POPLA Decisions

DollyPeach

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73289831#Comment_73289831

Operator: Parking Eye

POPLA assessment and decision
16/01/2018
Verification Code
6063257465

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at Crown Wharf Shopping Park where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the operator has failed to show that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the PCN. The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it has the authority of the landowner. The appellant states that no contract was entered into by the driver and operator The appellant states that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, she says that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN. The appellant states that the operator has not allowed a sufficient grace period. The appellant has provided a letter containing her appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Upon review of the notice sent to the keeper, I can see that the operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using the PoFA 2012, and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As the operator is not seeking to pursue the keeper under PoFA 2012, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. However, after considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver In conclusion, the burden of proof lies with the operator and I determine on this occasion the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Computersaysno

beamerguy wrote: »

Following on from the last post

David Dunford must be questioned as to why
Parking Eye are now using "without prejudice"
in letters and requesting a reply from the motorist
using "without prejudice"

This is restrictive practice

Could you expand a little bit on this?? Thanks

beamerguy

Computersaysno wrote: »

Could you expand a little bit on this?? Thanks

Yes, two cases on here recently

1: A hotel who instructed PE to cancel and then PE started
sending "without prejudice" letters

2: One OP was told to contact them adding"without prejudice"
in their reply."without prejudice" as you know is a means of not showing
the correspondence to the court.

To that end, it is obstructive and restrictive towards
the motorist to which most will not understand

Put another way, PE do not want certain correspondence
shown to a court

[Deleted User]

Response from POPLA

Parking Eye are not contesting my appeal

So do not why exactly they decided not to contest it as my appeal was based on

1. Grace period
2. Other vehicles in unmarked bays causing gridlock
3. Not supported by retailers on site
4. Poor signage, (did not explain what "Max stay" meant in small print that sets out "The Contract" The sign did not expressly state that the 3 hours was from entering to exiting the car park.

beamerguy

[quote=[Deleted User];73733021]Response from POPLA

Parking Eye are not contesting my appeal

So do not why exactly they decided not to contest it as my appeal was based on

1. Grace period
2. Other vehicles in unmarked bays causing gridlock
3. Not supported by retailers on site
4. Poor signage, (did not explain what "Max stay" meant in small print that sets out "The Contract" The sign did not expressly state that the 3 hours was from entering to exiting the car park.[/QUOTE]

Good news for you:T Not contesting = they have given up

WHY ???? This is the way scammers work

When PE rejected your appeal to them, they were hoping
you would accept and pay up ?
Typical ploy of a well known scammer or, as they hate
to be called ... COWBOYS

So sad that we have to put up with such low life in
our society

You could always send them an invoice for time wasted
and play their stupid game right up to a court claim
Include £250 for a breach of data protection

Coupon-mad

[quote=[Deleted User];73733021]Response from POPLA

Parking Eye are not contesting my appeal

So do not why exactly they decided not to contest it as my appeal was based on

1. Grace period
2. Other vehicles in unmarked bays causing gridlock
3. Not supported by retailers on site
4. Poor signage, (did not explain what "Max stay" meant in small print that sets out "The Contract" The sign did not expressly state that the 3 hours was from entering to exiting the car park.[/QUOTE]

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5762684

Your thread linky, showing your POPLA appeal. Well done! :T

Computersaysno

beamerguy wrote: »

Yes, two cases on here recently

1: A hotel who instructed PE to cancel and then PE started
sending "without prejudice" letters

2: One OP was told to contact them adding"without prejudice"
in their reply."without prejudice" as you know is a means of not showing
the correspondence to the court.

To that end, it is obstructive and restrictive towards
the motorist to which most will not understand

Put another way, PE do not want certain correspondence
shown to a court

So if they send a 'without prejudice' letter.....it can be safely thrown in the bin as if it never existed!!! Nice of them to waste paper and postage.....

Computersaysno

Lots of them withdraw as they don't have to pay POPLA if they do so.


So they force the defendant to have to submit a POPLA appeal and then withdraw when challeneged.


IIRC the BPA have talked of sanctions for the worst offenders [some scammers are running at massive withdrawal %'s]

beamerguy

Computersaysno wrote: »

So if they send a 'without prejudice' letter.....it can be safely thrown in the bin as if it never existed!!! Nice of them to waste paper and postage.....

Best to keep such letters and once in court, advise the judge
that you have evidence which the parking company are
not allowing me to show you marked "without prejudice"

That will not impress a judge and my understanding
is that a court can over rule this.

beamerguy

Computersaysno wrote: »

Lots of them withdraw as they don't have to pay POPLA if they do so.


So they force the defendant to have to submit a POPLA appeal and then withdraw when challeneged.


IIRC the BPA have talked of sanctions for the worst offenders [some scammers are running at massive withdrawal %'s]

Not having to pay POPLA if they withdraw is more of a
BPA problem ...... more fool them

As far as sanctions by the BPA, they are scared to do anything
and risk an exodus to the scam IPC.

It would not take very much to topple the BPA over the
financial edge

Only answer is to scrap both the BPA and IPC as they have
proven themselves as being useless, and to create a real
service that is government run

As there is the proposed private members bill coming up
shortly in Feb, headed by Sir Greg Knight who is still
accepting comments, everyone should email him

sothcottt@parliament.uk