should i be worried

lancs-girl

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748
London
EC1P 1SN

0845 207 7700
enquiries@popla.org.uk
https://www.popla.org.uk

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the
Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

06 August 2014

Reference 666
always quote in any communication with POPLA

C (Appellant)
-v-
ANPR Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 666 arising out
of the presence at B Centre, on February 2014, of a vehicle
with registration mark 666

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

On February 2014 a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the B Centre.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by parking on a no stopping at all zone.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised by him was that he requires the Operator to produce to POPLA the contract between the landowner and themselves.

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 submitted a copy of an agreement between themselves and the proprietor; the agreement is dated August 23 2002 and it indicates that the agreement is for an initial period of one year and is subject to termination in accordance with the terms and conditions overleaf. The Operator has not submitted the terms of the agreement overleaf or an updated/amended contract which indicates that the Operator had authorisation to enforce parking restrictions at the site in question.

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.

Dee140157

Oh I like this decision. Landowner authority and picking up the fact the contract is 12 years old and only for one year. Good result.

Please post this on the POPLA decision thread.

Umkomaas

The Operator has submitted a copy of an agreement between themselves and the proprietor; the agreement is dated August 23 2002 and it indicates that the agreement is for an initial period of one year and is subject to termination in accordance with the terms and conditions overleaf. The Operator has not submitted the terms of the agreement overleaf or an updated/amended contract which indicates that the Operator had authorisation to enforce parking restrictions at the site in question.

Good owd Trev, shot himself in the foot yet again. :rotfl:

Redx

lancs-girl wrote: »

cant find POPLA decision thread. im thick lol but not as much as trev the tramp. can i send him a thank you card :-)

linked in the crabman sticky thread

Umkomaas

lancs-girl wrote: »

cant find POPLA decision thread. im thick lol but not as much as trev the tramp. can i send him a thank you card :-)

Not a 'Thank You' card, a 'With Sympathy' might be better.

Redx

might be better to get NOEL to gunge him again

Redx

third thread down from the green banner near the top of this forum

cant believe its took 6 months for you to be finally rid of

A N P R, ( All Numptys , Poor Records ) limited (intelligence !!)

Coupon-mad

lancs-girl wrote: »

still cant get to crabman sticky thread this is where i get lost every time

Easy! Do a forum jump (bottom right, click 'go') takes you to page one and it's the 3rd thread (or click on the link I mention in my signature, or the fuller explanation is in Dee140157's signature and you've read her posts above so you've seen it!). Our signatures TELL you where to click...

Using a forum to hop around between threads is a learned skill but will mean you can use any forum once you know how. You could have seen off ANPR Ltd months ago!

lancs-girl

thank you again all and coupon mad i posted it in the right place now :-) not use to forums sorry :-) THANK YOU ALL :-)

Redx

well done once more

its refreshing to see a POPLA decision that was based on a flawed contract and not the more usual not a gpeol which the assessor could have gone for

my relative also had a flawed contract in that the first hour was free but they were ticketed for staying 46 minutes by Excel , yet the assessor chose the easy option of not a gpeol

time and time again we tell people to use issues about contracts and signage and anpr etc, but due to the prevalence of not a gpeol it nacame the main get out clause for any assessor

so my thanks go to this assessor (whoever it was) that went that extra mile and found a valid flaw in an out of date contract !

I have thanked your POPLA DECISIONS post too , as its a good result but shame you had to go through this angst for so long, for nothing

at least you have cost anpr £27 + vat at popla too

and "NO, YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORRIED!"