IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

POPLA Decisions

edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
4.2K replies 904.4K views
1310311313315316419

Replies

  • Umkomaas wrote: »
    Yet another operator that either has no legitimate case to pursue, or has insufficient intellect to contest a POPLA appeal. If you are reading this Elite Parking, care to confirm which one? :D

    I think it's probably a case of "a little from column A... a little from column B":rotfl:
    A very proud Mummy to 3 beautiful girls... I do pity my husband though, he's the one to suffer the hormones...
    Krystal is so smart and funny and wonderful I am struck dumb in awe in her presence.

  • edited 26 August 2018 at 11:07AM
    LounesboLounesbo Forumite
    53 Posts
    edited 26 August 2018 at 11:07AM
    Ticket issued on the 26th April for alleged ‘Obstructive parking’. Fine £100. 25th August appeal successful. Main grounds ‘ NO note to keeper’ ever served. Please see below

    The appellant’s case is that a compliant notice to keeper was never served and therefore, keeper liability does not apply. He states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver, who is liable for the charge.

    The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority, and has put the operator to strict proof.

    The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He states that there was no contract formed, and the case is dissimilar to ParkingEye v Beavis.

    The appellant has provided photographs of the signage at the site and has put the operator to strict proof that they can be seen from where the vehicle was parked.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision:

    From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Within their appeal, the appellant has indicated they are the keeper of the vehicle. In response to this, the operator has begun to pursue the appellant for the unpaid parking charge. The operator has not made reference to PoFA 2012 and as the notice to keeper has not been provided, I am unable to determine whether the parking operator has followed the correct process to allow it to pursue the keeper of the vehicle for the unpaid parking charge. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is liable for the parking charge. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

    Please see thread link here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74709255&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=21-Aug-18
  • edited 29 August 2018 at 2:58PM
    FlatToppedHillFlatToppedHill Forumite
    2 Posts
    edited 29 August 2018 at 2:58PM
    Edited to add location - Store Street, Manchester (near Piccadilly Station)

    Thanks all for brilliant advice in here.

    I overstayed in a pay in advance NCP carpark when my train was delayed earlier this year. I appealed to NCP because 'the driver' could not pay for the additional time required as the maximum period had been reached (screenshots of attempt at payment using the app were provided). NCP said that the driver should have arranged for someone else to move the car if they knew they weren't going to be back in time, and rejected the appeal. Overstay was 23 minutes.

    I appealed to POPLA using templates from here, copied and pasted, adding extra images and info. Grounds were:

    1) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    2) 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
    3) 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
    4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
    5) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
    6) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

    The total doc was 13 pages and submitted as a PDF to POPLA. I am incredibly grateful to everyone who's taken the time to write suggested text for appeals like this.

    Today (19 days after submission) NCP have said they will not contest, so I do not have to pay.

    Delighted. Thanks again :beer:
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    NCP said that the driver should have arranged for someone else to move the car if they knew they weren't going to be back in time, and rejected the appeal. Overstay was 23 minutes.
    !!!!!! - are they for real? Did they put that in writing to you?

    If so, I'd write to the BPA (copying the NCP statement to them) and ask whether they concur with NCP's response as a practical, workable solution and whether they think on this basis that a PCN is justifiable?

    [email protected]
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • Indeed they did :mad: I was agog, and also very nervous of having a POPLA appeal rejected and having to take it further when they thought that was a reasonable response (hence the belt and braces approach in my appeal to the adjudicator). Thanks for the contact details, I will use them.

    (reply to Umkomaas above, clearly my forum using skills require some work ... I thought I was quoting here)
  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    17.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    OMG ... NCP now working with BWLegal ?????

    Must be classed as the odd couple, judges will have
    a field day?
  • It's the holiday season, so if anyone has been caught by the Holy Trinity Church, Newquay car park scam, officiated by Parking Eye, you will be pleased to know that I have just had a PCN appeal upheld by POPLA for "ambiguous" signage.

    Said signage says "parking tariffs apply between 08:00 and 22:00 - strictly no overnight parking". Conveniently for Parking Eye (and the Church) there is the Red Lion pub about 50 yds away, which does great live music at the weekends, up to midnight. I parked there one Saturday from around 10:20 to 11:50 and got a parking fine. My interpretation was that I was outside the tariff period and did not park overnight. POPLA said "it is reasonable for motorists to assume that late night parking for a short time is not classed as overnight parking" and the appeal was successful.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Well done!

    So that's a free car park after 10pm then.

    POPLA could also have rightly concluded that there was no offer of parking after 10pm, therefore without consideration there was no contract. But that's harder for them to work out!

    :T
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Original Thread here:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5856509

    Dear xxxxx



    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



    An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxx.



    UK Parking Control 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.



    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
  • DecisionSuccessful

    Assessor NameMaxine Thomson

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle had no permit.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the PCN is not compliant wit the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 regarding his liability as the Registered Keeper. He says the signs are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant believes a grace period would apply. He advise there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has provided a letter detailing his grounds of appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions as displayed throughout the site, which state: “ Parking Conditions apply…Failure to comply with the parking conditions below may result in a £100 Parking Charge Notice. Vehicles in this area must clearly display a valid P.T.L authorised permit on the screen”. The operator has included a site map and provided photographic evidence to establish the locality of signage throughout the car park. Upon review of this evidence, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to form a contract with the motorist. The operator has issued the PCN for having no permit. I notice the PCN states the Parking charge is £120 and yet the signage stipulates £100. The appellant did not enter into a contract where he agreed to pay £120 if he failed to comply with the terms and conditions. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract the PCN has been issued incorrectly and as such, I must allow the appeal. I acknowledge the appellant has provided further grounds to support their appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal for the reason explained I have no requirement to address additional evidence or grounds provided.

    Original post link

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5838907
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides