POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

beamerguy wrote: »

Never forget that this scammer, One Parking Solution,
is an approved member of the BPA.

They are the ones who provide the most desperate and hilarious POPLA appeal evidence we ever have the pleasure of reading.

My favourite was the one where OPS said their photos showed the driver was a grey haired gentleman, and they'd taken time out to stalk the appellant registered keeper and found him on Facebook, and he also had grey hair so 'must be the same person'!

You could not make their utter drivel up!

:T

emcwill

Another success here! Just had email confirming NCP do not wish to contest appeal, no need to pay. Here’s the thread about it: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74921241

Appealed on keeper not liable, not relevant land and bylaws. Thank you so much to everyone who helped!

beamerguy

emcwill wrote: »

Another success here! Just had email confirming NCP do not wish to contest appeal, no need to pay. Here’s the thread about it: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74921241

Appealed on keeper not liable, not relevant land and bylaws. Thank you so much to everyone who helped!

Well done :T
NCP do not wish to contest the appeal ????

They must have been scamming you in the first place ?

Another day at the office for scammers approved by the BPA

lgrace

Hello there,

Was wondering if you can offer me some advice regarding a recent parking fine i received from Smart parking Ltd which i appealed with POPLA but was rejected. I entered the carpark at 20.41 and payed for my ticket at 20.54 (i have kept evidence of my ticket) due to not having change as i thought there may be a card payment option, bearing in mind ive never been to this area before , i therefore had to go to the nearest cash point and get change, i payed for my ticket which expired at 00.54. Upon exiting the carpark there was a delay as lots of cars were leaving at the same time, therefore making my exit delayed, the fine says i exited at 1.00. I feel this fine is completely unfair as ive payed for the ticket and parked for the time ive payed for yet there was events out of my control that prevented me exiting. The POPLA appeal said because i have admitted i left the car parked without paying while i went to get change i have broken the contract? I have read that these companies can only legally claim for their losses, but I am becoming anxious that if i now ignore it they might send me to court

Umkomaas

they might send me to court

Not Smart Parking.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss further, but the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4 takes you to the next stage, really no need for anything further at this stage. See if you can work your way through this without any additional direct forum help.

BobTheGoldfish

Another 'win'…

POPLA Appeal against Euro Car Parks Limited. See original post.

POPLA have informed me that ECP do not with to contest the appeal, so with all the help given in this forum I succeeded in defending my position.

…and with the greatest of thanks, have avoided having to let the lady that caused the ticket know anything about it! :rotfl:

Bob.

beamerguy

Goods news for you :beer:

That must prove to you that ECP were scamming you right from the start.

Yet another scammer approved by the BPA

The BPA must have serious words with their scammers because we can no longer accept the BPA in their current capacity

Jason.rangou

Hi Just a quick message to say Parking Eye decided not to persue the POPLA appeal so that makes 6/6 now all thanks to people on this site who spend their own time helping others. Thanks

beamerguy

Jason.rangou wrote: »

Hi Just a quick message to say Parking Eye decided not to persue the POPLA appeal so that makes 6/6 now all thanks to people on this site who spend their own time helping others. Thanks

Well done ..... just further proof that Parking Eye were scamming you in the first place

Parking Eye .. members of the joke called the BPA

Porkpie1618

Hi, Just a quick message to say my appeal was successful. The story of my PCN can be found here:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5906911&highlight=
need add the https:// at the start of the url above, or search for:
SMART Parking Fine - 7 days for comment

In my 2000 word rebutttal I had sent:

Point 1: Signage. The appellant requests photos presented by SMART to be disallowed. The photos are close shot and are of signs no longer present. Appellants photos are recent and show that the entry signs conflicts with BPA CoP S18 para 2, Appendix B, and S18 para 4.
Point 2 and 3:Keeper Liability. The appellant requests rebuttal para 5 be disregarded. At no point has SMART requested driver identification or has identification been given, the NtK did not comply with POFA 2012 Sch4 para 6 (1)(b), as you can see in their original notice. Rebuttal Para 5 is a complete fabrication, as you can see in the screenshot given. “I” was never stated as driver identification, the “I” was in reference to being the registered keeper. The follow up call did not identify “XXXX” as driver, again a fabrication, which contradicts para 5 which allegedly identifies “XXXX” as the driver. SMART has failed to demonstrate who the driver was and therefore who is liable for the PCN. Reference is made to the Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby SMART have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper.
Point 4: Landownership. Rebuttal presented nothing, so SMART has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contact assigning rights to the charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. There is no evidence of compliance to BPA CoP para 7. SMART has not produced a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated contract with the landowner, and therefore have not supplied any evidence showing that they are entitled to pursue these charges.
As a side note, appellant has not given permission for SMART to pass on a personal mobile number or email address shown within their evidence, to a third party. This does not comply with the recent EU GDPR.

3 weeks later:

Decision Successful
Assessor Name XXXX
Assessor summary of operator case The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant either did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained on site for longer than permitted.
Assessor summary of your case The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. These are: 1. 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. 2. The PCN does not fully comply with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. 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. The operator does not have the relevant landowner authority to issue the PCN.
Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant's case is that the operator has provided no evidence to confirm that it has the relevant landowner authority to issue the PCN. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: "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". In order to prove that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue the PCN, I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims. However, the operator has provided neither document. As such, the operator has failed to confirm that it has the necessary landowner authority to have issued the PCN. The appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, I do not consider it necessary to consider these, as I have already allowed the appeal on the above basis. Accordingly, I do not conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge and will allow the appeal.

I hope proves to be useful to people. I won because SMART couldn't prove they can operate on the land.

I'm glad this is all over, I've not fretted about it as much as I thought I would and I would say that was down to reading this forum. Thank you to everyone who has put up great info to this forum it's been very useful. I paid my original fee, SMART got greedy and now they have lost money on me. I can't say I feel sorry for them. :rotfl: