POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

I think we may have missed this win by NitramA in July, I don't recall seeing it and was wondering because I wrote the POPLA appeal ages ago for her and it covered THREE fake PCNs issued by PCM in a residents car park.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78026&st=40&p=842732&#entry842732

''Just received a response from POPLA regarding my appeal.

Whilst I'd listed multiple reasons why the appeals should be accepted (with lots of help from all of you) it seems that the time taken for PCM to notify me was all it took!!!

I've included the relevant part of the ruling below (it was basically the same for the other two appeals)''




"In order for the Operator to be able to recover unpaid charges from the keeper, four conditions must be met:

One condition is that: either a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7 of the schedule, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 is given; or, a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 is given.

The Operator has provided a photograph which demonstrates that a notice to driver appeared to be affixed to the vehicle on 12 October 2012.

A notice to keeper was then sent out on 11 January 2013.
Accordingly the notice to keeper must meet the requirements set out in Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4. Paragraph 8 (4) states that the notice must be given by handing it to the keeper, leaving it at a current address, or sending it by post to a current address, within ‘the relevant period’.
Paragraph 8 (5) states that the relevant period is ‘28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given’.
Paragraph 8 (6) states that a notice sent by post is presumed to be given on the second working day, after the day on which it is posted.

In this case, the notice to keeper is dated 11 January 2013, and was ‘given’ on 15 January 2013.
In this case, the day after the day on which the notice to driver was given was 13 October 2013. Accordingly the first period of 28 days, until 10 November 2012, must be given for the driver to respond. The Operator then has a further 28 days, until 8 December 2012, to give a notice to keeper.

It seems therefore, that as the Operator’s notice to keeper was not given until 15 January 2013, it was not given within the correct time-scale, and so the Operator cannot recover the parking charge from the Appellant as the registered keeper.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the Appellant was the driver of the car and so has not produced any evidence to show that he is liable for the parking charge as either the driver or registered keeper.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I need not decide any other issues."


The only one I can recall where the decision was made due to the late Notice to Keeper?!

Umkomaas

The only one I can recall where the decision was made due to the late Notice to Keeper?!

But another 'ticked' on the list of appeal points that POPLA has decided PPCs can be held accountable for ......... and the paragraph from the adjudicator's decision to be copied and pasted verbatim into any future appeal that includes 'late NtK' as an appeal point.

It seems therefore, that as the Operator’s notice to keeper was not given until xx/xx/20xx, it was not given within the correct time-scale, and so the Operator cannot recover the parking charge from the Appellant as the registered keeper.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the Appellant was the driver of the car and so has not produced any evidence to show that he is liable for the parking charge as either the driver or registered keeper.

Custard_Pie

trisontana wrote: »

"The Operator addresses this point by stating this was never asked for by the Appellant in the initial appeal e-mail"

This is the same point that PE have been whinging on about (according to Aldi's parking department). They say that motorists are just making a soft appeal and do not include "all the facts". Because of this, PE refuse the appeal and give out a POPLA code. When it gets the POPLA those extra"facts" are disclosed by the motorist thus resulting in the appeal being allowed. PE say that if "all the facts" had been known then they would have allowed the initial appeal. Complete hogwash of course.

Yes, complete bolloxm as they come up with this Q.C. advice regarding pre-estimate of loss. All this would do, is of course try to convince more mugs to part with their hard earned readies.

What's to say that someone does not take further advice after an initial appeal anyway. An appeal is an appeal, which The PPC either accept or not.

trisontana

And yet another loss for Parking Eye (from PPP):-

I received a ticket for an overstay in a free car park (Max 4hrs) and appealed this to POPLA with the help and guidance of this forum.
I must admit it was a bit daunting at first and I was inclined to just pay the money grabbing parking company to make it go away. However, having researched this and with the knowledge and support of the good people of pepipoo I decided to appeal.
POPLA has now processed the appeal and I am pleased to say that it was upheld. The assessor agreed that the operator's charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but was a list of running costs that they would have had to pay regardless of my overstay. I am very pleased to turn a potential profit for PE into a loss of the POPLA fee and admin costs. I would encourage anyone browsing this site and debating whether to pay up or appeal to do the latter and appeal.
A big thank you to tapas600 for his hard work and support with this appeal.
Keep up the good work everyone!

Coupon-mad

This is an old one (decision MAY 2013) which was lost but I don't think we posted it here at the time (this was not a forum-assisted appeal but the subsequent court defence was advised by pepipoo).

