POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

Mackers12 wrote: »

Any experience with emailing the current Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher? If I did raise a complaint and comment on clear inconsistencies and procedural failings - is he even likely to read it let alone reconsider the decision?

Very hit and miss. Just like all companies, the staff do what the boss says. Gallagher is the one who trains the assessors and should ensure POPLA is a fair system.

Gallagher has failed and so the failure of POPLA in their stupid decisions is the result of Gallagher.

It has been noted that Parking Eye seems to be a POPLA favourite

NOT INDEPENDENT, just a figment of the BPA minds

POPLA and the BPA are simply not fit for purpose

Every opportunity should be a complaint to Sir Greg Knight about the BPA/POPLA = BPA NOT FIT TO BE AN ATA
= BPA NOT FIT TO SET UP AN Adjudicator

SmartPCN

Thanks You so much --> Coupon-Mad, nosferatu1001, Castle, KeithP - You are gems


Original thread of my PCN: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5902981/popla-stage-appealing-against-smart-parking&page=3#topofpage


Operator: SMART PARKING
Decision: successful
Assessor Name: XXXXXXXXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case:

Vehicle PXXXXXX was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist failing to make a valid payment for their parking session.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. No keeper liability 2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. 3. Smart Parking has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges. 4. On this day there were issues with the machine. 5. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice on ANPR. 6. The charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is prohibited/unfair under the CPUTRs. It is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis. 7. The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Parking tariff applies 24 hours a day Monday to Sun day…Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has failed to make a valid payment for their parking session. The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, however my assessment will focus on the operator having the authority to issue PCNs on site. Further the appellant has disputed the operator having authority from the landowner to operate on the land. The operator has submitted a case file to rebut the appellant’s grounds of appeal. Within this case file, the operator has failed to provide a copy of any written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot be satisfied that there is a valid contract in place or that this meets the requirements laid out with Section 7 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice and as such. In addition, I cannot conclude that the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

the operator has failed to provide a copy of any written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot be satisfied that there is a valid contract in place or that this meets the requirements laid out with Section 7 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice and as such. In addition, I cannot conclude that the operator has authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site.

Please take the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

1. DVLA.
Ask the DVLA to stop providing keeper details to the PPC for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement that they have no authority to operate on this land.

2. BPA.
Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to the PPC in view of the POPLA statement.

Copy your POPLA decision, emphasise the statement that no authorisation exists, to both the DVLA and the BPA.

Well done on your successful appeal by the way. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Link to your original thread with the details when received.

It's imperative we stop these outfits in their tracks if they are flouting requirements placed on them by the BPA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding, neither the BPA nor DVLA will do tap all!

Here's another thread where the OP got stuck into this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69199071#Comment_69199071

beamerguy

Umkomaas says it all above and well done

It is about time the BPA sorted out their scammers like Smart

They are scared stiff of losing a paying member to the other scam the IPC/IAS

As such, the BPA are just like headless chickens

Mr_Black

Popla appeal successful
Thread here
Assesor came up with something I didn't even consider. The evidence provided by the operator showed photos of me parked in front of signs, date and time stamped, but they didn't provide any evidence that they were present before I parked. Thanks assessor!

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameLouise Dack
POPLA assessment and decision
28/11/2018
Verification Code
4162768047
Assessor summary of operator case
On ** 2018, vehicle ** was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist failing to make a valid payment for their parking session.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. They are the registered keeper and are appealing as the keeper of the vehicle. 2. Misleading and unclear signage. 3. The car park was free for the first two hours, however the signage made this misleading. 4. The amount demanded by Gemini Parking is a penalty. 5. The car park was previously a free car park and was not administered by a parking company. 6. The operator has breached section 20.14 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. 7. A grace period has not been applied. 8. The operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’Parking tariffs apply…0-2 Hours FREE*…*Vehicles parking from 0-2 hours must be registered with JustPark…Conditions apply Monday-Sunday 24 hours per day, including bank holidays…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has failed to make a valid payment for their parking session. Whilst I note the appellant has raised numerous grounds of appeal, my assessment will focus solely on the ground that the car park used to be a free car park and was not administered by a parking company as this supersedes the other grounds. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.11 states “where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site; however the photographs have been time and date stamped the same date as the contravention and I have only been provided a template of the terms and conditions. As such, I have not been provided with any evidence of the signage present on site, or a date and time stamped photograph to show that signage in question was on site before the appellant parked their vehicle. As such, I cannot be satisfied that the signage was in place at the time of the contravention, the appellant has adequate notice of the applicable terms or that they have received an adequate grace period to adapt to the changes in terms on site. or me to be able to confirm that the motorist would have been aware of the terms and conditions of the car park when parking their vehicle. While I appreciate that the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle in front of a sign that is time and date stamped I am unable to confirm the sign in question was on site before the appellant parked their vehicle. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Great result Mr B. Well done.

I'm not sure I follow the assessor's logic.

While I appreciate that the operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle in front of a sign that is time and date stamped I am unable to confirm the sign in question was on site before the appellant parked their vehicle. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Does the assessor think that possibly the sign wasn't there at the point of parking, but the crafty old PPC crept up and erected it and took the photos before the driver's return?

What a sneaky trick!

POPLA seem to be making some odd decisions.

beamerguy

Well done Mr Black

Just another day at the office for a BPA scammer

Mr_Black

Umkomaas wrote: »

Great result Mr B. Well done.

I'm not sure I follow the assessor's logic.

Does the assessor think that possibly the sign wasn't there at the point of parking, but the crafty old PPC crept up and erected it and took the photos before the driver's return?

What a sneaky trick!

POPLA seem to be making some odd decisions.

That is exactly as I read it and one tactic future appellants should maybe employ as part of their appeal! Essentially, if the operator can't prove the sign was there before you arrived, laughing

Umkomaas

Mr_Black wrote: »

That is exactly as I read it and one tactic future appellants should maybe employ as part of their appeal! Essentially, if the operator can't prove the sign was there before you arrived, laughing

I agree. But, as I said, POPLA do come up with some bizarre decisions.

I expect the PPC will be spitting feathers. Oh dear, how sad. Let's see how we get on with this going forward.

So we know the assessor was L***** D****, can you give us the date of the decision and the POPLA reference number. With all those references, we can help others to argue similarly.

Great result which takes the process forward in a potentially different way.

Mr_Black

Umkomaas wrote: »

I agree. But, as I said, POPLA do come up with some bizarre decisions.

I expect the PPC will be spitting feathers. Oh dear, how sad. Let's see how we get on with this going forward.

So we know the assessor was L***** D****, can you give us the date of the decision and the POPLA reference number. With all those references, we can help others to argue similarly.

Great result which takes the process forward in a potentially different way.

All I can see is a popla verification code. Is that what you refer to?