POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!

gavcradd

OK, so I need to take this further within POPLA as a first step...but the question is "how?" I've emailed back outlining my issues and asking (1) to contact Henry Greenslade himself and (2) to have someone more senior re-review my case, but I sent the email to the standard appeals.admin@ email address - where it's likely to be ignored or discarded.

Does anyone have direct details for people that may be able to help?

Secondly, what happens if I still just simply inform Highview that the POPLA decision is not binding on me and I won't be paying? Do they have any history or fighting in court or can I safely ignore? Has anyone recently fought cases like this in court and won?

Can I pre-empt things by paying "under duress" and then taking them to the small claims court?

Aaron_Aadvark

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The guidelines on POPLA appeals state the following https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

Note that this is a gov.uk web site

POPLA operates on the following basis:
23  It is completely independent;
 It covers all tickets issued on relevant land in England and Wales by ATA members;
 It is provided free to motorists;
 Its decisions are binding on the industry (but not on drivers and
registered keepers); and
 It is entirely sector funded.

If a PPC adds its costs for handling POPLA claims, then it is NOT free to motorists.

And the private parking industry are charging POPLA costs even on motorists who do not use POPLA. How is that for contempt of Ministers?

bod1467

There are some examples in this forum of people defending and winning court cases. But the chances of Highview even doing so are remote ... data from 01/10/2012 to 31/03/2014 shows zero instances of them initiating court action and actually getting to a hearing.

bazster

gavcradd wrote: »

Does anyone have direct details for people that may be able to help?

Making systematic marks on a sheet of paper and requesting Royal Mail to deliver it in return for a small payment still works!

Ryan_Bryan

OP. I believe you were unfortunate that Miss Riley wasn't pulled up on this till recently. There was a reported success on the POPLA results thread yesterday.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66815494&postcount=1494

It seems the word has been passed on.

cyberbird

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

OP. I believe you were unfortunate that Miss Riley wasn't pulled up on this till recently. There was a reported success on the POPLA results thread yesterday.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66815494&postcount=1494

It seems the word has been passed on.

No, I don't think it's that she's changed her approach. In this case there is no initial loss demonstrated. In the thread case there is a loss of £1 which then allows all the other items to be included.

Can somebody clarify why the think the decision is bad. Is it that the POPLA appeal costs are not allowed to be included in the calcualtion?

Coupon-mad

Just to say as keeper, if you'd included the flaws with the NTK you would surely have won on that point if (newbie) Amy has got her head around POFA at all. Highview NTKs don't specify the period of parking, nor identify the creditor, nor describe the outstanding 'unpaid' parking charges (which can only mean the tariff due to the timeline in Schedule 4). But some other Assessors look for POFA compliance whether or not the OP has raised it!

gavcradd wrote: »

OK, so I need to take this further within POPLA as a first step...but the question is "how?" I've emailed back outlining my issues and asking (1) to contact Henry Greenslade himself and (2) to have someone more senior re-review my case, but I sent the email to the standard appeals.admin@ email address - where it's likely to be ignored or discarded.

Does anyone have direct details for people that may be able to help?

Have a look at newcruiser's thread, tells you who to email (Richard Reeve):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5043215

Post #74 is the sort of complaint to Richard Reeve (Service Manager) that I suggested as a 'complaint about errors in the process'. Avoid complaining directly that she was wrong in her decision!

My first thoughts as far as 'errors' are concerned are that:

- I see no evidence that the Assessor has considered your detailed email rebuttal of the GPEOL statement, or any of your email evidence you added when you saw they were trying to claim an unsubstantiated £68.07 and that they had not produced evidence of the landowner contract.

- I would ask, did she even see the email you sent because it doesn't appear that she did - the Assessor certainly did not consider those detailed points.

- she has not taken on board the fact that Management costs for POPLA can't be included - and certainly not as a duplication of other staff work because 'quality control by management is not an activity which can be properly included in a GPEOL' (Christopher Monk).

- the £68.07 isn't broken down into hours or details, could be made up of anything at all and for an 'office worker/co-ordinator' seems to be suggesting something ridiculously silly like 5 hours work at £12 per hour plus NI. But who knows as they haven't substantiated it?!

- you had pointed out that only a tiny % of cases go to POPLA yet this Assessor has accepted that every £85 PCN issued there includes £68.07 of 'POPLA time'. If this were the case then in 98% of cases, Highview would be claiming money they are not entitled to (no POPLA in 98% of cases) and they'd be making a £68.07 profit almost every time - that's not a GPEOL then! The Assessor should have seen that it could not possibly be in the 'reasonable contemplation' of the Operator when issuing their £85 PCNs every day to people, that it would be inherently likely in a 'average case' that this stupidly inflated staff cost would be likely - POPLA cases being so rare.

