POPLA Appeal Refused

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

It is POFA and keeper liability that has brought about the situation where ParkingEye can now use the court service as an extension of its intimidation, such that we now advise PoPLA instead of ignore. No POFA, and we'd still be ignoring as hard as we could. PoPLA is the b@stard child of POFA, and an almost totally ineffective sop in comparison to the free reign keeper liability has given to the PPC's to wage their campaign of fear and intimidation.

It beats clamping.

And the word is getting out, maybe slowly, but it is spreading. Short of banning PPCs, it is a step in the right direction.

Stroma

bazster wrote: »

Indeed, it's been a total disaster from that point of view. I'm just waiting on an FOI request regarding court claims in June (to find out exactly how many hundreds or thousands ParkingEye did file) before I write to my MP to ask her what the DfT and the Attorney General intend to do about this unholy mess.

I've got a FOI ongoing for October to end of June, waiting for a response on that , to follow it is here

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/small_claims_from_bpa_aos_member

Coupon-mad

-sarah- wrote: »

Yes I appealed to the parking company first, then I went to POPLA,,waste of time !

Only a waste of time in your own case - because you can't have researched it here or on pepipoo, sadly. We have wealth of threads showing people what to say in a POPLA appeal and it is NOT to send a normal appeal letter with photos proving you actually did park over a line - you would have won on other issues and it would have been easy. We could have given you a template to copy and our versions written since Easter have won 100% of the time. You missed a trick.

You still do not have to pay. The really GOOD NEWS is that POPLA decisions are only binding on the Parking Company but NOT on you, the victim, and you can safely ignore any threatening letters the Parking Company might send you IN THE ABSENCE OF REAL COURT PAPERS. Have a laugh and see it for what it is:

http://nutsville.com/2013/05/04/parking-weasel-ltds-chairman-goes-to-see-his-solicitor/

Shame though, because the PPC will now send you lots of scary letters and might even think your case is worth a small claim which will make your life difficult as you would have to defend it (properly this time, not based on photos proving the PPC's own case...).

-sarah-_2

Unfortunately as I am a novice ! I do not know who issued the original parking fine. You see I parked incorrectly on the 8th April I appealed to POPLA on around 22nd April, the first email I received advising they had received my appeal stated I would receive a decision by the end of May. I threw away all correspondence last week as It had been such a longtime !

Another major error on my part !!!!!

I have pasted the assessors decision below -

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 0252994470232 arising out of the presence at Waterfront Merry Hill, on 8 April 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark Xxxxx for not parking correctly within the markings of a bay or space.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space and this was in breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site. The Operator states that the signage makes it clear that vehicles must park within a marked bay and as the Appellant did not do so, she prevented other vehicles from using one of the bays.
It is the Appellant’s case that she was not parked within the markings of a bay as the vehicle to her left was parked on top of the markings. She states that she has a 3 month old baby and requires enough space to open the passenger door fully in order to remove the car seat. She further submits that there were no mother and baby spaces at the site and so had no choice but to park as she did.
I have looked at the evidence and it is clear that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly set on signage at the site. The Appellant accepts that she was parked over two bays and this was a breach of those terms and conditions. Although she states that there were no mother and baby bays, this does not negate the fact that she parked incorrectly. There is no legal requirement to provide mother and baby bays and the onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking and on this occasion she has not done so.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Umkomaas

-sarah- wrote: »

Unfortunately as I am a novice ! I do not know who issued the original parking fine. You see I parked incorrectly on the 8th April I appealed to POPLA on around 22nd April, the first email I received advising they had received my appeal stated I would receive a decision by the end of May. I threw away all correspondence last week as It had been such a longtime !

Another major error on my part !!!!!

