POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

DjangoUnchained said:

Coupon-mad said:

Umkomaas said:

Without the name of the PPC, the POPLA decision is somewhat without context.  Dependant on which PPC, further advice, if needed, might vary. 

Euro Car Parks, so no worries as long as they use DCB Legal for the pointless court claim!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6630477/howard-centre-wgc/p1

The OP knows this but for new readers here, you do not pay when you lose at POPLA.

It goes like this with ECP:

Time-waster letters & phone calls incoming from DCB Ltd.

Letter of Claim from DCB Legal.

Usual generic Claim Form, DCB Legal.

Easy template Defence deployed.

Weeks or months delay.

Get on with life.

Usual form-filling to choose your court.

Mediation (joke) phone call.

Weeks or months delay.

Get on with life.

Hearing date in about a year from now.

Discontinued before the hearing.

Scam over. No risk, no CCJ.

Just wondering   myself have never given either of our phone numbers at any stage, I'm guessing that until the pointless mediation stage we won't have to  and then we can just use a disposable sim/ number?

It will be the mediator phoning you. Your number won’t be given to the other side. You won’t have a direct conversation with DCB Legal.  

DE_612183

"The driver should have checked their bank statement to ensure the payment had been taken correctly before leaving the car park,"

If that's the case should a paragraph be included in their signage to say this?

DjangoUnchained

DE_612183 said:

"The driver should have checked their bank statement to ensure the payment had been taken correctly before leaving the car park,"

If that's the case should a paragraph be included in their signage to say this?

didnt think of that, i guess if it ever did get to court, its one of many points to raise.

Coupon-mad

DjangoUnchained said:

DE_612183 said:

"The driver should have checked their bank statement to ensure the payment had been taken correctly before leaving the car park,"

If that's the case should a paragraph be included in their signage to say this?

didnt think of that, i guess if it ever did get to court, its one of many points to raise.

No need: it's Euro Car Parks and I already posted what happens in the end. No hearing.

cooldude255220

Rudadiz said:

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.

I think this is a good question for the forum.

Admittedly, I have only recently delved into the thorny issue of railway byelaws, thought I have had a certain amount of experience with POFA.

However, Byelaw 14(1)(i) of the byelaws (as they were before the recent changes) states:

The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area

Therefore, I can't see why POPLA's decision here would be an error, so I too would be grateful if someone could explain why popular wisdom would say otherwise.

(Though it is mostly an academic exercise, as I expect  most should now be being issued as PCN's under POFA since the changes to POFA/the byelaws).

Coupon-mad

I doubt APCOA will issue PCNs under POFA. They don't have such a thing. They've never used keeper liability law.

ChirpyChicken

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Tina Mahoney

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to the vehicle remaining at the site longer than the free parking period and no payment being made for remaining on site.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper, and they site the notice was passed to the driver as required and the driver’s details made known to the operator. • The appellant points out that they should not be pursued as the driver details were provided and they request the cancellation of the PCN. The above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN to the appellant the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have been breached. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. Under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the driver of the vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge in full. The Registered Keeper was advised of this in the original PCN and that, as the operator did not know the driver's name or current postal address, if they were not the driver at the time, the appellant should pass the notification to the driver and the name and current postal address of the driver should be provided to the operator. The appellant did this, as is evidenced through an email trail they provided. Furthermore, this email trail showed a response from the operator stating they would pursue the driver and set up a new PCN reference number: 2000014486800, for this purpose. A new Notice was then issued to the driver in the appropriate timescale and the driver appealed in their name. The operator then rejected the appeal on the basis that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, “no driver details have been provided”, so they were holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable. As demonstrated the operator was provided with the driver’s name and address and a revised PCN issued. By rejecting the appeal on this basis and pursuing the Registered Keeper for liability this has been proven incorrect and the operator has failed to meet PoFA guidelines. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Umkomaas

@ChirpyChicken - which daft PPC please?

ChirpyChicken

Umkomaas said:

@ChirpyChicken - which daft PPC please?

Group Nexus

Fruitcake

cooldude255220 said:

Rudadiz said:

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.

I think this is a good question for the forum.

Admittedly, I have only recently delved into the thorny issue of railway byelaws, thought I have had a certain amount of experience with POFA.

However, Byelaw 14(1)(i) of the byelaws (as they were before the recent changes) states:

The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area

Therefore, I can't see why POPLA's decision here would be an error, so I too would be grateful if someone could explain why popular wisdom would say otherwise.

(Though it is mostly an academic exercise, as I expect  most should now be being issued as PCN's under POFA since the changes to POFA/the byelaws).

There is no register of vehicle owners. There can be no assumption in law that a vehicle keeper is the owner. This is where the PoPLA assessor erred.

As an example, I am the registered keeper of three vehicles, but I only own two of them.