POPLA refusal

smokemeakipper_2

Hello
I have had a refusal from POPLA for my appeal for parking on private land having paid and not exceeding the allotted time but the ticket was not visible at the time the parking warden saw my vehicle, I found it in my foot well as I returned.

While it doesn't surprise me that a body set up by the industry has found in favour for the industry I am wondering what I do next. I refuse to pay as the operator has not lost out in anyway, I paid my fee's and didn't overstay my allotted time I see no reason to pay them £80 as it is noted it is a 'Charge' not a fine - am I correct? on what legal grounds must I pay this fee?

these are the words from POPLA's refusal
"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking (“the
Terms”) were clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit
that these stated that drivers were required to pay for and display a ticket to
park at the site. They submit that the Appellant failed to display a ticket and
therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued.
It is the Appellant’s case that his ticket was displayed but somehow it
became dislodged and fell into the foot well of the vehicle. He submits that
he has provided a copy of the ticket and has proved he paid to park. He also
submits that it would be contrary to the advice of the Statutory Guidance not
to cancel the charge because it would not be in the public interest to
penalise the Appellant because he did make a payment to park. Therefore,
he submits that he should not be liable to pay the parking charge.
I must decide each case on its own merits and I cannot take into
consideration the mitigation particular to an individual Appellant. Although I
note that it was an accident that the Appellant did not properly display his
ticket, this cannot be a factor upon which I base my decision.
I must emphasis that there is a distinction between parking on public road
and parking on private land. Where a driver parks on a public road or in a car
park that is operated by the local authority, the Guidance to Local Authorities
would be applicable. However, in the present case, the Appellant parked on
private land operated by an independent company. The Appellant entered
into a private contract with the Operator by parking at the site and was
bound to follow its Terms of parking and was not bound to observe the
Guidance. Further, the public interest is a matter I am unable to consider in
my decision.
I find that the Terms required the Appellant to display a ticket and that he did
not properly display his ticket. This is accepted by the Appellant. This was, in
itself, a breach of the Terms and the requirement to pay was a separate
obligation under the Terms. Therefore, the Operator is entitled to pursue the
parking charge on the basis of the Appellant’s failure to display even if a valid
payment was made to park. Therefore, the parking charge was appropriately
issued and the Appellant is liable to pay it.

Accordingly, I refuse the appeal."

I look forward to your input.

Thanks in advance.

Guys_Dad

Can I ask how you found this forum and when? The reason is simple. If you had found us before you wasted your POPLA appeal, you would have won.

As for what to do - that all depends upon who the Parking Company was, so please tell us and also where this happened.

The ball is now in the PPC's court and how they will react depends upon who they are and the action you can take is either to do nothing and await further developments or contact the landowner to see if they can help, but that depends upon who, in turn, they are.

In the meantime, read the NEWBIES sticky thread at the top of the forum.

bazster

There are no legal grounds on which you must pay this fee. As you say, there is loss to anyone, either landowner or parking company.

What scumbag company is it?

The_Deep

As GD says, the ball is now in the PPC's court. They can threaten you with court, or they can take you to court. If the latter, you can pay them off, or you can fight them. If the latter, you will need to do some reading, a lot of reading.

The Parking Prankster website has lot of past cases where a PPC has taken people to court

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

Have a read, and depending on who issued the ticket, decide how you want to play it.

smokemeakipper_2

I found the forum having searched POPLA refusal in google, Hindsight is a great thing and with the benefit of it I wish I had consulted this forum alas that time has passed.

the company is Napier parking.

Guys_Dad

smokemeakipper wrote: »

I found the forum having searched POPLA refusal in google, Hindsight is a great thing and with the benefit of it I wish I had consulted this forum alas that time has passed.

the company is Napier parking.

And where was this please?

smokemeakipper_2

Oh sorry willan lake milton Keynes

The_Deep

Napier have won a couple of cases in Court, Yau and Lander, but in both cases the appellant was a bilker, and Yau even tried to claim against them. As you have paid, and therefore they have lost nothing, they may be less likely to take a punt.

bazster

Oh dear. You may be heading for a court case against one of the nastiest outfits around. If you intend to fight this, start doing your homework. Having paid, you have a strong case, but this doesn't guarantee a win in the County Court, where the small claims track is something of a lottery.

Guys_Dad

Ah. Not brilliant news, I am afraid. Land is owned by the Parks Trust and, regrettably, Napier have already notched up a success here - see http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Yau-Judgement.pdf

I don't recall if anyone else has had a court summons from them, but they clearly have form.

I know Willen Lake well and their signs are plentiful, but I can not swear to them being BPA compliant. However, in court, BPA compliance is an argument that each judge weighs differently.

Hopefully some other regulars will be along within the next 24 hours, but if the Northampton court papers do arrive, then weigh up very carefully what action to take. The fact you have bought a ticket will be in your favour if you still have it, and we can help with a pre-estimate of loss defence, but the failure at POPLA will be brought up by Napier too. If the papers do arrive, please come back for more help but come back on this thread.

Sorry you did not come sooner, but as you said, hindsight is wonderful thing.

The_Deep

Napier may be hardnosed but I would not say that they are vindictive, in both the Yau and Lander cases the appellants brought their problems upon themselves, so much so in Mr Yau's case that Napier persuaded the judge to award them all their costs, some £800+.

Napier are part of a leisure company and own many of the car parks they patrol. PP blogged about them recently

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-grace-period-is-not-free-parking.html