POPLA Decisions

happybagger

Case concerned driver entering a customer car park with a 90 min max stay, finding the store had closed, leaving, and receiving a ParkingEye charge notice.

Very few points in the appeal are commented on so difficult to glean much, but the thread, and decision, are here

alvaronistal

Success on my appeal! Thanks to Coupon Mad for the help :beer:

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Matthew Yorke

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that a compliant Notice to Keeper was not issued. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. The appellant states the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant says there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states a charge from a non-landowner for 'Parking in a No Parking area' can only be an unrecoverable penalty because there is no contractual offer or licence to park unlike in the Beavis Case.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the driver parked in a no parking area. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number, ______ parked at the site on __ September, 2017 at ____. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. After reviewing the evidence provided by the appellant and operator, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. The PCN that was issued was a Notice to Driver attached to the vehicle on the day in question. The registered keeper has then appealed the PCN; however, they did not name themselves as the driver or the registered keeper. Within the appeal the operator the appellant has stated, “There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.” The operator has then sent the notice of rejection to the registered keeper; therefore, it would appear that the operator is holding the appellant liable. Based on the appeal to POPLA and the operator I am satisfied that the appellant was in the vehicle. However, I cannot determine that they were the driver. As the operator has not requested the registered keepers’ details, then it can only hold the driver of the vehicle liable for the charge. I acknowledge the operator’s comments that keeper details were requested, but the Notice to Keeper has not been issued as the appellant has appealed to POPLA. However, as the Notice to Keeper has not been issued, then only the driver can be held liable. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

:beer:

Umkomaas

Well done @alvaronistal :T. Here is a glowing example of how the strategy of delaying a windscreen ticket appeal until day 26 works perfectly.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5721643

The PPC knee jerk into chasing the appellant and fail to go to the DVLA for Keeper details. Big PoFA fail, doh :doh:, and they still don’t get it!

neilfoster99

On 2 occasions back in May, 25th and the 31st, my son parked in a supermarket car park exceeding the 'free' time period. He did not receive a ticket or hear anything until his works van owners contacted him confirming that 2 tickets had been issued dated the 20th and the 27th of October. On the 31 October he formally appealed against the tickets given that almost 5 months had expired since the date of the incident and no ticket was attached to the vehicle and no follow up ticket had been issued. On the 27 November he was informed that his appeal was unsuccessful.
Surely Parking Eye don't have a case given the timescales, they advise any further appeal needs to go to POPLA but any early discount will be lost. Any advice on what to do next and is it worth appealing.

regards
Neil

trisontana

One piece of advice is to start your own thread. This one is for posting the results of POPLA decisions.

GeoffBungle

Hi,

Unsuccessful one for me. Pay and display car park.

Bit annoyed because I noticed what I think was an error/discrepancy in the PCN when I was sending my rebuttal, but POPLA's comments suggest this wasn't looked at.

Ah well.

Thread here.

Dottys28

Hi there

Sorry if I’m asking an obvious question or have missed something. I received a ‘letter of claim’ in the post today from a legal recovery company BW Legal re a parking charge notice I had on my windscreen in Feb 2016! I have never had any follow up in writing until today, 21 months later.

Do I have the basis of any argument to challenge this? They have requested £154.

It is on behalf of VCS limited.

Any help would be much appreaciated!

DoaM

Shakes head in despair at some people's inability to read and comprehend .....

pogofish

Dottys28 wrote: »

Hi there

Sorry if I’m asking an obvious question or have missed something.

You have - You clearly agreed not to hijack threads as part of your signup - This is not a POPLA decision and there is no prospect of one on your timescale, so you should not be posting here.

You need to read the Newbies Sticky and Start your own thread!

kaych

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Gemma West
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Operator Name Private Parking Solution (London)

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant ha raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. • They state no contract was entered into between the operator and the driver or registered keeper. • The appellant states the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • The appellant has questioned keeper liability requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act. • They say the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge. The appellant has provided a lease document and a court judgement within their submission to POPLA.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I note the appellant’s grounds of appeal in relation to this PCN. However, the operator has failed to provide any evidence for my consideration. Because of this, the operator has failed to prove that it issued the PCN correctly. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant’s grounds of appeal do not require any further consideration. I must allow the appeal.

Thread