We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Lost POPLA appeal (UKCPS) - advice needed
big_boss
Posts: 88 Forumite
I'm looking after some advice. My wife has just lost a POPLA appeal which is unfair in my opinion. Please see the details below and advise as to what should I do next.
Shouldn't BPA's code of conduct apply regarding "grace period" apply in my case?
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 111 arising out of the presence at Whitehall Quay, on 18 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The operator issued parking charge notice number 111 arising out of the presence at Whitehall Quay, on 18 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit or authority.
The operator’s case is that there is clear signage displayed at the site informing motorists that the site is for permit holders only and that a valid permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen in full view. The operator submits that by not displaying a valid permit the appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site.
The appellant’s case is that they are pregnant and had some heavy luggage with them. The appellant submits that the nearest parking space was “a few hundred yards away” and that it would have been very difficult for them to drag their luggage all the way from the parking spot into their apartment. The appellant states that they parked the car where they did and dropped the luggage into their apartment and returned to move their vehicle within 2 minutes. The appellant submits that there was no signage in place prohibiting loading / unloading.
In a further e-mail the appellant has submitted images of where their vehicle was “stood” for 2 minutes, it is apparent through these images that there is sufficient signage in place which shows that the site is for permit holders only. As the site is private land there is no requirement for the operator to provide a loading / unloading bay, which is why the signage displayed at the site does not provide for one.
I note that the appellant’s case is of mitigation, the appellant mentions that she is already going through a lot of stress as her mother has recently passed away. Whilst I sympathise with the appellant’s circumstance, unfortunately this does not form a valid ground in order to allow this appeal.
Therefore, considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that by parking at the site without displaying a valid permit, the appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Shouldn't BPA's code of conduct apply regarding "grace period" apply in my case?
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 111 arising out of the presence at Whitehall Quay, on 18 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The operator issued parking charge notice number 111 arising out of the presence at Whitehall Quay, on 18 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit or authority.
The operator’s case is that there is clear signage displayed at the site informing motorists that the site is for permit holders only and that a valid permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen in full view. The operator submits that by not displaying a valid permit the appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site.
The appellant’s case is that they are pregnant and had some heavy luggage with them. The appellant submits that the nearest parking space was “a few hundred yards away” and that it would have been very difficult for them to drag their luggage all the way from the parking spot into their apartment. The appellant states that they parked the car where they did and dropped the luggage into their apartment and returned to move their vehicle within 2 minutes. The appellant submits that there was no signage in place prohibiting loading / unloading.
In a further e-mail the appellant has submitted images of where their vehicle was “stood” for 2 minutes, it is apparent through these images that there is sufficient signage in place which shows that the site is for permit holders only. As the site is private land there is no requirement for the operator to provide a loading / unloading bay, which is why the signage displayed at the site does not provide for one.
I note that the appellant’s case is of mitigation, the appellant mentions that she is already going through a lot of stress as her mother has recently passed away. Whilst I sympathise with the appellant’s circumstance, unfortunately this does not form a valid ground in order to allow this appeal.
Therefore, considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that by parking at the site without displaying a valid permit, the appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
0
Comments
-
The advice, albeit too late, is that you should have come here BEFORE submitting your appeal. You have tried mitigation, which never works, rather than challenging the entire basis of the charge, which will always win with the right words.I'm looking after some advice. My wife has just lost a POPLA appeal which is unfair in my opinion. Please see the details below and advise as to what should I do next.
All you can do now is hope they don't take it to court. While it's not a guaranteed win for them by any means, court will mean a whole lot of hassle for you in seeing them off.
Which PPC was it?0 -
unfortunately, POPLA never accept mitigation as grounds for appeal, it says so on their website and also in that verdict too
in over 12 months of operation they have never allowed an appeal based on mitigation , as you will see in the sticky thread about POPLA appeals (at the top of the forum)
your wife should have appealed on the usual grounds of not a GPEOL , no lawful contract, no authority , etc etc
as per this suggested appeal template here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165
now you have to either pay it or fight it at court0 -
The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »
Which PPC was it?
UKCPS according to the thread title
I suppose that somewhere in the future a case could be built on the EQUALITY ACT 2010 ?
coupon-mad would know better than me though0 -
No. Now they either pay it or ignore it and hope it doesn't go to court. (But even if it does there's a better than even chance of beating them there, but it's a lot more hassle).
thanks, I was thinking more along the lines of the EQUALITY ACT 2010 due to the lady being pregnant at the time
this could all have been avoided at the appeal to PPC, appeal to landowner , and appeal to POPLA stage, had they come here first for guidance0 -
The thing is, I never applied for mitigation. This was interpreted by POPLA. All I said was, that despite the stress we're going through, we do not agree with the PCN in principle and so are fighting against it. My main contention was loading/unloading.0
-
Still was mitigation. POPLA appeals need to tackle the foundation of the PPC's right to even levy a parking charge.0
-
this is what it should have been based on
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/48161651. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.
2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.
3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.
4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.0 -
Another wasted popla appeal
Why on earth didnt you come here first???
You may find you receive a court claim from ukcps as a result of you not coming here first....Proud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T0 -
The thing is, I never applied for mitigation. This was interpreted by POPLA. All I said was, that despite the stress we're going through, we do not agree with the PCN in principle and so are fighting against it. My main contention was loading/unloading.
Yes all mitigation and not useful at all, you didnt say why you were fighting against.
So please do expect to receive a court claim from ukcps. they do issue quite a few claims.
Will you bother to ask advice this time if you receive claim papers or ask advice two days before a hearing?
Hopefully other people will read this and that can be the cost of asking advice after not asking for adviceProud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards