POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Ø He has apologised that the line that the Assessor has used here, has made its way into this Assessment - it was removed in February.

So how come was it made some 8 months on if it was removed? They have been reminded about this for months, yet they still trot it out. It is not an 'original' quote from the assessor, it is a stock template response. Surely it's a simple case of management intervention to get the standard statement removed from the database of statements - and a check by management that it has been done!

I'm afraid this says more about the Lead Adjudicator's ability to manage the processes he is paid for than anything else.

I've seen more professionalism in a Sunday pub league football team!

beamerguy

That said, he has looked at the case in total and has concluded that the part of the Assessment regarding to the BPA checking the ANPR as described is not material to the case and that he would still have rejected the appeal if this factor was removed

POPLA has had it's day, it's no longer viable with
such comments.

The BPA is such a white elephant now and Steve Clark
should carefully consider his position and do the right
thing and resign
POPLA does not have a clue and the BPA is now infested
with scammers

Fruitcake

Umkomaas wrote: »

A little bit of gold dust there from POPLA.

@OP - could you give us the name of the POPLA assessor and the POPLA reference number, as this can be quoted in future similar cases.

Great result for you, well done. :T

From Erinon's original thread.

(OPS26014) from One Parking Solution

Whilst the PoPLA reference number would help, we at least have the PPCs ref number which is presumably the PCN number.

gd14sts

2 of 2 at Fistral Beach, Client withdrawl

Another success for MSE forum.
A little more added into the appeal on this one regarding grace periods, but this time

Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator
Withdrawn on 16/10/2018

Verification Code
8512xxxxxx

Withdrawal reasons
withdrawn - client request

once again thanks to you all.

Umkomaas

Well done @gd14sts :T

Original thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5891071/time-of-alleged-breach

Erinon

“
A little bit of gold dust there from POPLA.

@OP - could you give us the name of the POPLA assessor and the POPLA reference number, as this can be quoted in future similar cases.

Great result for you, well done.
Originally posted by Umkomaas

Done.

applesponge

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Chris Markey

"The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. As such, I must consider whether the operator has provided evidence in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that if the operator does “not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).” On this occasion, the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Therefore, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Therefore this appeal must be allowed."

Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5853716/pcn-from-met-complaint-to-mcdonalds

beamerguy

applesponge wrote: »

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Chris Markey

"The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. As such, I must consider whether the operator has provided evidence in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that if the operator does “not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).” On this occasion, the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Therefore, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Therefore this appeal must be allowed."

Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5853716/pcn-from-met-complaint-to-mcdonalds

GREAT ..... but WOW, a POPLA assessor actually reading
the BPA CoP ...... WOW ??

Umkomaas

Well done on your win :T.

On this occasion, the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

If POPLA are saying this then I'd be writing to the DVLA and demand they open an immediate investigation at this location and suspend all MET access to their database for any alleged contravention there, unless or until MET provide the DVLA with categoric proof of authority.

Clearly if they can't, the DVLA should demand that any PCN payments made to MET by motorists there must be refunded, alongside an individual letter of apology.

PPCs cannot be allowed to continue to carry on regardless where evidence is mounting that they have no authority (or cannot prove to have), at certain sites, to lawfully issue charges.

Do your best!

DJ_Davy

POPLA assessment and decision 17/10/2018
Verification Code
8662218731

Operator Name
UK Parking Control Ltd

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Mark Horne

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist parked for longer than the maximum period permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. The first ground is that keeper liability has not been established and the notice to keeper is not complaint with the requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Secondly, the appellant advises that the motorist was not parked where the operator alleges. The appellant advises that the operator has no landowner authority and there is a lack of legible signage, so there is no contract with the driver. The unclear signs and lack of proof distinguishes this matter from the ParkingEye v Beavis case. Finally, the appellant states that there is an absence of any contract and only the landowner can claim for damages for trespass. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a seven-page document containing the appellants appeal and photographs of the signage and his vehicle.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will therefore be considering his responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. The appellant believes that the operator is not the landowner, so it has no authority to enforce parking charges. Under section seven of the BPA Code of Practice it states, “7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.” The operator has not provided any evidence in response to the landowner contract. As such, I cannot determine whether the operator has authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site. Without the written authorisation from the landowner, I am unable to determine whether the operator was authorised to issue the PCN, so accordingly I must allow the appeal. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.


I WON ANOTHER APPEAL THANKS AGAIN TO ALL THE INVALUABLE INFORMATION ON THIS FORUM. CHEERS GUYS!
:beer::T:D:D:D