POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

They state that the operator has targeted motorists unjustly and that they have been discriminated against because they were not present to discuss the issuance of the PCN. They state that other motorists were not ticketed. They state that as they were not in their vehicle at the time of the PCN being issued, they were dehumanised and discriminated against illegally. 

Where did you get this stuff from?  If you'd sought prior advice on your appeal we'd have categorically told you that FMOTL BS was never going to get you anywhere. 😩

mrRobot1

Umkomaas said:

They state that the operator has targeted motorists unjustly and that they have been discriminated against because they were not present to discuss the issuance of the PCN. They state that other motorists were not ticketed. They state that as they were not in their vehicle at the time of the PCN being issued, they were dehumanised and discriminated against illegally. 

Where did you get this stuff from?  If you'd sought prior advice on your appeal we'd have categorically told you that FMOTL BS was never going to get you anywhere. 😩

I know, too late now I am happy to take this to court as a next step. I'm just reading all the FAQ and waiting for some kind of summons prior to creating any threads, happy to take advice even if a little late ha

clothahump

How do I unsubscribe from this thread???

Le_Kirk

clothahump said:

How do I unsubscribe from this thread???

Just don't post on it again.

clothahump

I haven't posted on it for ages, the notifications just keep coming, and there appears to be no way to stop them.

Le_Kirk

Turn them off in your profile, it's due to the new forum platform resetting then to default.

kernewekjak

Hi all, a massive thank you to all those who contribute to this forum, especially those who set up the newbies thread, all the templates and advice. 

I don't have a thread, but I've been quietly using this forum after receiving a ParkingEye charge relating to a hire car hired in my name in Bournemouth (behind the Arena) late at night, no lighting, unlit signage. I just won my POPLA appeal! 
Successful on the grounds that ParkingEye did not comply with PoFA in that they didn't send me any of the hire documents with the notice to hirer.  

I sent a long 16 page appeal, on several grounds.
I have seen other posts on here recently where other people have had appeals refused, even though the car was a hire car and the operator did not send the relevant documents.  I think some assessors clearly therefore do not fully understand or properly interpret the PoFA!  I think it's worth saying that I included in my appeal details of 3 other appeals that were successful on these grounds, where I quoted the assessor's words in each case.  (I thought this would make it very difficult for my assessor to misinterpret PoFA and therefore refuse, if they had it spelled out to them what other assessors had said!) 
  
I'm not sure how I could post my actual appeal here (or if I can as a new member?) but would be happy to share it if it could be of use to anyone, or to give my POPLA code for anyone else to use if wanting a successful appeal to quote. 
Here is the assessment: 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Georgina Riley

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at the car park at Gravel Beacon Road, Bournemouth where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator failed to deliver a notice to hirer that fully complies with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and because of this cannot hold the appellant liable for the PCN. The appellant states that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the individual it is pursuing is the drive of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signage at the site is unlit and not obvious or easy to see or read in the hours of darkness. The appellant states that the operator has failed to provide any evidence that it has the authority of the landowner to manage parking at the site. The appellant states that the operator does not have any planning consent for pole amounted Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras or signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant to be the keeper of the vehicle. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in their appeal. However, they are the registered keeper, I will therefore be considering their liability as keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 23:34 on 20 October 2019 and departing at 00:06 on 21 October 2019. From this, I am satisfied that the vehicle was at the site for 32 minutes. From the evidence provided I consider that there appears to be a contract between the driver and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms and conditions have been breached. 

I will now look at the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant states that the operator failed to deliver a notice to hirer that fully complies with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and because of this cannot hold the appellant liable for the PCN. From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle, as such, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle, to the hirer of the vehicle. 

PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. This continues to state in Section 13 (2) “The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Followed by section 13 (5) “The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must be given by- (a) Handing them to the creditor; (b) Leaving them at any address which is specified in the notice to keeper as an address at which documents may be given to the creditor or to which payments may be sent; (c) Sending them by post to such an address so that they are delivered to the address within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph”. From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a Notice to Hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that they then provided the relevant documents to the hirer, as required in PoFA 2012. There has not been evidence provided to demonstrate that these documents were sent to the appellant/hirer. As such, the operator has not shown that they have followed the PoFA 2012, section 13, “Notice to Hirer”. In this case, I can only conclude PoFA 2012 was not followed and therefore, the PCN was not issued correctly. Fundamentally, it is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence showing the PCN was issued correctly. I determine that on this occasion the operator has failed to do this and as such, I am unable to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly. As such, I will allow this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration In conclusion, the burden of proof lies with the operator and I determine on this occasion the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

kernewekjak

I have to say, the wording of the supporting "rational" (they can't even get that right!) in my appeal decision above is pretty awful... she says the appellant is the "registered keeper", but I was the hirer and so surely the "keeper", but not the "registered keeper", as that would be the hire company?  Pretty shocking that these assessors don't seem to get these details right.  And then towards the end, "...the PCN was not issued correctly", then "...I am unable to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly"... It all seems a bit jumbled to me for someone who is a professional assessor of cases which could lead to people being liable for £100 charges!  But I mustn't complain!  Just so relieved I won and I don't have to deal with this stressful stuff anymore! 

ampersand

kernewekjak said:

I have to say, the wording of the supporting "rational" (they can't even get that right!) in my appeal decision above is pretty awful... she says the appellant is the "registered keeper", but I was the hirer and so surely the "keeper", but not the "registered keeper", as that would be the hire company?  Pretty shocking that these assessors don't seem to get these details right.  And then towards the end, "...the PCN was not issued correctly", then "...I am unable to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly"... It all seems a bit jumbled to me for someone who is a professional assessor of cases which could lead to people being liable for £100 charges!  But I mustn't complain!  Just so relieved I won and I don't have to deal with this stressful stuff anymore! 

Congratulations on your successful appeal, but equally, you do them far too much credit in using 'a professional assessor' anywhere near these junk food word processors. 
I know you've written fully aware of this, too :-)  
Well done! 

Fruitcake

Here we have one perfect egg-sample on how to win at PoPLA, and one on how to lose.
The winning appeal was also done without the poster starting a thread, so it just shows that the information needed is here, and it works if you follow it.

Well done kernewekjak, not just on winning, but also on the way you won, and for spotting how bad these untrained assessors are. In the last couple of months they have shown that some of the them can't count to fourteen, and many don't understand the PoFA 2012. Yours is another case where the latter has happened, but at least allowed the appeal.