POPLA Decisions

1505grandad

" A keeper of a vehicle is a person who is registered with the DVLA as owning the vehicle. I note in this instance, the PCN was axed to the vehicle on the day it was issued. The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being

obtained from the DVLA conrming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satised that the PCN was axed to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied,......"

Assuming this is a copy and paste these errors show what poor quality this entity is. Ok for criminal damage apparently.

CBA to read any more of it.

FollyT

In the interests of honesty, I am ashamed to admit that the omission of certain syllables, as highlighted above, occurred when I copied and pasted the above from the original Popla assessment. I don't understand how they were lost in transfer, but I should have double-checked.
The first sentence, however, is exactly as written by the Assessor.

DE_612183

@Coupon-mad there are messages on the FTLA site about that assessor as well...

doubledotcom

I now have a standard template response to any POPLA appeal where the operator conduces and they send the illiterate message. I make sure it is sent to both POPLA and their parent entity, Trust Alliance Group:

Subject: Formal Complaint – Incoherent and Unprofessional “Appeal Withdrawn” Correspondence

Dear POPLA Team,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint about the extraordinarily poor standard of the template email issued when an operator cancels a Parking Charge Notice before an appeal is assessed. The communication I received is so lacking in clarity, logic, and basic literacy that it calls into question the intellectual capability and procedural understanding of the person or team responsible for drafting it.

The phrase “the operator has withdrawn your appeal” is, on its face, nonsensical. An operator cannot withdraw an appellant’s submission, and no competent writer would use wording that implies otherwise. The fact that this has been adopted as standard text suggests that whoever authored it did not understand the process they were meant to be describing, or lacked the linguistic ability to articulate it accurately. Either possibility is deeply concerning.

The rest of the letter is equally inelegant. It is clumsily structured, contradictory in places, and written in such a muddled fashion that it reads like a hastily assembled paragraph from someone intellectually out of their depth. Basic sequencing, grammatical consistency, and coherence are all missing. The message lurches between confused hypotheticals and ill-fitting explanations, none of which reflect how the process actually works.

It is not merely embarrassing; it is an indictment of the level of internal oversight within POPLA. Any halfway competent professional would have sent this back for correction. Instead, it has been allowed to stand as an official communication from an organisation that claims to assess evidence, interpret procedures, and apply reasoning in a quasi-judicial setting.

If the standard of written communication is this poor, it raises a legitimate question: how can the public have confidence that POPLA is capable of the analytical, evidential, and reasoning-based work expected of an appeals service? A body that cannot draft a coherent template letter cannot reasonably be assumed to possess the competence required to evaluate appeals with fairness and intellectual rigour.

I request confirmation that this complaint will be logged and reviewed, and I expect a response addressing:

1. How this wording was approved;

2. Whether POPLA acknowledges that the current text is inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically deficient; and

3. What steps will be taken to correct the template and improve internal quality control.[/indent]

I look forward to your prompt and considered response.

Yours sincerely,

Everyone should be bombarding them with these if they get an operator concession to their appeal.

Coupon-mad

Yes - but not for @FollyT

lexiLD

Southampton Red Jet/Triangle car park Parking Eye

Status: appeal withdrawn by operator

Grounds for appeal given to poplar by RK: Non relevant land, poor waiting area signage and fine disproportionate to the alleged overstay of two minutes

Used a slightly updated version of https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6415460/southampton-town-quay-pcn/p1

Rudadiz

Another case in point - unfortunately this one hits yours truly (as the registered keeper). (see post below)

Could I please invite comment on the passage below in BLACK and Italic, specifically:
"I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws. The appellant has referred to PoFA and how keeper liability cannot be established. As keeper liability is not used for a penalty case, the requirement of PoFA, such as seeking the driver and establishing keeper liability, are not required here. "

Does any of the above have a leg to stand on? Would seem to me going directly against the popular wisdom on this Forum.

And this bit: "As this is a breach of the terms and conditions, the PN was issued to the owner of the vehicle." This just shows that the assessor failed to even pay attention to the basic facts of the case - the original notice was a window sticker and was clearly issued to the driver, a fact highlighted in the appeal statement. 

Rudadiz

Operator Name

APCOA UK - EW

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Penalty Notice (PN) due to overstaying the maximum time permitted in an area restricted to 20 minutes stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Penalty was issued for an alleged breach of Railway Byelaws. Railway land is not “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • A complaint Notice to Keeper meaning that keeper liability cannot apply and the parking operator has not shown that they are seeking the driver who is liable for the PN. • There is no evidence that the parking operator has the authority of the landowner to issue PNs on the land. • The parking operator cannot claim any finances reclaims under Railway Byelaws. These must be enforced through criminal prosecution. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal: 1. The parking operator’s response to their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Rudadiz

(2 of 2) Assessor supporting rational for decision

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws. The appellant has referred to PoFA and how keeper liability cannot be established. As keeper liability is not used for a penalty case, the requirement of PoFA, such as seeking the driver and establishing keeper liability, are not required here. The appellant has also stated that there is no evidence regarding the parking operator’s authority to operate on the land. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the parking operator has provided evidence of the contract they have with the landowner and as such, shows they have the authority to operate her. The appellant has also stated that the parking operator cannot claim any finances under Railway Byelaws and how it can only be reviewed by a magistrate’s court. It is the remit of POPLA to determine if the PN has been issued correctly based on the parking rules and this does not extend to complaints regarding the financial aspect of it. Furthermore, there is nothing in Railway Byelaws that prevents an appeals process. If the appellant would like to take this further, they could do so directly with the parking operator. I have included a link to their website here (link removed). The signage explains that charges apply after 20 minutes and that a £100 PN would be issued for any breach of the parking rules. On this occasion, there is no evidence that a tariff was purchased meaning that the maximum stay time was exceeded. As this is a breach of the terms and conditions, the PN was issued to the owner of the vehicle. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver overstayed the maximum time permitted in an area restricted to 20 minutes stay and therefore did not comply with rules of the site. As such, I am satisfied the penalty notice has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Rudadiz

Apologies - couldn't post at the beginning thought was because the post was too long for a newbie but actually because of a link in the assessment. Could admin please combine the posts above? Many thanks!