POPLA Decisions

Redx

another forum win on 2 parking tickets from OPC regarding parking in a complex of flats with private parking (so not a retail park) by Tramline

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4901555

POPLA Appeal win!! Another win for MSE - Many thanks for everyone's support and guidance.

My two parking appeals were found in my favour.

Reference 486XXXXXX
always quote in any communication with POPLA
XXXXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX arising out
of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark
XXXXXXXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

Computersaysno

PSDSU....again.

Braindead101

Thanks to all who have compiled the store of useful information on these forums. I followed the advice given and used the template in this thread as the basis of my appeal to POPLA:

h**p://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4790822
(As a new user, it wouldn't allow me to post a link.)

I received this judgement today:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******/******
arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark *******
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

I really appreciate the advice given, thanks.

herbert1979

Like the chap above, I would also like to thank everyone for putting the time into documenting the process and appeal points for POPLA, without which this process would have been a considerable amount of work and worry.

My PCN was issued by Parking Eye, for a a 15 min overstay in a free for 2 hours car park, when all shops were closed. The car park in question was the Huddersfield Castlegate Retail Park.

As soon as I got the letter through the post my Wife wanted to pay. A quick Google of the car park name, and I was taken to this forum, where a day of reading everything later, I submitted a hard appeal (rejected by PE, with a warning that forum led appeals do not win).

Popla appeal sent and PE did not send in any evidence.

Appealed on the usual, not GPEOL, no contract, invalid signs (too high and not clear) and signs not BPA compliant (use of ANPR being covert not overt, and not detailed why using ANPR on the sign.)

The assessor was Shehla Pirwany.

Of note the appeal took nearly 8 weeks from submission to POPLA.

I will also now complain to the DVLA and local councillors as this is nothing short of Fraud.

Thanks again all, if you are reading this and have just got a ticket do not pay, and read all the advice. Take the time to do it right and it will work !:money:

herbert1979

Re above, following sent to the DVLA chief executive:

Sir

I wish to complain that the DVLA are releasing my personal information to unscrupulous Private Parking Companies, namely Parking Eye.

Parking Eye obtained my name and address from you, for an alleged parking infringement. Without boring you with the details, it was unfounded and legally unsound. As a result the POPLA appeals service were utilised. Parking Eye did not submit any evidence to back up their claim.

It appears from speaking with other members of the public that Parking Eye are sending out high price speculative invoices, which they know they can not justify, and when challenged are now not bothering to submit any evidence to back up their claim. As a result, they are relying on the fact that most people are law abiding, and will pay any official looking charge they receive.

The information being provided by your organisation is the only way that this organisation can continue this unscrupulous business model. By continuing to supply them the DVLA is giving tacit consent to this practice.

I urge you to review this situation, as the actions of this company is undermining your organisations credibility.

I am sure that I am not the first, and won’t be the last to complain.

Kind Regards

Umkomaas

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter, the contents of which are duly noted.

I am referring your complaint to the British Parking Association, the Accredited Trade Association for the British Parking industry, asking them to investigate.

Yours faithfully


for and on behalf of the DVLA

.............. Shhhh Shhhh Shhhh

Silence :cool:

Fergie76

herbert1979 wrote: »

Re above, following sent to the DVLA chief executive:

Sir

I wish to complain that the DVLA are releasing my personal information to unscrupulous Private Parking Companies, namely Parking Eye.

Parking Eye obtained my name and address from you, for an alleged parking infringement. Without boring you with the details, it was unfounded and legally unsound. As a result the POPLA appeals service were utilised. Parking Eye did not submit any evidence to back up their claim.

It appears from speaking with other members of the public that Parking Eye are sending out high price speculative invoices, which they know they can not justify, and when challenged are now not bothering to submit any evidence to back up their claim. As a result, they are relying on the fact that most people are law abiding, and will pay any official looking charge they receive.

The information being provided by your organisation is the only way that this organisation can continue this unscrupulous business model. By continuing to supply them the DVLA is giving tacit consent to this practice.

I urge you to review this situation, as the actions of this company is undermining your organisations credibility.

I am sure that I am not the first, and won’t be the last to complain.

Kind Regards

Send something similar to your MP.

madhatter82

anyone have any wins against premier park?

trisontana

It's worth showing this in full as it's not the usual GPEOL decision. This was Armtrac (from PPP):-

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Unauthorised parking’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that:

a) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land.
c) The Operator’s Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for a number of reasons, including that it does not identify the creditor, and that it was issued out of time.

It is not clear in what capacity the Operator submits the Appellant is liable. In its case summary the Operator submits that it holds the Appellant liable under contract law not according to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; however, it is clear that the Appellant does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle, and the Operator has provided no evidence that he was. The only person directly liable under contract law is the driver. The keeper of the vehicle, where not the driver, is not a party to the agreement and so cannot be held liable under it.

Having said that it is not seeking to hold the Appellant liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Operator goes on to state that the Appellant is in fact liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle as he did not inform the Operator of the name and address of the driver.
Liability for parking charges lies primarily with the driver; however, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides that, in certain circumstances, the keeper of a vehicle may be held liable for parking charges incurred by the driver of the vehicle. Keeper liability arises only from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, not the law of contract, and so the Operator must show that the criteria laid down by the Act were met in order to show that a keeper is liable for the parking charge.


In order for the Operator to be able to recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper, four conditions must be met. One of these conditions is that: either a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7 of the schedule, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 is given; or, a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 is given.
The Operator initially issued a notice to the vehicle at the time. Accordingly the Operator must show that it issued notices which meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 7 and 8.
Paragraph 7(e) states that the Notice to Driver must “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made’.

In this case, the Operator has not produced an actual copy of the parking charge notice issued to the vehicle, but has produced a copy of its records of the information given on the notice. I can only make my decision on the basis of the evidence produced, and this ‘computer copy’ of the notice does not identify the ‘creditor’ nor does it specify how and to whom payment is to be made.
Furthermore, paragraph 8 (4) states that the notice must be given by handing it to the keeper, leaving it at a current address, or sending it by post to a current address, within ‘the relevant period’.
Paragraph 8 (5) states that the relevant period is ‘28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given’.
Paragraph 8 (6) states that a notice sent by post is presumed to be given on the second working day, after the day on which it is posted.

In this case the only notice which could be a Notice to Keeper, the letter titled ‘Formal Demand’, is dated xx January 2014 and so would be deemed to be ‘given’ on xx January 2014. The day after the day on which the notice to driver was given was xx October 2013. Accordingly the first period of 28 days, until xx November 2013, must be given for the driver to respond. The Operator then had a further 28 days, until xx December 2013, to ‘give’ a notice to keeper.

It seems therefore, that the Operator has failed to provide evidence that either a compliant Notice to Driver under paragraph 7, or a compliant Notice 4 xx April 2014 to Keeper under paragraph 8 was issued. Accordingly, the Operator has failed to demonstrate keeper liability.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the Appellant was the driver of the car and so has not produced any evidence to show that he is liable for the parking charge as either the driver or registered keeper.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

I need not decide any other issues.

I note with concern that the Operator has provided a copy of its contract with the land owner to POPLA only, and not to the Appellant. Both parties must be given an opportunity to see the evidence relied on by other parties, and Assessors will only consider evidence which has been seen by the other side. Given the facts of this case, the contract does not affect my decision, but the Operator should ensure that all evidence on which it seeks to rely is forwarded to the Appellant, otherwise the Assessor cannot consider it.

bod1467

Is this a first? A win under POFA.

Who was the assessor?