POPLA Decisions

kernewekjak

Thank you Ampersand and Fruitcake. Yes, I guess I was a bit too gracious in referring to them as "professionals"!     

To be fair, I realised last night after I'd posted here that actually, the previous assessments I had quoted in my appeal were in fact on the grounds of the unlit signage, not their non-compliance with PoFA.  In my excitement and joy at winning I'd got the two things mixed up!  But I had seen, from reading through posts on here, that some assessors don't seem to interpret or understand the legislation correctly, so I was aware there was a danger they would refuse the appeal even with the operator's non-compliance... so I did make sure in my appeal that I spelled out which part of PoFA they had failed to comply with, and that this meant there was no legal standing for them to hold me liable.  In their evidence pack (clearly a bulk standard pack they send to every appellant with a few tweaks!) they had stated that they had complied with paragraph 9 (I think), so in my comments I again then spelled it out for the assessor that it is paragraphs 13 and 14 that were not complied with.  The bulk of my appeal about this non-compliance came from Couponmad's template though (I think post 2345 on this thread) so a massive thank you Couponmad. 

niac

Honestly, Ive been going through the forums for the last two days!!! Please can someone send me a link to a template for
a ) letter to the retail park and b) letter appeal against Grace period....
Super grateful i'm really struggling on here - I have read the Newbie thread

Fruitcake

It wouldn't hurt to complain to the PoPLA lead adjudicator that whilst the assessor got the decision right, they were referring to the wrong part of the PoFA. Mention that you are aware that there has been a recent spate of PoPLA assessors not understanding this Act of Parliament and this us yet another instance of poor training.

Le_Kirk

niac said:

Honestly, Ive been going through the forums for the last two days!!! Please can someone send me a link to a template for
a ) letter to the retail park and b) letter appeal against Grace period....
Super grateful i'm really struggling on here - I have read the Newbie thread

Neither of those letters exist on the forum, not sure what you mean by an appeal against Grace Period!  Anyway if the NEWBIE sticky did not help, please start your own thread (discussion) and you will receive bespoke advice - but you will need to supply a few details, like the car park, the PPC and the retailer.

kernewekjak

kernewekjak said:

 The bulk of my appeal about this non-compliance came from Couponmad's template though (I think post 2345 on this thread) so a massive thank you Couponmad. 

I just realised the post count isn't shown anymore now the forum has changed, so for anyone looking to appeal on the same grounds, the templates I based my appeal on were Coupon-mad's found on pages 234 & 235 of this thread (non-compliant notice to hirer, no landowner authority, signage, all posted September 2016 and later updated).  Many thanks. 

charby

 I  complained to Popla that the assessor had not even looked at my photographic evidence in my original appeal, which they admitted and apologised for, then allowed a review of the appeal. 

The photos I supplied showed the area of the carpark where the vehicle parked and the surrounding areas, all the signs in this area were obscurred by trees. Also I didn't know that signs inside a building can be deemed carpark signs. 

This is the reply I recieved.

'Thank you for re submitting the images supporting your case.

 I have now had the chance to review the images. Please see my comments below.

 

I can see that many of the images you provided show that the signs were obscured by trees. Some of the images provided are taken in such a way that the information on the signs are blurred and cannot be read. However, it appears that the images have been taken in only certain areas of the car park.

 

The operator had provided a site map which numbered where the signs were placed at the site. The operator also demonstrated that there is a sign on entry to the car park, positioned on the driver’s side. I am satisfied that this can be seen clearly when entering. Further, there were numerous other signs displayed on poles and positioned on the building itself. Whilst I can see that the signs displayed on poles may be behind hedges or covered by trees, there are other signs within the car park that are not hidden. I must also add that there is an obvious sign at the reception area when you enter into the premises. This advises of the parking restrictions and there is a tablet where you are to enter your vehicle information. As an independent assessor, assessing this case, I am satisfied that motorists are given the opportunity to see and read the terms and conditions in place. You entered the site during the hours of daylight and so, I believe the signage was obvious when entering. I agree with the assessor that section 18.3 of the BPA code of practice, relating to signage, has been met.

 

I do not dispute that you were a paying customer of Superbowl, however, you were to register your vehicle to park. The operator has demonstrated that you did not register the vehicle in question and so, as a result, a PCN was issued.

 

 

Ultimately, I am satisfied that the assessor has made a judgement call based on the evidence received. Therefore, I consider the assessor to have reached the correct outcome and so, there will be no further review of your complaint.

 

I am sorry that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. However, I am satisfied that POPLA has followed our process and so, this email now concludes our complaints procedure. The decision outcome will not change.

 

If you wish to further dispute the issue of the PCN, this will be between yourself and the parking operator. POPLA will not have any involvement.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ashlea Forshaw

POPLA Complaints Team

MrTomWins

Here is my outcome. Premier Park didn't send a NTK, and then didn't send any evidence to Popla. So I won by default.
9 pages of evidence and appeal, for nothing. lol
Thanks for all the help guys.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Gemma West

Assessor summary of operator 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 your 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 supporting rational for decision

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 consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

geordiebill

No thread for this one, but this forum is responsible for the contents of my appeal, so thank you once again to all the people who give over their time and expertise to provide information here!

I submitted a long appeal covering a wide range of points, but was confident I had Euro Car Parks on non compliance with PoFA, so I put that first in my appeal. The NTK arrived one day late. It was issued on a Friday, so was deemed 'given' under PoFA the following Tuesday. It should have arrived no later than the Monday. The operator tried to claim the day of issue was the day it was 'given'. I included a table with the full day by day breakdown of the timeline in my appeal. Win!

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Adele Ditchfield

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an in-depth word document. This will be summarised. The appellant says the PCN is not PoFA compliant. The appellant says the operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing was the driver. The appellant says signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant says there is no entrance sign. The appellant says the operator does not have authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on this land. The appellant says there is no evidence of the vehicle parked. The appellant requires proof that the ANPR system is reliable. The appellant says there is no planning permission to install equipment on this land.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has not 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 registered keeper. In order for the registered keeper to be liable for the PCN, I have to consider if the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The PCN was issued to the keeper on 6 December 2019 for the parking event that occurred on 25 November 2019. To comply with PoFA the operator must issue the PCN within a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. PoFA sets out that the notice is presumed delivered two working days from the date it was sent. Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied the operator has issued the Notice to Keeper within 14 days, and therefore has not complied with PoFA. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Wow, your table worked!  POPLA usually get that timeline wrong and can't count to 14.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, your table worked!  POPLA usually get that timeline wrong and can't count to 14.

Maybe the assessors have now started counting lessons. Some seem to have got as far as 14!