I have pasted the assessors decision below -

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 0252994470232 arising out of the presence at Waterfront Merry Hill, on 8 April 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark DY10NFN for not parking correctly within the markings of a bay or space.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space and this was in breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site. The Operator states that the signage makes it clear that vehicles must park within a marked bay and as the Appellant did not do so, she prevented other vehicles from using one of the bays.
It is the Appellant’s case that she was not parked within the markings of a bay as the vehicle to her left was parked on top of the markings. She states that she has a 3 month old baby and requires enough space to open the passenger door fully in order to remove the car seat. She further submits that there were no mother and baby spaces at the site and so had no choice but to park as she did.
I have looked at the evidence and it is clear that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly set on signage at the site. The Appellant accepts that she was parked over two bays and this was a breach of those terms and conditions. Although she states that there were no mother and baby bays, this does not negate the fact that she parked incorrectly. There is no legal requirement to provide mother and baby bays and the onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking and on this occasion she has not done so.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

What an absolutely pathetic decision by POPLA. A few inches touching on a random line as a result of some other motorist not having the skill to aim their vehicle in the right direction. What a knock-on bonus (x n) for the PPC!

However, this case does go to further prove that mitigation, no matter how compelling, is a total and utter waste of time, effort and breath as far as POPLA is concerned and really this should be highlighted in their next Annual Report.

Without the help of MSE or Pepipoo then motorists who go it alone are more likely to lose than win at POPLA.

Coupon-mad

-sarah- wrote: »

Unfortunately as I am a novice ! I do not know who issued the original parking fine. You see I parked incorrectly on the 8th April I appealed to POPLA on around 22nd April, the first email I received advising they had received my appeal stated I would receive a decision by the end of May. I threw away all correspondence last week as It had been such a longtime !

Another major error on my part !!!!!

I have pasted the assessors decision below -

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 0252994470232 arising out of the presence at Waterfront Merry Hill, on 8 April 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx for not parking correctly within the markings of a bay or space.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space and this was in breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site. The Operator states that the signage makes it clear that vehicles must park within a marked bay and as the Appellant did not do so, she prevented other vehicles from using one of the bays.
It is the Appellant’s case that she was not parked within the markings of a bay as the vehicle to her left was parked on top of the markings. She states that she has a 3 month old baby and requires enough space to open the passenger door fully in order to remove the car seat. She further submits that there were no mother and baby spaces at the site and so had no choice but to park as she did.
I have looked at the evidence and it is clear that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly set on signage at the site. The Appellant accepts that she was parked over two bays and this was a breach of those terms and conditions. Although she states that there were no mother and baby bays, this does not negate the fact that she parked incorrectly. There is no legal requirement to provide mother and baby bays and the onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking and on this occasion she has not done so.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

It's not a fine.

And the Operator's name will be at the top of that decision 'Operator -v- you'. Tell us who it is and we can tell you if they ever try court or not.


P.S. remove your car reg off that post. You don't show such info on an open public forum.

Stroma

Had a look on Streetview and it looks like UKPC , so not much chance of this going to court then

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It beats clamping.

That is not setting the bar very high. How about aiming for a properly-regulated, properly-run private parking industry which aims to manage parking and make everyone's lives a bit easier instead of simply being an extortion racket?

Guys_Dad wrote: »

And the word is getting out, maybe slowly, but it is spreading. Short of banning PPCs, it is a step in the right direction.

I disagree totally. What you are forgetting is that this entire "industry" is based on a colossal lie: that any of these charges is legitimate and enforceable. The BPA, with the connivance of the DfT, tries to cover the Big Lie with a veneer of authenticity, and PoPLA is merely part of that veneer. It's nice to help the odd individual get a PPC monkey off their back using PoPLA, but fundamentally the existence of PoPLA is hugely counter-productive because it contributes to the cover-up of the Big Lie.

You can see this in the situation whereby PoPLA allows individual appeals on the basis of failure to demonstrate a loss, when PoPLA knows, the BPA knows, the DVLA knows, the DfT knows, the ICO knows and WE know that this fatal flaw applies to every single damn ticket issued. Farcical? it's positively Orwellian.