POPLA Decisions

Castle

beamerguy wrote: »

If it does go to court (maybe) then what did the PPC do with the £25 you paid ...... could they be operating a fraud ????

The same question was asked by Tony Hetherington in the "Mail on Sunday" last Sunday and NCP cancelled the PCN after POPLA rejected the appeal..
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-6685983/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Appealing-100-fine-lucky.html

Waxy666

Just wanted to share my success vs Britannia at Portswood Carpark in Southampton. Many thanks to all the helpful posts on here, I included a lot of your points on signage and visibility as well as picking up suggestions on general tone and approach.

I won on very specific grounds as on the night I parked none of the carparks lights were working, so I appealed on the basis that even if there were signs I couldn't see them. Popla (correctly) ruled that Brittania hadn't submitted any evidence to refute my case (only their standard evidence pack) and further that the ANPR images they did submit supported my appeal (rather than their fine) as the only illumination shown was my car headlights.

So a little effort just saved me being extorted £100. Thanks all.

beamerguy

Well done .... just proves that Britannia were scamming you

Popla (correctly) ruled that Brittania hadn't submitted any evidence to refute my case

They are a BPA member after all ???

TheNorthernLights

Thanks a lot for that link, I am going to include this in my own FINAL REMINDER to NCP, which will also include the Citizen's Advice Bureau advice that Harassment is against the law.

MistyZ

Waxy666 wrote: »

I won on very specific grounds as on the night I parked none of the carparks lights were working, so I appealed on the basis that even if there were signs I couldn't see them.

I lived in the area for over 30 years and cannot recall that car park ever being properly lit after dark.

Well done!!

malkie76

Just a quick note. Thanks for the epic step by step processes presented here.

Did the challenge then a comprehensive POPLA appeal, only for the parking firm (ECP) to not submit a rebuttal and hence I ‘won’ by default.

However, the POPLA reviewer made defence to my ‘template’ appeal which I’d edited from this forum. I got the impression they would have viewed my appeal poorly if they had to actually review it.

Perhaps it’s time to stop the more is better approach in favour of a focused response with your actual grievance (very poor signage in my case).

Just an idea.

Coupon-mad

Trouble is, you need other things like 'no landowner authority' which surprisingly wins very often!

I favour the kitchen sink approach which has worked for me for some 5/6 years now.

MistyZ

malkie76 wrote: »

However, the POPLA reviewer made defence to my ‘template’ appeal which I’d edited from this forum. I got the impression they would have viewed my appeal poorly if they had to actually review it.

You win on technicalities. How many people have a clue what these technicalities are, let alone how to present them to avoid inadvertently slipping up? How dare POPLA scorn one of the very few resources available to help level the playing field. Those who do appeal in everyday 'one reasonable person to another' mode invariably lose!

Agree that it's best to do everything possible to customise the templates / examples though.

KeithP

malkie76 wrote: »

However, the POPLA reviewer made defence to my ‘template’ appeal which I’d edited from this forum. I got the impression they would have viewed my appeal poorly if they had to actually review it.

And there is the real point.

Your 'comprehensive' PoPLA appeal was obviously too much for the PPC to contemplate challenging.

One of the very good reasons for submitting such a lengthy appeal.

Well done.

mwnci

Decision: Successful - Custom House Quay, Falmouth - Civil Enforcement Limited
Assessor Name: Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) to the motorist for the following reason: ‘payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage’.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the driver has not been identified and Civil Enforcement Limited have failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. He states that this land is subject to Byelaws and is not ‘relevant land’ therefore, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper. The appellant states that no landowner authority nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. The appellant states that there is misleading and unclear signage. To support this appeal, the appellant has provided a document which explains the Harbour byelaws along with a copy of the sign on site.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, I will be assessing keeper’s liability in this case. The terms and conditions of this site state: “PARKING, PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE… BETWEEN 8AM – 6PM, 1-2 HOURS £2.00”. Additionally, it states, “If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100”. The operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) to the motorist for the following reason: ‘payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage’. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition cameras. The cameras captured the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 14:40 and exiting at 16:57, which is a total stay of two hours and 17 minutes. The operator has provided a transaction report, searching for payments registered against the appellant’s vehicle. The report shows that the appellant made a payment at 14:42, which allowed two hours parking. However, the appellant remained on site for an additional 17 minutes, in excess of the purchased period. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. I note that the appellant has raised landowner authority. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.” The operator has failed to provide evidence of a contract. Therefore, it has failed to comply section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, I will allow this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.