POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Yes, if the POPLA decision was in your name as the individual hirer or driver (you didn't appeal on behalf of your company?) then the PPC are not allowed to write to the company again and this is 100% your scam to fight now.

Cornerhog82

Original thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008929/pcn-where-permit-not-transferred-to-vehicle#topofpage

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Stephen Gordon
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised multiple grounds within his appeal. The appellant states the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for contravening Paragraph 4 of POFA 2012. The appellant states that he has provided the driver’s details to the parking operator. The appellant states the operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states the operator is put to strict proof full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with data protection in line with the ICO Code of Practice in relation to SAR rights, privacy statement or evaluation to justify that ANPR is enforceable, fair and proportionate. The appellant states the vehicle images contained within the PCN are non-complaint with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states the signage at the car park is ambiguous and unclear at the entrance and throughout the site. The appellant states that the amount demanded is a penalty and punitive. The appellant states the sum of the charge is not clearly displayed on the entrance signs to the car park. The appellant states the operator has no planning permission from XXXXXXXX Council to install pole mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In order to hold the registered keeper liable for the cost of the parking charge, the operator must adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the operator’s evidence pack, the PCN does not show that it would be using PoFA 2012 in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper. I also note that the appellant, as the keeper of the vehicle provided the name and serviceable address of the driver of the vehicle, to which a notice was issued in the driver’s name. Meaning that the transfer of liability has been transferred from the registered keeper to the driver of the vehicle. This has also been identified within the operator’s evidence pack. As we do not know of the individual that the operator is pursuing for the cost of the parking charge, the operator has not correctly adhered to PoFA 2012 when pursuing the registered keeper. Therefore, upon consideration of the evidence, the operator has incorrectly issued the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds within his appeal, however as I am allowing the appeal there is no requirement to cover these grounds.

beamerguy

Well done, just another scammer that the BPA enjoys a subscription fee from :eek:

The_Deep

the operator has not correctly adhered to PoFA 2012

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs. Send them a letter before claim and, if they ignore it, take them to court.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

I am sure that a judge would look favourably on such an action as they should know POFA like the back of their hand, and it is obvious that they are trying to scam you.

Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies

Cornerhog82

The_Deep wrote: »

the operator has not correctly adhered to PoFA 2012

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs. Send them a letter before claim and, if they ignore it, take them to court.

Hope its ok to mention some more context on here, as it still relates to the POPLA appeals

Based on my original post on the main board (linked above) , there were 4 appeals

1 successful appeal received

2 appeals now have POPLA requesting 3rd party authorisation from named driver for RK to appeal on their behalf - although these appeals are also based on the identical argument to the successful appeal which is keeper liability - which cannot be upheld!!!

1 appeal outcome email received but not updated on the POPLA portal - will update on here once I know the outcome

However, it would appear there is inconsistency in the POPLA appeals assessment

Umkomaas

2 appeals now have POPLA requesting 3rd party authorisation from named driver for RK to appeal on their behalf - although these appeals are also based on the identical argument to the successful appeal which is keeper liability - which cannot be upheld!!!

WHAAAAT?

Please take this over to your main thread for us to try to understand/get to the bottom of this.

Cornerhog82

Umkomaas wrote: »

WHAAAAT?

Please take this over to your main thread for us to try to understand/get to the bottom of this.

Main thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008929/pcn-where-permit-not-transferred-to-vehicle&page=6#topofpage

yoyoguitar

original post forums.moneysavingexpert. com/showthread.php?p=76364400&posted=1#post76364400

decision successful

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxx.

MET Parking Services - EW 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

Cornerhog82

Main thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008929/pcn-where-permit-not-transferred-to-vehicle&page=6#topofpage


Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum time permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • They say that there is no cause for action against the registered keeper due to contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Paragraph 4. • They state that there is no evidence of landowner authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BP)A Code of Practice. • The appellant says that the operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). • They state that the vehicle Images contained in the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. • They state that the ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. • They say that the signs are ambiguous and unclear at the entrance to the car park and throughout the site. • They advise that the amount demanded is a penalty, is punitive and the sum of the charge is not clearly displayed on the entrance signs to the car park. • They state that there is no planning permission for Care Parking to install pole mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. The appellant has commented on PoFA in their response to the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum time permitted. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “4 Hour Max Stay”,”Failure to comply with the above may result in a £100 Parking Charge”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 08:27 and exiting at 17:13 on the day in question. The appellant says that there is no cause for action against the registered keeper due to contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Paragraph 4. I can see from the evidence provided, that the operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the keeper of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle using The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. As such, I must consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver of the vehicle is based on the evidence that I have received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the PCN. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal; however I have not considered these as I have allowed the appeal.

Malefidus

This was a series of 4 PCNs. All decisions the same so have just posted one.


I didn't realise the original PCN wasn't taken into account unless submitted so it seems Smart Parking are down the cost of 4 appeals to POPLA without even showing the ticket they issued.


I've emailed the Freeholder and Management Company and will put a notice up in the buildings for residents to never pay these scammers. They knowingly denied appeals to them directly despite having our details on one of their whitelists.



forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6054838


Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has failed to provide a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant advises that they have been residents for 10 years. They explain that they have provided the management agent with their vehicle registration. They advise that they have given notice on their tenancy and in the last week have received four PCN. They explain that the only evidence shows their vehicle entering and leaving the site. They believe that the ANPR system in floored. They advise that they were not parked in the location indicated by the operator. The appellant has provided a document to support their appeal and two letters of authority.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
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. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided a copy of the PCN to POPLA. As the operator has not provided a copy of the PCN, it has not demonstrated that it issued the PCN correctly.