POPLA Decisions

imnothappy

wow ok ...  so tell me how a parking company can succeed in a court of law......

Umkomaas

imnothappy said:

wow ok ...  so tell me how a parking company can succeed in a court of law......

There are hundreds of threads here telling you how they can, and many hundreds more telling you how they can't. But for sure, none of them are directly related to POPLA. 

imnothappy

Hi  i had three PNC and wooped them all...  )

imnothappy

let me help you.. 

Coupon-mad

imnothappy said:

wow ok ...  so tell me how a parking company can succeed in a court of law......

We know what we are doing here.

I have 100% win rate in court as a lay rep v PPCs, am on the Government Steering Group to shape the upcoming law change this year, and have over 15 years of experience, dating back to long before clamping was banned.

POPLA is neither here nor there and doesn't affect court cases at all, but can be useful in cases where people can win and see a PPC off early.

This is not the thread to be discussing court claims but if you have experience to add, to help what we do, or if you need help, please start a new discussion.

EDIT: I see you have:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6434797/my-parking-experience#latest

Fruitcake

Parking contracts are formed with a motorists by information displayed on signs at the site.

Parking companies routinely succeed in a court of law by convincing a judge that on the balance of probabilities the motorist breached the contract (wording on signs).

None of this has any relevance to PoPLA appeals.

LeonDriver93

A win against Euro Car Parks. 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Andy Prescott

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not being authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. • 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. • They provide a document with full expansions to their appeal grounds. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their grounds: • Photos of signs on site. After reviewing the parking operator’s submission the appellant reiterates their primary grounds of appeal. The above will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the appellant has stated there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. Having reviewed the signs of the site in this case I must concur with the appellant on this point. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the code advises signs must give adequate notice to bring charges to the attention of motorists. In this case the sum of the charge is in a much smaller font to the conditions that precede it and I do not consider the parking operator has demonstrated compliance with this requirement. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Thanks to all of the info on here and everything to read, wouldn't have been able to fight this without the resources here. 

Umkomaas

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.4 of the code advises signs must give adequate notice to bring charges to the attention of motorists. In this case the sum of the charge is in a much smaller font to the conditions that precede it and I do not consider the parking operator has demonstrated compliance with this requirement.

Once again POPLA find against ECP on this particular point; it needs to be the first appeal point to raise with POPLA in an ECP case. 

MauriceMiller

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Naomi Littler

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle failed to pay for sufficient time

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. • The PCN was received on the final day of the discounted period. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and raises some new points.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. In this instance, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Coupon-mad

Wow - you got very lucky!

Arguing 'no GPEOL' hasn't been valid since the Beavis case in 2015 (so that was a 100% losing point) and the fact that the PCN arrived on day 13 or 14 isn't a winning point either.

Luckily, by not admitting who was driving (yay!) you forced the Assessor to consider whether the wording of this NTK was POFA compliant or not!

Which parking firm?