POPLA Decisions

muffintop885

Parking eye refuse to give me. Ref no to peel to popla

KeithP

muffintop885, why are you continuing to spray posts everywhere?

You have your own thread now. Please stop abusing the forum.

Leftynotreety

Thanks for the help everyone. Just received notice that my POPLA appeal was successful vs Euro Parking. Essentially, they sent me a NTK 30+ days after I visited a pub in Wigan, which unbeknownst to me, had started making the parking ticket only. The NTK should have been a NTH, as mine is a lease car, and they didn’t include any of the accompanying docs they should have under POFA. I pointed this out in my appeal based on Edna Basher’s, and surprise surprise, the case timed out without Euro Parking submitting any evidence.

The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Allowed 

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:

 In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal. 

Assessor summary of reasons:

 POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge, the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge.

As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21-day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I allow this appeal. 

Enders13

Big thanks to Everyone who have taken the time to create this forum, the newbies section and who take time to reply to posts.

Decision

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxxxx.

Smart Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

This decision came 2 days after I lodged online with Popla.

Location - Goose Green Altrincham

We obtained a ticket in good faith believing it was adequate for the time we stayed. SP believed there was an overstay. We initially appealed direct stating this but they rejected it. I made the first appeal before reading the forum in complete ignorance of my rights and was lucky not to make any reference to a driver.

Having spent many hours reading the forum I realised that they did not issue a complient NTK

A PCN was issued to keeper with no statement regarding the unidentified driver or stating all the requirements under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4. No statement on transference of liability to keeper. In escence this defaults to a NTK it was posted 13 days after the event and this makes it outside of the 14day notice to Keeper period as defined in PofA 2012 (2 working days from posting to be included)

I had included the template for adequate signage, unconscionable charge with reference to Beavis and Jopson as well as a request for evidence of Landowner Authority.

Separately I had applied for a SAR, we were sure the correct period was paid for but had no ticket to be sure, I have not received any response on the SAR but this is now a moot point.

I hope this helps others parking at this facility.

beamerguy

Well done .....

"Smart Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."


In plain English, SMART were scamming you

SMART PARKING = BPA APPROVED SCAMMER

badboy_2222

Just want to say thank you to the forum!!! Another victory thanks to your advice and help against Civil Enforcement. :beer:



The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Allowed 

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:

 The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 Within their appeal the appellant explains that they do not believe that the parking operator acted appropriately. The appellant has identified themselves as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle confirming that they appealed the charge issued by the operator. The appellant maintains that, as the Registered Keeper, they are not liable for the charge and appeals on the basis that the operator has not identified the driver of the vehicle. Further, the appellant says that the operator has failed to comply with various sections of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They have referred to Sections 7, 18, 20.5a and various clauses within Section 21. After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant has commented on the evidence pack to support their original appeal.  

Assessor summary of reasons:

 In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle who maintains throughout their appeal to POPLA that they were not the driver. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper which I reviewed against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012. I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the keeper is liable for the charge.

The operator has provided evidence of signage at the site. I can see that the operator offers a telephone number for motorists to call for assistance. In addition to this the operator has given evidence of a site map locating the position of the signage at this particular site. Looking at the evidence of the signage supplied by the parking operator I can see that it states, "2 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY. IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100. These terms
apply at all times."

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras captured the appellant at the site. This shows the vehicle entering at 10:39 and leaving at 16:27, a total stay of five hours and 48 minutes.

A review of the operator’s evidence will be required to establish if a contravention occurred suggesting that the contract offered at the site was breached. In this case and based on the evidence supplied by the parking operator, I can see that the operator issued a PCN for exceeding the maximum stay.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, I am satisfied that an offer of a contract was made to the motorist. I will turn my attention to the appellant to assess if their grounds of appeal and any supporting evidence is sufficient to dispute the validity of the PCN issued by the operator.
Within their appeal the appellant explains that they do not believe that the parking operator acted appropriately. The appellant has identified themselves as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle confirming that they appealed the charge issued by the operator. The appellant maintains that, as the Registered Keeper, they are not liable for the charge and appeals on the basis that the operator has not identified the driver of the vehicle. Further, the appellant says that the operator has failed to comply with various sections of the BPA Code of Practice. They have referred to Sections 7, 18, 20.5a and various clauses within Section 21. After reviewing the operator’s case file, the appellant has commented on the evidence pack to support their original appeal.

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”.

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 copy of the contract supplied by the parking operator does not have a date of commencement for the contract. Further, there is one signature on the contract given for 20 April 2018; from this, it is not possible to determine if both parties have full agreement of the details contained within it. Further, as the named person and signature does not define which party has signed the contract, I am uncertain to who the signature belongs to.

In addition, although not all of Section 7.3 is required within a contract I do not feel that the restrictions for the land have been clearly identified or the restricted hours of operator.

I note the appellant submitted other grounds of appeal to POPLA. However, I do not feel that the additional grounds require any further consideration as I have concentrated my decision on the reasoning above.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. 

beamerguy

badboy_2222 ... well done :T

Yet another scam attempt by CEL

CEL = SCAMMERS = APPROVED BY THE BPA.

NUFF SAID

Mysterio1234

Hi,

New to forum and just wanted to let you know I received a parking fine at ERITH RIVERSIDE SHOPPING CENTRE -- I had parked my car there without displaying a ticket (still need a ticket for 3 free hours).

I used a template from here and added further material and POPLA approved of it which was fantastic

I am still getting harassed from debt recovery services which is annoying, I might look into writing them a letter and threatning court action.

If anybody lives in the area and needs a copy of my template, im happy to send it.


Thanks and good luck to everybody!

Umkomaas

Mysterio1234 wrote: »

Hi,

I used a template from here and added further material and POPLA approved of it which was fantastic

I am still getting harassed from debt recovery services which is annoying, I might look into writing them a letter and threatning court action.

You shouldn't be getting any debt collector bother if your appeal has been upheld at POPLA.

Follow beamerguy's advice above and write to Steve Clark. He will stop the nonsense.

No point in writing to the debt collector, it will have no impact - it's like shouting 'Stop' at a runaway train heading straight at you.

And no point in threatening court, there's not much a court will do unless this gets totally out of hand - and the debt crawler knows that.

Eagle229

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to say a very big thank you to everyone who helped out, APCOA did not appeal my case, and I won! :j

Thanks for this awesome resource. I was hesitant at first but after reading so many successful examples (also Thanks to ParkingatBrum for convincing me), I was willing to fight a ridiculous parking charge at the BHX Airport, issued by APCOA parking.
The response from POPLA:

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXX.

APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely
POPLA Team

Thanks again for all your hard work to save people from these scammers. :T

I tried adding the original thread but I don't have permission.