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

tonybaloney

Hi,

Another win against MET Parking in McD's. Below is the all important paragraph:

Considering carefully all the evidence before, although I appreciate that the signage is clear and clearly indicates the terms and conditions for parking, the appellant has raised the issue whether the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the breach should represent the actual loss caused. The operator has made a reference to the loss incurred and justified the charge in relation to employment of parking attendants to patrol the location, erection and maintenance of the site signage, employment of the site signage, employment of office based administrative staff, membership and other fees, and general costs. In this case, the justification appears to be on the basis of general operating costs rather than addressing the loss actually caused as a result of staying over the maximum permitted time. As a result of this, I am not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Izla Rhawi
Assessor

Sorry, but I can't post a link to my original posts. They shouldn't be too hard to find though.
Thanks again to anyone who helped :beer::beer:

Coupon-mad

Well done!

Here's your threads:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81204&st=0&p=884469&#entry884469

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4729036

Stick around if you can, to help others and to witness the gradual kicking out of various PPCs from various car parks as their contracts come to an end.

Vomityspice

My work colleague recieved a ticket from UKPC on June 2013 when (to be fair) they parked particularly badly in a completely empty McDonalds car park (as evidenced by the photograph they supplied). This occurred at the Riverside Retail Park in Northampton.

Unsurprisingly, UKPC declined the first appeal despite the fact that UKPC’s own web based payment system would not recognise the personalised number plate (I know this, as she had attempted to pay before talking to me – I took a screen shot for the POPLA appeal!)

Got the POPLA code from UKPC and sent off our appeal that covers all the usual points (Genuine pre estimate of loss etc). However, the assessor has focused on UKPC’s unwillingness to produce a copy of their contract with the landowner to be the determining factor in this case.

The assessor stated;

The appellant does not dispute that she parked in contravention of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage throughout Riverside Retail Park car park. The appellant has raised the issue of the operator’s rights as an agent of the landowner to issue parking charge notices on the landowner’s behalf. The appellant has requested proof of the agency agreement between the operator and the landowner.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by the appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that has no authority.

The operator has not produced evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or, that it has the authority of the land owner to issue parking charge notices at Riverside Retail Park car park. Once the issue has been raised by an appellant, it is for the operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient. I note the operator’s concerns with regards to confidentiality. However, the operator could have produced a redacted version of the agreement between the operator and the landowner or other such evidence to demonstrate the operator’s authority.

Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice at the Riverside Retail Park car park

I need not consider any other issues

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal

Jane Slattery

I can provide the unredacted Pdf scans if anyone wants to verify their veracity.

Umkomaas

Refreshing change to read an upheld appeal that's not GPEOL. Thanks for updating and adding to the sticky.

On this point of 'no authority', once we have sight of the transcript from the Bargepole/Judge Jenkins court case, then quoting the DJ's statement that only the landowner can pursue parking charges, this should become a standard POPLA appeal point that surely only a very brave Assessor would contradict?

Guys_Dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Refreshing change to read an upheld appeal that's not GPEOL. Thanks for updating and adding to the sticky.

On this point of 'no authority', once we have sight of the transcript from the Bargepole/Judge Jenkins court case, then quoting the DJ's statement that only the landowner can pursue parking charges, this should become a standard POPLA appeal point that surely only a very brave Assessor would contradict?

One can but try, but I fear that there may be many others that directly contradict that one that could be presented by the PPCs - if their barristers remember to include them.

But I do take your point and hope you may be proved right. :beer:

trisontana

Posted by Nev Met on CAG:-

"The appellant’s case is that they are not liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant submits that as there was no notice to driver issued, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, the
operator should have issued the notice to keeper within 14 days after the date of the alleged breach.

The appellant submits that the operator issued the notice to keeper 20 days after the date of the alleged breach; therefore they have not complied with this requirement of the Act.

The operator responded to these representations stating that there isno legal requirement to “send out a Parking Charge notice within 14 days of the incident date”.

Although there is no legal requirement to send out a Parking Charge notice within 14 days when pursuing the
driver, however as in this case the appellant is the registered keeper and not the driver this requirement does exist.

The appellant can only be liable as the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant clearly does not admit to being the driver
of the vehicle and states that they are not liable as the registered
keeper as the notice to keeper was not served within the 14 days stated under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

The onus is on the operator to show that the appellant is liable for the parking charge; the operator has not proved that they were.

The operator has also not refuted that a notice to driver was not served.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, there is a requirement that in such a circumstance, if the operator wishes to pursue the keeper of the vehicle, they issue a notice to keeper within 14 days of the date of the alleged breach.

I find that as it is clear that the appellant does not admit to being the driver, the operator has not met this requirement as the notice to keeper was issued 20 days after the alleged breach.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed".

Coupon-mad

I can't log in on CAG, which Operator was this, do we know?

hoohoo

Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park &
Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)

trisontana

Sorry, I forgot to say it was CEL.

Aaron_Aadvark

No evidence offered. (Vinci)

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84328