- You said there was no evidence that the person who signed the witness statement was the landowner. She didn't address that (can you get proof they are not? Land Registry search for £3?). Quite possibly they aren't the owner. I saw a Highview witness statement the other day, which looked like a line near the end had been covered up as there was an inexplicable gap - has yours got the same gap? Also in that case, the landowner's name had been left blank and the contract appeared to have expired in early August (no proof it was renewed). And the amount of charges weren't specified. And the restrictions weren't specified - so how does POPLA know the contract isn't merely for issuing £20 PCNs for parking on double yellows on a Sunday (for example). And the signature and person who signed the one I saw (different car park) was unreadable yet they appeared to say they are the owner...but it was unclear.

- In your email you have clearly said you are only the registered keeper. Yet this is a non-compliant NTK so there can be no keeper liability. The Assessors in other cases have said:
{a CP Plus case, first week in Sept}
''As the appellant has at no point admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, in order for the appellant to be liable for the charge the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions. In these circumstances, these provisions are found in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act. The operator must produce evidence that this has occurred regardless of whether the issue is raised by the appellant, as the liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute. The fact that some or all of this information may be able to be implied by a reader familiar with the legal context of parking does not mean that the notice to keeper is compliant. As the notice to keeper is not valid, I cannot find that the charge notice is enforceable against the appellant. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the appellant’s substantive case.''

{a Minster Baywatch case, same week}
''The appellant has at no point admitted being the driver, there is no evidence that he was, and he has not named the driver and provided a serviceable address. Therefore, the appellant’s only liability is as the keeper, which means that the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. I find that the operator has failed show that they have produced a ‘notice to keeper’ which complies with the requirements of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4.

The operator must produce evidence that such a notice has been produced regardless of whether the issue is raised by the appellant, as the liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute. Therefore, as no compliant notice to keeper has been shown to exist, and the appellant does not admit to being the driver, the charge notice has not been shown to be enforceable against the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk, Assessor''

- in this decision 2922064001 only last month it is proven that Highview NTKs fail to identify the creditor, which is a breach of the statute: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66583645#Comment_66583645

- If a PPC adds its costs for handling POPLA claims, then it is NOT free to motorists. As Guy'sDad said, the guidelines on POPLA appeals state the following
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf
Note that this is a gov.uk web site:

POPLA operates on the following basis:
23  It is completely independent;
 It covers all tickets issued on relevant land in England and Wales by ATA members;
 It is provided free to motorists;
 Its decisions are binding on the industry (but not on drivers and
registered keepers); and
 It is entirely sector funded.

Secondly, what happens if I still just simply inform Highview that the POPLA decision is not binding on me and I won't be paying?

No - send a short but sweet cancellation of the alleged contract like here in post #22:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66814857#Comment_66814857

Do they have any history or fighting in court or can I safely ignore? Has anyone recently fought cases like this in court and won?

None at all - Highview are not litigious at all. And you have a non-compliant NTK there - you just didn't add that appeal point 'no keeper liability'. But you wouldn't fail to mention it if they ever tried a small claim would you! So keep all the paperwork for six years, this will go nowhere but at least as keeper you can see the NTK isn't compliant = no keeper liability.

Can I pre-empt things by paying "under duress" and then taking them to the small claims court?

I would just cancel the contract by writing the Notice to Highview that I suggested. And complain to Richard Reeve in a similar was to another Amy Riley victim, newcruiser (as linked already)! No-one would suggest you pay - this decision isn't legally binding on you, means nothing but is worth putting right, if only to stop Amy wrecking other cases. Retraining needed...

cyberbird

bod1467 wrote: »

Neither of those are a Genuine PRE-Estimate of Loss. And even if they could be included, the full cost cannot, as only at most 2% of all PCNs go to appeal, so their GPEoL would be at most 24p and £1.36 respectively.

So you are saying that the PEOL should be the average cost rather than the potential cost in this case? Is there an authority you can refer me on this?

The_Slithy_Tove

You could start by reiterating what you have already told them - that the PPC is being dishonest in that they are trying to include a (made up) sum for dealing with POPLA in their £100 cost, where they would get that money even in those many cases where the sum was paid without going through the appeals process. One could even call their claim fraudulent.

Guys_Dad

Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »

And the private parking industry are charging POPLA costs even on motorists who do not use POPLA. How is that for contempt of Ministers?

Originally, I read the chief adjudicator's words in his annual statement as being helpful, coupled with the general success with GPEOL, but I have re-read them and now have a worry in light of Amy's adjudications.

He wrote "However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards".

Clearly PPCs could interpret that as the £100 charge on the sign represents the potential cost of POPLA plus the number that get to court and they believe that it is reasonable to assume that those who do not pay the reduced sum will tough it out and cost them money.

Now I previously read the words as "It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards".

The difference is the comma between suffered and made. My interpretation was that it was the estimate of costs incurred before the breach and anything after was ruled out, but the insertion of the comma makes a huge difference. It allows the PPC to make an policy estimate of what reasonable costs COULD arise if the motorist did not pay.

So, let's see what happens with the appeal against Amy's decisions.