This OP has become the first person we know of to LOSE at POPLA then get dragged to small claims - where HE WON IN COURT!

THIS WAS EXCEL - SHAME ON YOU SIMON RENSHAW-SMITH. HAVE TO SAY, SHAME ON SHONA WATSON AND POPLA AS WELL.



The Assessor's words made my jaw hit the floor in horror at the obvious disability discrimination BY POPLA, look at the sentence in red!!!!!!!

:eek:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=21566

Newspaper article about this chap's predicament:

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/almondbury-ms-man-third-disabled-4934750

(Appellant) -v- Excel Parking (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at Leeds Road Retail Park on 21 November 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXX. The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out. In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days. Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination At 12.46 on November 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because the vehicle with registration mark was parked in a disabled bay but the Operator’s employee could not see a valid disabled badge on display. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle, one of which shows the parking charge notice on the window.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced and state that motorists parking in disabled bays must clearly display a disabled badge at all times. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

The Appellant made representations, stating that he was returning a shelf to B&Q and was focussed on manoeuvring the shelf onto a trolley, forgetting to display his disabled badge. The Appellant states that he forgot due to his disability. The Appellant enclosed an article about multiple sclerosis and a newspaper article regarding a parking charge notice, which both state that multiple sclerosis affects the short-term memory.

The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge. The Operator produced photographs taken by the employee that appear to show that the disabled badge was not visible.

I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a valid disabled badge was not displayed. This was a breach of the terms and conditions. It is noted that the Appellant did have a valid disabled badge, and that his short term memory may be affected by his disability, but it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions for parking. By driving his vehicle and parking at the site, the Appellant accepted this responsibility, and could have taken steps to manage the risk of a parking charge notice, for example by displaying his disabled badge permanently within his vehicle. On this occasion the disabled badge was not displayed. Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Shona Watson Assessor




but fast-forward a few months to today:

EXCEL TOOK THIS CASE TO COURT AND THEY LOST!!!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784284

''The reasons I forgot should have been accepted as a reasonable adjustment ruled the judge...''

...plus the signs couldn't be read without the disabled person getting out of the car, which was shown by this brilliant defendant as a breach of the BPA Code of Practice.


:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T


Simon Renshaw-Smith must be hopping mad again like he was about Judge Lateef (Martin Cutts) and the Ibbotson and Hetherington-Jakeman cases!

Coupon-mad

:mad::mad::mad::mad:


And hot on the heels of that case, here we have POPLA in the same week making the same discriminatory decision (for newbies wondering about our 100% success rate on all cases advised on since Easter, I stress this POPLA appeal was not forum-aided and was sadly too weak, relying upon mitigation and not detailed enough about the points that we know POPLA would have upheld the appeal on):



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84076

01 October 2013

-v-
New Generation Parking Management Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ********* arising out
of a vehicle with registration mark ********
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the
£100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
A vehicle with registration mark ************ was recorded exiting the car park after a stay exceeding the 30 minute free stay period. The operator’s case is that the signage in the car park indicates that the car park is a maximum stay car park and this clearly applies to disabled badge holders as well as those that are not in possession of a valid disabled badge. As a result of overstaying the maximum free stay allowance, the appellant is in breach of the terms and conditions.

The appellant’s case is that she is a blue badge holder and is unable to walk far. She states that she did not see the time limit and had to lie down in the car park before she could leave the car park in order to take the pressure off.

She states that the car park is a long walk away from the dentist she was
required to go to and therefore she was forced to park there as there was no where else to park. The appellant states that the signage was not clearly visible from the vehicle and you would have to walk up in order to read it. Considering carefully all the evidence before me, from the photographs provided by the operator, the signage in the car park is clear and visible and appears to be sufficient to draw a motorist’s attention to the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to draw the signage and therefore the terms and conditions to the attention of those wishing to park. It is then for the motorist to ensure that they have complied with the terms and conditions before leaving the vehicle.

Whilst I sympathise with the appellant and appreciate that there were mitigating circumstances present, I am unable to consider these as grounds in which to allow the appeal. Therefore as a result of overstaying the maximum 30 minute free stay period, the appellant is in breach of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor





:mad::mad: POPLA need to learn from Excvel v Greenwood that not showing a Blue Badge, when you ARE disabled, is NOT mitigating circumstances but that the person still has a right to a reasonable adjustment (whether of time or by simply cancelling these charges when they are able to show their legal right to park).

Also in the above case the appellant told POPLA that there were no signs that could be seen from the car (same as in Excel v Greenwood) which is a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice re disabled bays. The assessor has ignored that as well.

