Newbie help, excel peel centre, awaiting POPLA results

Coupon-mad

That should be fine.

BullTerrierFan

Thanks, I've just submitted it via the popla website, so its wait and see time now.

Guys_Dad

BullTerrierFan wrote: »

Thanks, I've just submitted it via the popla website, so its wait and see time now.

It is much better visually than the previous one and looks very well constructed. Got my seal of approval for what that's worth anyway!

Good luck.

Please don't forget to come back and tell us how you get on.

BullTerrierFan

It will be at least a month before I find out. But I will let you know the outcome.

BullTerrierFan

Well guys, my appeal was accepted, I would like to thank everybody that has helped me, pointed me in the right direction, esp when I was thinking of paying.

This has certainly made more vigilant of checking for parking restrictions etc.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Could u post up the decision txt pls

BullTerrierFan

Yes of course, its a 2 page document page 1 says appeal be allowed and pcn cancelled, yet on page 2 its lays out the reason for decision and says appeal refused?

BullTerrierFan

25 November 2013
Reference
always quote in any communication with POPLA
BullTerrierFan (Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number XL__________ arising
out of the presence at the Peel Centre- Stockport, on 22/08/2013, 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.
2562853501 2 25 November 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 15:06 on the 22nd August 2013, a vehicle with registration mark *******
was recorded exiting the Peel Centre- Stockport after a stay of 77 minutes.
The car park is a pay and display car park as stated on signage placed
throughout the car park and therefore as it was recorded that no parking
time had been purchased for the appellant’s vehicle, he was parked in
breach of the terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that they were unfamiliar with the area and they were
unaware of the fact that the retail park charged for parking. The appellant
states that the operator has not shown that they have the authority to issue
parking charge notices to motorists. The appellant has additionally stated that
the charge is an unlawful penalty charges as the charge is not a genuine preestimate
of the loss incurred as it is disproportionate to the losses incurred. The
appellant also adds that the operator has failed to provide evidence to show
that the cameras at the car park are compliant with the BPA Code of
Practice.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated
that the operator does not have the authority to recover parking charges
from motorists that are parked in breach of the terms and conditions.
Although the operator has provided a copy of the contract, the operator has
blanked out the name of the employer and the signatures of the parties to
the contract and therefore as the contract does not show the names of the
parties, the contract provided is insufficient to show that the operator has the
authority to issue parking charge notices on behalf of the landowner. As a
result of this, I need not decided any of the other issues raised by the
appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Shehla Pirwany

Guys_Dad

Not only a good result, but on a contract point. And the idiots obscured their own information that might have supported their claim to have a valid contract.

You couldn't make it up!

And hats off to Shehla for going for that one rather than just GPEOL

BullTerrierFan

I'm a little unsure of the wording at the bottom, Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Although on page 1 it says the appeal is allowed.