Ticket on Private land outside own flat

Coupon-mad

SMarg wrote: »

I presume the point being no loss of income as there is no charge for parking in that area therefore making a profit

Yes and the quote from the website calls it 'income' which proves it is nothing to do with any loss. Say so!

SMarg

Brilliant!

No-one has confirmed whether I should send the photos I posted on here but I'm of the mind not to in case that gives them the evidence that in their eyes the signs are ok?

Coupon-mad

You don't need to send photos to POPLA of the sign's wording because the PPC has to include those in their evidence (which you get sent, and can comment on if needed just before the decision is made).

SMarg

I'd like to say a massive thank you to Coupon-mad and everyone who posted helpful posts on this issue - appeal won and notification received yesterday. It was based on the fact that the parking company did not provide evidence from the landowner that they had the authority to issue parking notices

da_rule

Did they submit any evidence to POPLA about any of the points raised in the appeal?

Stroma

Well done to you can you please provide the wording used by popla- thanks

prosnap

Now make sure that everyone else in that block of flats know about this.


It may just stop someone else less informed than you being conned!

Coupon-mad

da_rule wrote: »

Did they submit any evidence to POPLA about any of the points raised in the appeal?

Yes they did but not a copy of the contract, just the usual blurb from the PTL owner saying he spends hours investigating each appeal at '£silly money' per hour...! This poster sent me this decision:

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by parking without displaying a permit. The Appellant made representations stating his case. The Appellant raised a number of points and one of the points was that the Operator has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists or pursue these charges through to the courts.
Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.
The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

I need not decide any other issues. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sakib Chowdhury