POPLA Decisions

beamerguy

Well done london1918:beer:

Just proves to you that UKPC were scamming you

Mind you, UKPC are approved scammers of the BPA

cja96

Hi

So to cut a long story short i have appealed a parking ticket in which i paid for an hours parking but overstayed by 17 minutes.

In my appeal i have stupidly admitted liability - stating something around the lines of 'I have clearly paid for parking, it's not like i haven't and have just parked there for free, hoping you can understand and cancel this.'

Before appealing i did not know there were these forms out there.

I have now been asked to take this to POPLA if i so wish.

In the response back from smart parking they have also extended my reduced fee of £60 (from £100) to the 27/12/18.

Do i have a leg to stand on with POPLA for overstaying by 17 minutes? they have provided me with all the evidence of time stamps.

trisontana

cja96 wrote: »

Hi

So to cut a long story short i have appealed a parking ticket in which i paid for an hours parking but overstayed by 17 minutes.

In my appeal i have stupidly admitted liability - stating something around the lines of 'I have clearly paid for parking, it's not like i haven't and have just parked there for free, hoping you can understand and cancel this.'

Before appealing i did not know there were these forms out there.

I have now been asked to take this to POPLA if i so wish.

In the response back from smart parking they have also extended my reduced fee of £60 (from £100) to the 27/12/18.

Do i have a leg to stand on with POPLA for overstaying by 17 minutes? they have provided me with all the evidence of time stamps.

You have posted this in the wrong section. This is about POPLA decisions, not for general questions.

Daver

PPC : CareParking

Decision
Successful ( 2 separate PCN’s)

Assessor Name
Sxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking outside of tram service hours.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator did not issue a notice to keeper within the relevant period. The appellant states that due to this, and the fact the driver has not been identified, the operator cannot pursue them as the keeper. The appellant states that railway land is not relevant land, she says that the land is covered by Byelaws. She says there is no evidence of any landowner authority. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified the driver of the vehicle. As such, the operator appears to be attempting to pursue the appellant as they have identified as the registered keeper. Reviewing the information, I can see a notice to driver was issued on 18 August 2018.
In order to be able to hold the registered keeper liable for the charge in the first instance, the operator would need to have sent a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 of PoFA, following the issue of the notice to driver. As it has not done so, the appellant cannot be held liable as the keeper. However, reviewing the information, H R has appealed on 12 September 2018. Following this, the operator has rejected the appeal to D R on 5 October 2018, and so it appears to be holding D R liable for the PCN.
Due to this, I have had to request authority from H R for her to appeal on D R's behalf, D R has at no point identified as the keeper or driver involved. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue an unnamed party. D R is in no way liable for this PCN, and as such, I conclude the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not
considered them.

This came about as Careparking in their ignorance replied to the email address name rather than the appellant ( I wonder if the email had been in the name of Donald Duck they would have pursued him for the ticket?) this has left them pursuing an appellant with absolutely no liability! Maybe this is a tactic that could be employed for others to appeal, certainly with Careparking as they are hopeless. I have a third ticket for another family member which is going exactly the same way. Interestingly they claimed in their evidence pack they had obtained the RK details then further on stated they hadn't as there had been an appeal, also as the PCN had been appealed they put everything ( including meeting the requirements of POFA) on hold......Thanks to everyone on here for their help, wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a happy, prosperous and ticket free New Year:):xmassign:

beamerguy

Daver . well done:j

Care (bear) parking are kids in this industry

There you go, yet another scammer approved by the BPA

Umkomaas

Well done @Daver.

certainly with Careparking as they are *hopeless.

Made me smile.

(*And hapless too.).

miltwin

POPLA assessment and decision
20/12/2018
Verification Code
************

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
*************

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than the permitted free stay or purchased parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states they did not park within the car park, they parked within the lorry park. The appellant has questioned signage at the site. The appellant says no contract was entered between the operator, and the driver or registered keeper. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The appellant questions the reliability and compliance of the cameras at the site. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided several images of the site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am satisfied that the appellant is the driver and as such, will be considering their liability for the PCN. The signage at the site states “2 Hours Free Parking. PARKING TARIFFS…Tariffs include the first 2 hours free parking. Please pay for parking at: WH Smith or Petrol Forecourts. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. Further signage states “…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100. Parking tariffs apply after 2 hour free period”. The operator uses cameras to capture the registration number of cars entering and exiting the car park. I have checked the photographs, and I can see from the timestamp the appellant was at the car park for five hours 39 minutes. The operator issued a PCN to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than the permitted free stay or purchased parking time. The appellant states they did not park within the car park, they parked within the lorry park. The appellant has questioned signage at the site. The appellant says no contract was entered between the operator, and the driver or registered keeper. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. The appellant questions the reliability and compliance of the cameras at the site. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided several images of the site. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. It is important to note the date of the event was 26 August 2018. The operator has provided a statement signed by the landowner. The witness statement confirms the operator had authority to operate on the land on two dates, 2 April 2018 and 2 October 2018. It does not mention the authority exists between these dates, which is when the appellant visited the site. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.


Story: I overstayed a bit (!) at a Welcome Break lorry park but was determined to see this through. I noticed that Parking Eye's POPLA Appeal paperwork was shabby and, as the Assessor agrees, it looked like authority was only given for two days and not for the period between them. There were other serious issues with their paperwork but am happy to leave it there.

Thanks to Forum members for advice in the early stages of the appeal.

Happy days.

Umkomaas

Nice win. :T

The witness statement confirms the operator had authority to operate on the land on two dates, 2 April 2018 and 2 October 2018. It does not mention the authority exists between these dates, which is when the appellant visited the site.

I noticed that Parking Eye's POPLA Appeal paperwork was shabby and, as the Assessor agrees, it looked like authority was only given for two days and not for the period between them.

I bet PE are spitting. OMG.

PeterParker123

PPC: Private Parking Solutions (London)

Decision:
Successful (1st PCN)

Assessor Name:
xxxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: ‘parking for use only whilst using site facilities’.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a document to POPLA which outlines his grounds for appeal. These grounds are as follows: • The entrance sign is inadequately positioned and the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • No site boundary defined. • Grace periods, BPA Code of Practice – non-compliant. • Surveillance camera code of practice/ General data protection regulation (GDPR) Non-compliance. • No photo evidence of the vehicle in contravention of the terms. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Operator procedures – non-compliance. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having reviewed this case, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. Therefore, I will be considering keeper liability. The operator has provided evidence of the signage displayed at the site, which outlines the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states: “Customer Car Park, this car park is controlled by warden patrols. If your vehicle remains in this car park or you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay £100 parking charge notice; parking for use only whilst using site facilities”. The car park is patrolled by a parking attendant. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in this car park on the date of the event. The operator has issued a PCN to the motorist for the following reasons: ‘parking for use only whilst using site facilities’. The appellant has raised numerous grounds for appeal. However, I will be focusing solely on the reason for the PCN issue in this case. When issuing a Parking Charge Notice, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate in its evidence that the motorist did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence has demonstrated this. The operator has indicated that the appellant has left the site, whilst his vehicle remained in the car park. The images that have been provided show the appellant’s vehicle parked. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that the appellant left the site. There are images of a male walking towards the exit however, it is not clear that this was the driver of the vehicle and from these images, it appears that the appellant is still within the boundaries of the car park. As such, I am not satisfied that this PCN has been issued correctly as the evidence does not demonstrate a breach of the terms and conditions. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal on this reason alone, the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.


Decision:
Successful (2nd PCN)

Assessor Name:
xxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. This includes: 1. The entrance sign is inadequately positioned and the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. 2. No site boundary defined. 3. The operator has not been complaint with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and the General Data Protection Regulation. 4. There is no photographic evidence of the vehicle in contravention of the terms. 5. There is no evidence of Landowner Authority as required under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice. 6. The operator’s procedures are non-compliant. 7. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a 25-page document detailing the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has failed to provide any evidence in relation to this appeal. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. As such, I must allow the appeal. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

Very happy win for both appeals. I can't thank everyone enough who took the time out to advise me and contributed to the newbies board.

Here's a link to my original post
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5892951/keeper-address-not-added-in-1st-appeal-template-parking-firm-replied-after-28th-day#topofpage

Umkomaas

Well done PP123. :T

There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that the appellant left the site. There are images of a male walking towards the exit however, it is not clear that this was the driver of the vehicle and from these images, it appears that the appellant is still within the boundaries of the car park. As such, I am not satisfied that this PCN has been issued correctly as the evidence does not demonstrate a breach of the terms and conditions.

The burden of proof placed on a PPC in a 'leaving the site' case is almost impossible for them to achieve. Like trying to carry water in a colander.