POPLA Decisions

Ralph-y

this might be better served on the OP's original post



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6003743/company-vehicle-lbc-parking-eye


Ralph:cool:

Fluff15

Fruitcake wrote: »

This is confusing because you mention hirer, then registered keeper. The X's are also confusing because I can't work out to whom or what they refer.

The Hire Co is probably the registered keeper, and the hirer should have received a NTH not a NTK.
Was the appeal done as hirer/lessees appeal or as a keeper appeal?

If the appeal was anything like your post above then the assessor would have been just as confused as I am.

Please explain more clearly what happened so we might be able to suggest a course of action.

If a hirer appeal was made then the assessor has referred to the wrong part of the PoFA so a procedural error would have occurred, but we can't comment until you clarify what actually happened.

Thank you Fruitcake, I have updated my thread with timescales and extract from my POPLA appeal to make it clearer. Thank you to Ralph-y for linking my original thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6003743/company-vehicle-lbc-parking-eye

Edit - also now added a draft letter to lead assessor

morofsky

So I just received the debt collector letter raising the ticket for another amount, so from what I can see I have 28 days to pay if I won't they will say that they should take me to the court so it's unlikely to be. how many of you actually did get a court letter?

beamerguy

morofsky wrote: »

So I just received the debt collector letter raising the ticket for another amount, so from what I can see I have 28 days to pay if I won't they will say that they should take me to the court so it's unlikely to be. how many of you actually did get a court letter?

You need to start your own thread, not on this one

But you ignore debt collectors
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5859454/debt-collectors-drp-zzps-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know&highlight=debt+collectors+drp

If you want to watch PLEBS in action, ITV2 catchup is the place, IT'S CALLED PLEBS ........ JUST LIKE DEBT COLLECTORS

PACMAN

Batman3479 wrote: »

Hey all - my first (and hopefully last) experience appealing against this sort of thing - details captured below to help out others - and huge thanks to those on this forum who were so enthusiastic and helpful to me - I'm very grateful.

In July 2018, I had 3 successful appeals at POPLA versus PE for 3 separate incidents. These were all 'Golden Tickets' - no sticker on windshield (so all ANPR), and the PCN came to me outside of the 14-day window for keeper liability - dates were actually on the PCNs - so PE had no provided no proof of who was driving, and had no basis to chase me as keeper of the vehicle for the actions of the driver.

I'm not allowed to post links in here as a new user - my post was called "Period of time elapsed before receiving Parking Charge notification?", dated 9th June. If anyone has authority to link, please do so!

Chain of events:

1. I sent in 3 generic MSE appeals to PE using PE's process (all rejected) purely to get 3 POPLA references. Based on reading on this forum, I was expecting all three to get rejected, and....
2. PE rejected all 3, providing POPLA references.
3. I then sent the text in blue below to POPLA. Following advice on this forum, I didn't bother with any other points (e.g. lighting, signage, fairness) - just the fact that PE had allowed far too much time to lapse to chase me as keeper for the actions of the driver: PE had provided no proof who the driver was, and therefore had no basis to chase me.
4. I sent this to POPLA by going via their site - once each for all 3 appeals. I entered the minimum level of info on the POPLA screens just to get to the bit where I can enter attachments; I appealed as Keeper (watch out, it defaults to 'keeper and driver'). I also appealed under reason of 'Other', despite the POPLA site saying this was far less likely to be successful. As attachments, I sent the letter as a PDF, and also the scanned-in PCN.
5. I received 3 separate emails from POPLA saying PE were choosing not to contest my appeal and I did not have to pay the charge.

My aim with my letter was to make it as easy as possible for POPLA to see the key facts (which were the dates and lack of driver identit)y.

Text below:

ADDRESS
EMAIL
CAR LICENSE PLATE
DATE

Dear POPLA,

On the DATE, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on DATE, but they did not issue the PCN until DATE, over a month later.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

Please see below for details
1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 53 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from ParkingEye with the ‘event date’ of DATE and the issue date of DATE (ie, over one full month later!)


2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with ParkingEye with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

I received a PCN from Britannia recently which was dated more than two weeks after the contravention date. I took Batman3479's advice and wrote the same simple rebuttal to the PPC. They refused my appeal with a standard template and supplied a POPLA code.
I appealed to the latter and after 18 days received an email from them stating that "Britannia Parking Group - 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".
When I checked my appeal on the POPLA website it said that Britannia had withdrawn their appeal, the reason being "gesture of goodwill".
I hope this gives anyone else that has a 'golden ticket' the confidence to ignore any scare tactics that the PPC use in their correspondence and to stick to their guns.

PS thank you Batman3479 for the sound advice 👍.

Umkomaas

PACMAN wrote: »

I received a PCN from Britannia recently which was dated more than two weeks after the contravention date.

PACMAN wrote: »

I appealed to the latter and after 18 days received an email from them stating that "Britannia Parking Group - 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".
When I checked my appeal on the POPLA website it said that Britannia had withdrawn their appeal, the reason being "gesture of goodwill".

'Gesture of goodwill' my Jim Royle. If they failed PoFA, they had no case to pursue against the keeper in the first place!

Shysters.

twister_teddy

I have had the popla decision refused, what exactly is the purpose of this thread.

What happens next please. I still want to challenge the decision.

Coupon-mad

You need to reply on your own thread. Do you have a thread about your case?

This is a sticky thread of decisions, for others to see what wins at POPLA and what loses.

twister_teddy

Below is the final communication and decision from the popla.
What happens next please. I still want to challenge the decision. Can you please advise how to I do so.


Operator Name MET Parking Services - EW
Operator Case Summary
In his appeal to POPLA Mr <claimant> acknowledges that he left the premises to visit McDonald’s because Starbucks was closed. He states that the signs do not clearly state the terms and conditions. We note Mr <claimant>’s comments however, we are confident that there is a sufficient number of signs in place in this car park and that the signs are prominently displayed and clearly state the terms and conditions of parking. In Section E of our evidence pack we have included images of the signs in place and a site plan of the location. McDonald’s has its own car park which is approached from a different entrance prior to passing McDonald’s restaurant, it has its own entrance and its own signage and does not adjoin Southgate Park’s car park at all. As demonstrated by the photographic evidence in Section E of our evidence pack Southgate Park has entrance signs either side of the vehicle entrance to the park, therefore there is clear demarcation. Section E also contains copies of the signs, a site map showing their location, photographs of the signs in situ and also photographs showing Mr <claimant>’s vehicle parked in close proximity to one of our signs. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park. These include that this is a pay by phone car park, that there is 60 minutes free stay for Southgate Park customers while they remain on the premises only, no free stay for visitors to premises not located in Southgate Park, that McDonald’s is not in Southgate Park. They also specifically state that if motorists wish to park here while they visit locations not in Southgate Park, such as McDonald’s, they must pay to park from when their vehicle enters the car park. Mr <claimant> has acknowledged that he left his car in the car park while he left the premises and the evidence we have provided in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates that he did not pay for parking therefore, we believe that the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

Coupon-mad

That's not the decision. That's MET's case file...you are meant to comment on it.