POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

I will speak to the OP about this by pm with a view to a complaint under the EA.

bod1467

Bear in mind that POPLA explicitly state on their website that mitigating circumstances will not be considered as acceptable appeal points.

(I appreciate that the Equality Act conveys legal rights).

teabelly

BPA code of practice requires adjustments. Therefore POPLA have missed this as a breach of BPA code surely?

Coupon-mad

Breach of BPA CoP does not win a POPLA appeal on its own. But a breach of discrimination law should, as it is the 'applicable law'. Trouble is POPLA don't geddit yet.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Breach of BPA CoP does not win a POPLA appeal on its own. But a breach of discrimination law should, as it is the 'applicable law'. Trouble is POPLA don't geddit yet.

Would it not be the case that PE could claim they were not aware of the need to make reasonable adjustments, since they only monitor times of arrival and departure via ANPR.

But, as POPLA were aware of it through the appellant's submission, they are the ones who fell foul of the EA, and therefore any claim should be against London Councils, the body which controls POPLA?

teabelly

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Breach of BPA CoP does not win a POPLA appeal on its own. But a breach of discrimination law should, as it is the 'applicable law'. Trouble is POPLA don't geddit yet.

If a breach of BPA code doesn't get a ticket thrown out on its own it seems pointless to have this code in the first place. Which is probably why PPCs know they can ignore it and run roughshod over people bleating about minor transgressions and simultaneously ignoring a code they are supposed to adhere to. :mad: POPLA need a kick up the butt on this point!

Coupon-mad

teabelly wrote: »

If a breach of BPA code doesn't get a ticket thrown out on its own it seems pointless to have this code in the first place. Which is probably why PPCs know they can ignore it and run roughshod over people bleating about minor transgressions and simultaneously ignoring a code they are supposed to adhere to. :mad: POPLA need a kick up the butt on this point!

See my bold below:


Dear Sir or Madam

Your recent email has been passed to the Lead Adjudicator.

Assessors consider each appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, consideration of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and application of relevant law. However, a breach of the Code would not of itself amount to a ground of appeal and Assessors cannot consider mitigating circumstances. The former may be a matter for the BPA and the latter is a matter for the individual operator.

Our website has much information that may assist an appellant but I must inform you that POPLA is not an ombudsman service. Complaints about car park operators can more properly be addressed to the BPA, of which any operator who issued a parking charge notices that come before POPLA be a member, in particular of their Approved Operator Scheme.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Reeve




POPLA has failed on 'application of relevant law' (the Equality Act 2010 in this instance, and their own statutory duties under the EHRC Code of Practice for the Equality Act) and the OP should complain like the other poster I am aware of, who is doing the same.

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf

Wouldn't have taken POPLA long to check the law on the matter. This is not mitigation. This is POPLA upholding discrimination, when they are a service provider themselves.

I guess these discussion posts need moving now!!

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

See my bold below:


Dear Sir or Madam

Your recent email has been passed to the Lead Adjudicator.

Assessors consider each appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, consideration of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and application of relevant law. However, a breach of the Code would not of itself amount to a ground of appeal and Assessors cannot consider mitigating circumstances. The former may be a matter for the BPA and the latter is a matter for the individual operator.

Our website has much information that may assist an appellant but I must inform you that POPLA is not an ombudsman service. Complaints about car park operators can more properly be addressed to the BPA, of which any operator who issued a parking charge notices that come before POPLA be a member, in particular of their Approved Operator Scheme.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Reeve




POPLA has failed on 'application of relevant law' (the Equality Act 2010 in this instance, and their own statutory duties under the EHRC Code of Practice for the Equality Act) and the OP should complain like the other poster I am aware of, who is doing the same.

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf

Wouldn't have taken POPLA long to check the law on the matter. This is not mitigation. This is POPLA upholding discrimination, when they are a service provider themselves.

I guess these discussion posts need moving now!!

Remembering that POPLA only consider parking issues and may be blind to other matters, then any claim based on EA law needs to be spelled out to POPLA adjudicators in an appeal.

Obviously the law of the land must be adhered to and takes precedence over commercial parking matters.

So, the appeal must not only refer to the appropriate act, but should quote the relevant sections and the POPLA adjudicator must have their attention drawn to the law and a persuasive argument put insisting that English Law must take precedence.

As said, the experience of the POPLA adjudicators may be limited and specialised, but a properly laid out appeal on clear EA points of law should concentrate the mind of even the most novice adjudicator.

Is this where you can apply your EA knowledge to home in on this even more than you have done already??

Coupon-mad

I did exactly that for the other poster - who knew he could have appealed on the usual stuff but wanted to try . POPLA appeal lost. Complaint is in and a planned complaint to the EHRC.

Redx

VCS at Humberside airport - another win on not as gpeol

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4821037 post #31

"It is the Appellant’s case that he is not liable for the parking charge sought as
the charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by his
breach.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in
other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge
must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The
estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking
terms.
The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as
they incur significant costs in managing this car park in order to ensure
motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any
breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes
a comparatively large ‘further process cost’.
I therefore find that a substantial proportion of the costs referred to do not
represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. Consequently, I cannot
find that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine preestimate
of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Marina
Assessor"