Custard_Pie

My three invoices have been cancelled by G24 via BPA.
One suspects that with my defense submitted for PoPLA they thought better of it. Does it cost them to get the PoPLA codes regardless of whether it goes all the way or not?

"Dear Mr Pie

Approved Operator Scheme BPA Ref: xxxxx-xxxxxx

Thank you for your e-mail received concerning the parking incident and related correspondence with G24 Ltd that you have sent to us. I can confirm that this organisation is a member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme and as such is expected to adhere to our Code of Practice which you can review on our website – https://www.britishparking.co.uk.

If a member is found to be not compliant with the Code, they would be subject to our Sanctions Scheme where Operators can expect to receive a number of penalty points depending on the severity of the offence. As with driving offences, once an operator’s ‘licence’ has reached twelve points in any given 12-month period, then they are likely to be faced with suspension or expulsion.

This investigation has been concluded and I wanted to inform you of our findings.

G24 Ltd have responded to my request for information regarding your complaint.

The parking operator has stated that the reason you continued to receive notices whilst your case was with POPLA was an issue with their internal processing system. They have explained that when a POPLA reference is generated with them their system should automatically place the case on hold. Unfortunately in this instance this did not happen which is the reason why letters continued to be sent for which they apologise.

They have assured us that they are looking into the reason why this has happened and are making improvements to their system.

G24 Ltd have, due to this, cancelled all the three parking charge notices.

Having looked at the Code in relation to this issue, I have to inform you that there is no material breach of the Code in our opinion.

I trust that this letter offers you sufficient background to help if you decide on further action.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and endeavouring to assist us in our efforts to drive up standards in the parking industry.

Yours sincerely

Approved Operator Scheme Team"

So, in future, if you "forget" to do something regarding a PPC invoice, apologise and expect everything to be forgotten :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

:T POPLA win vs PE - no genuine pre-estimate of loss YET AGAIN!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77889&st=40&p=878785&#entry878785

---

(Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx/xxxxx
arising out of the presence at St. Martins’s Precinct Customer car park,
on March 18 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 11:38, on March 18 2013, a CCTV automatic number plate recognition
(ANPR) system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle bearing the registration
number XXXXXX entering the St. Martin’s Precinct Customer car park.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in breach of
the car park conditions by remaining at the car park for longer than the stay
authorised or without authorisation.
The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points the
Appellant raised was the fact that the amount claimed is a penalty and not a contractual term. The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.

The Operator has submitted that its charges have been held to be
enforceable in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss caused in every car park. The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a
genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some
explanation or evidence in order to tip the balance in its favour. In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case. Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I need not address any other issues.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

:)

Computersaysno

GPEOL wins again!!!

I think the fact that the PPCs do nothing in light of their constant defeats at POPLA on GPEOL, shows how little relevance to the PPCs these POPLA defeats have.

The PPCs only engage with POPLA to maintain their AOS access to our DVLA data. They make enough money to soak up their POPLA costs. Also, as long as 50% of the cases that they do win at POPLA pay up, they are breaking even on POPLA [quite likely since POPLA losers are misled by the POPLA letter to think they have to pay].

So whilst we celebrate our wins at POPLA remember that thousands are still being scammed.

Custard_Pie

Computersaysno wrote: »

GPEOL wins again!!!

I think the fact that the PPCs do nothing in light of their constant defeats at POPLA on GPEOL, shows how little relevance to the PPCs these POPLA defeats have.

The PPCs only engage with POPLA to maintain their AOS access to our DVLA data. They make enough money to soak up their POPLA costs. Also, as long as 50% of the cases that they do win at POPLA pay up, they are breaking even on POPLA [quite likely since POPLA losers are misled by the POPLA letter to think they have to pay].

So whilst we celebrate our wins at POPLA remember that thousands are still being scammed.

Absolutely spot on. Just like with the ACS Law file sharing scam, they still managed to make over a £1,000,000 in revenue, generated from those who paid up through ignorance or intimidation. Anyone who had legal representation, or stood up with solid legal points had their invoices cancelled or deferred. ACS Law scored each invoice on it's merits and only pursued easy wins for sake of a few quids ink and paper.

There are still hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people parting with money.

Until the scam is put to bed once and for all, this will continue to run and run.

ACS Law were brow beaten into being rumbled in Court, killing the scam dead. This was achieved by people contacting their local MP, resulting in them being mentioned in Parliament, etc.