POPLA Decisions 9 March 2013 at 6:49PM edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 4.3K replies 927.3K views

Guys_Dad

Computersaysno wrote: »

That's why I said Marina would be getting a slap...she's obviously slipped up and wasted time.

Have you actually read any of the POPLA decisions on this thread....many of them say 'Having upheld on this point [usually GPEOL], there is no need for me to assess any other points raised'.

Maybe you should insist to POPLA that your master plan [of telling POPLA adjudicators how you want them to handle your appeals] is passed direct to Marina and hope she slips up again.

POPLA managers will be telling their lackeys to 'crack on, get loads done or we'll be sacked before Xmas, so don't waste time, look for easy wins'.

My original suggestion to submit appeals saying that this is my main point, this is my second etc was to test out if POPLA would consider the points in the precedence the appellant deemed important. It was precisely because GPEOL was always being used as a default that I made the suggestion

It was also to see if the GPEOL was kept as the second or third point whether other points would win whilst still keeping the silver bullet in reserve.

This would give regular contributors further information on the strength of some of the appeal points that don't get adjudicated on.

But you chose to denigrate that suggestion, make 2 know it all put downs only to find within 24 hours that an example of an adjudicator considering appeal points as presented and adjudicating on 2 of them actually happened.

Then you have the temerity to question if I have actually read any POPLA Decisions? Don't you just love know it alls particularly when they are shown up so quickly ?

End of my comments on this as I don't want to hijack this decisions thread further.

Computersaysno

If you are after decisions on a single point why don't you suggest that people appeal on a single point [a la parking prankster]??

After all, even if they lost at POPLA they still don't have to pay, as the PPC will lose at court [under GPEOL]??

But I agree...we have hijacked this thread, and for that I apologise.

Essingeviken

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At 14:40, on July 10 2013, the Operator’s employee observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the Sennen Beach car park.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in branch of the card parking conditions by not displaying a valid ticket. The PCN states the reason being a ”Transferred ticket”. This means that the last three digits of the vehicle registration number printed on the pay and display ticket does not match the appellant’s vehicle registration details and hence the ticket was invalid.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. He states that he bought a ticket for 3 hours. He further states that his wife did not notice the instruction to complete the first three registration letters of the vehicle.

The Operator has submitted pictures which indicate the car parking terms and conditions. The signage states that a valid ticket must be displayed otherwise a vehicle will be issued with a parking charge notice. The ticket machine indicates that the last three characters of a vehicle should be keyed into the machine. It appears that the Appellant did state that his wife bought the ticket but has submitted that she did not notice the instruction to key in the first three registration letters of the vehicle. Hence it appears that, on this occasion, the Appellant did not fully abide by the car parking terms and conditions.

Although I note the Appellant’s submissions, when parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.

After carefully considering the evidence before me, I find that, on this particular occasion, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.
I need not address any other issues.

Accordingly, I refuse the appeal.
Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Coupon-mad

It is shocking when an honest appeal which shows that a P&D ticket was bought and displayed, does not win according to POPLA. But that is the reality and newbies please note - use the POPLA wording we recommend and start a thread for help with your POPLA appeal if you need to make sure what this is.

Here's your thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4794881


HTH

Hovite_2

Essingeviken wrote: »

The ticket machine indicates that the last three characters of a vehicle should be keyed into the machine. It appears that the Appellant did state that his wife bought the ticket but has submitted that she did not notice the instruction to key in the first three registration letters of the vehicle.

And POPLA are so incompetent that they can't even decide which three characters need inputting !!!!!

dannny_2

Essingeviken wrote: »

The signage states that a valid ticket must be displayed ............................The ticket machine indicates that the last three characters of a vehicle should be keyed

Whats the legal status of the word "should" here?

Umkomaas

From Phil Ford here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63490217#post63490217

Hi just had the appeal against our friends upheld

Hope this encourages others not to give in


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Portlishead Quays Marina, on 20 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx for not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked without having purchased the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £100 being issued. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre- estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the car park, however, this is a general list of operational costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the Operator has referred to previous cases and case law but not related it to the specific facts of this case.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Predictable PE loss. Why on earth do they persist in pursuing a POPLA appeal that contains a GPEOL challenge. Beggars belief :cool:

Lemmings !!!

Stroma

Think they are trying to bankrupt the bpa

Umkomaas

Here's a win by a certain Mr James Mayhook (of Mayhook v NCP fame, oft quoted by our good friends in Chorley) against, this time, Highview Parking. Courtesy of PePiPoo, sorry, seem unable to copy and paste the PDF file, but here's the direct link:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=24509

GPEOL again. Isn't it time that PPCs give up on any POPLA appeal that has any sniff of GPEOL in it?

Lambs to the slaughter springs to mind.

Aaron_Aadvark

Lunatics... Asylum?

"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
A parking charge notice (PCN) was applied to the above vehicle for parking
without parking permit on visible display.
The operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car
park are clearly displayed on signage throughout the site. The signage says:
“No Unauthorised Parking” “Permits must be displayed at all times.” The
operator has produced photographs of the vehicle which show that no
permit was on display in the windscreen of the vehicle on the day of the
parking charge.
The appellant’s case is that he was not parked improperly and he is not liable
to pay for the parking charge. He says that he has a valid permit (attached).
He admits that the permit has fallen off the windscreen and it was on the floor
of the car. He states that the bay number 7 he parked is solely owned by him
and is registered under the land registry for his property.
The operator rejected the appellant’s representations, as set out in the
correspondence they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by parking with no permit on visible display. The
operator says that at the appellant provided a valid permit with his appeal
but due to no permit on display £15 of goodwill was offered. The operator
states that although they understand that bay number 7 is allocated to the
resident, a valid permit must be clearly displayed to prevent non residents
parking on site.
I note the appellant’s comments and I appreciate his situation however, I find
that the possession of a permit does not discharge the appellant’s liability for
the improper parking. The permit has to be clearly displayed in order to be
valid. The onus is on the appellant to park appropriately and I find that the
operator has proved their representations and hence, they have discharged
their burden of proof.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that,
on this particular occasion, by not displaying a valid permit on the
dashboard of the vehicle, there occurred a breach of the car park conditions
to which the appellant have deemed to have accepted when he parked. to which the appellant have deemed to have accepted when he parked
his vehicle in the site. Accordingly, this appeal must be refused."

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80529&st=20 post #40