #2 already tells people how to find out the likelihood of court papers, per PPC by name, and how to defend (posters who stick around and learn and take advice throughout the claim, have a 99% chance of success here).

DD1A

Original thread - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5651546

PCC - Parking Ticketing Ltd (PTL)

Location - Eureka Park, Ashford, Kent

POPLA assessment and decision
20/07/2017
Verification Code

******

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name *******
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is as follows: • Lack of signage, unclear signage and markings: • The appellant was not the driver on the day in question: • No contract with driver and no adequate notice of the charge: • The operator has not shown that the individual is in fact the driver: • No evidence of landowner authority: • No photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle being parked in a disabled bay. The appellant has attached a document which expands on his appeal where he lists links to EBay, BlogSpot and Signazone. He has also supplied images to support his appeal. The appellant includes a copy of the letter from the operator stating that his case had been sent to debt collection with extra charges added. He has also included a copy of the email from the operator apologising for this error. He states that the full terms cannot be read from a vehicle before parking. He also states that it is not clear which bays are for disabled drivers, and he states that the operator has not provided proof that the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. However, on reviewing the evidence, the appellant has named himself as the driver when submitting his appeal to the operator. On submitting his appeal to POPLA however, he states that he could not leave the section blank and as he did not want to name the driver, he entered his own details. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant is in fact the driver and I have no requirement to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012). While the appellant raises several grounds for appeal, my report will focus on the points raised by the appellant in that the operator has not provided any evidence of him being parked in a disabled bay. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator the terms and conditions state, “Vehicles parked in disabled bays must clearly display a valid Blue Badge in the windscreen”. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. The appellant does not dispute seeing the signage, but states that the disabled bays are not clearly marked and that the operator has not supplied an image of where he was parked. The operator has provided images labelled F to F10, which it states are images of the appellant’s vehicle parked on the day of the contravention. From these images, I can see that there is no Blue Badge displayed. However, from these images, I am unable to establish if the appellant has indeed parked in a disabled bay. A disabled bay is typically, marked by a cross hatched area, either side of the bay and the universal wheelchair symbol on the ground. While the appellant may have parked in a disabled bay, it is the duty of the operator to provide clear evidence to POPLA of the contravention. From the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the operator has provided such evidence. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

The appellant states he was not the driver on the day in question. However, on reviewing the evidence, the appellant has named himself as the driver when submitting his appeal to the operator. On submitting his appeal to POPLA however, he states that he could not leave the section blank and as he did not want to name the driver, he entered his own details. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant is in fact the driver and I have no requirement to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA2012).

Proof that PTL's appeal page prejudices registered keepers.

POPLA actually concluded this means the appellant must be the driver!