POPLA Decisions

freester

Well done.

Eagle229 wrote: »

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5963239/apcoa-pcn-for-dropping-off-picking-up-at-birmingham-airport

Daver

Yet another success against those Muppets at Care Parking, they spout off about not using copy and pasted evidence from the Internet but they can't even understand how to follow their own industry rules when persecuting motorists for their paltry pound of flesh!!! 3 out of 3 now against them thanks to the help and guidance on this forum.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Alexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist parked obstructively.
Operator Anchor Security Services t/a Care(less)Parking - Ashton Moss Metrolink

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that a compliant notice to keeper was never served and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. He states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver. The appellant states that the railway land is not relevant land. He states that there has been no breach of Byelaws. The appellant has disputed the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. The appellant states that the operator has issued the POPLA code and the correspondence in the wrong name.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing Monica Jones as the keeper of the vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Within their appeal, the appellant has indicated they are the keeper of the vehicle. In response to this, the operator has begun to pursue the appellant for the unpaid parking charge. The operator has not made reference to PoFA 2012 and it has not provided any evidence to show that a notice to keeper has been issued. As the notice to keeper has not been provided, I am unable to determine whether the parking operator has followed the correct process to allow it to pursue the keeper of the vehicle for the unpaid parking charge. There is no evidence provided to suggest that the operator has made a request for keeper details to the DVLA. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is liable for the parking charge. I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, however I do not consider it necessary to discuss them as this will have no bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

beamerguy

Yet another success against those Muppets at Care Parking

Well done :beer:

You see ... "not a lot of people know this" ........ they are scammers approved by the BPA

NateR

I received two PCN’s from Parking Eye in quick succession from the same car park. I have used this site to appeal a few years ago so didn’t bore you with it again, luckily despite the changes I was still successful. Interestingly two different assessors looked at what was basically the same appeal;


DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameRebecca Fryer
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a 4 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: • The operator has no authority to issue PCNs on the land. • The signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • The amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. I have reviewed the information provided by the operator and can see it has issued a copy of the landowner authority. The document shows valid until 6 September 2018. The date of the alleged breach was after this date and due to the quality of the document, I am unable to determine if the authority is still valid. Based on this information I am unable to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. As such, I must allow this appeal.



DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameJamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant state as the unlit signage is as n suitable height no contract was agreed. The appellant says there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant questions the operator’s authority to act on the land. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided photographs of the site at night.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it clear the appellant was not the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. 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. The operator has provided a copy of the contract agreed between themselves and the landowner. Upon review I can see the contract started on 6 September 2016, which expired after 24 months from this date. The date of the event was 21 November 2018, due to this I am satisfied the agreement was valid on the date of the event. Due to the poor quality of sections of the document, I am unable to determine if the contract would continue rolling after this date until cancelled by either party. Due to this, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. 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.

The_Deep

If the PPC do not have a valid contract tgen attempting to obtain monies may be misrepresentation, and a matter for Trading Standards.

beamerguy

Well done

I have reviewed the information provided by the operator and can see it has issued a copy of the landowner authority. The document shows valid until 6 September 2018.

Amazing that PE provided out of date documents ????

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

If the PPC do not have a valid contract tgen attempting to obtain monies may be misrepresentation, and a matter for Trading Standards.

And a complaint to the DVLA. PE had no reasonable cause to access your data and have breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA. Ask them to investigate and report their findings to you as you intend to issue proceedings under DPA/GDPR.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

The appellant says there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

You might have won on GPEOL grounds previously, but it no longer flies as a result of the Beavis case in 2015. You were lucky on the out of date landowner contract having prominence, because often, when seeing GPEOL in an appeal, POPLA knee-jerk with a rejection of the appeal. Please don't use it in future.

Well done on your double hit of PE.

The_Deep

Surely, despite Beavis, GPOL is still a valid argument where there is a no commercial justification for an excessive charge. i.e. one in excess of that which a local authority would charge, or, in the case of residential parking, is not relevant, and the PCN falls to be considered as a penalty.

Did not the Prankster post one in this blog not all that long ago?

o

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Surely, despite Beavis, GPOL is still a valid argument where there is a no commercial justification for an excessive charge. i.e. one in excess of that which a local authority would charge, or, in the case of residential parking, is not relevant, and the PCN falls to be considered as a penalty.

Did not the Prankster post one in this blog not all that long ago?

o

I'm sure you'll be able to put together a form of words that covers the few GPEOL legal angles left post-Beavis which will distract a POPLA assessor from their 'Reject, it's GPEOL' button. We could use it as a template appeal point. Please restrict it to words of fewer than two syllables to assist our nail technician, former call centre drones and soft !!!!!! authors in understanding.

Seriously arguing GPEOL now will need a pretty well versed, knowledgeable individual with a capacity for some mental elasticity to be able to articulate a convincing case. It's no longer 'GPEOL, innit'.

As you, more than most, will know, there's not too many of those to the pound presenting here!

Nuddmann

"The operator has provided a copy of the contract agreed between themselves and the landowner. Upon review I can see the contract started on 6 September 2016, which expired after 24 months from this date. The date of the event was 21 November 2018, due to this I am satisfied the agreement was valid on the date of the event."

Is it my poor maffs or should this say " the agreement was invalid on the date of the event", seeing as how 21/11/18 is 26 months and two weeks after the contract t was signed?