Pizza Hut Parking Charge Notice

RobinHill

Steve Clark at the BPA has written to CEL to 'understand their reasoning'.

RobinHill

When we submitted the appeal to POPLA Coupon-Mad advised "tick 2 or 3 out of the 4 appeal reasons boxes on the appeal page (it is obvious which one doesn't apply)".

Seem to recall that we ticked all bar the "The vehicle was stolen", the others did seem relevant as CM suggested but I can't remember what they were now. Just having had a look at the POPLA confirmation email and it lists them as below

"Why they are appealing:
Parked improperly
Charge exceeded
Not liable"

I don't recall selecting "Parked improperly" and "Charge exceeded" etc. Are these correct? Or either way is it not something to be too concerned with?

Thank you.

Redx

dont concern yourself, we have always thought that the categories rarely cover what grounds people appeal on, but they refuse to change them, so you tick all except "stolen" as you did

ignore such trivia

ManxRed

POPLA have stated that those four 'reasons' are just illustrative. Trouble is they have buried that information away in documentation relating to meeting minutes and the like. Its almost like they don't want the public to know this.

RobinHill

Result. Thank you to all involved, in particular Coupon-Mad ...

Coupon-mad

They threw in the towel again!

RobinHill

I know!! Sounds a bit odd but don't know if we are disappointed or not ie. better having waited for POPLA adjudication. BTW thanks again CM, w/o the help of this forum we're quite sure that we wouldn't have managed this.

RobinHill

Won the second charge notice at POPLA with ...

RE: POPLA verification code NNNNNNNNNN dated DD/MM/2014

I wish to appeal as keeper on the following grounds.

1) The charge is for breach of contract but is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The average cost across the industry for dealing with a parking ticket is £20. This together with the "to deter abuse" signage means the charge is therefore a penalty, and unenforceable. There was no initial loss at all because this is a free car park and the PCN charge is for breach, not consideration, so the Operator cannot create a loss where none exists.
2) There was no contract with the motorist. For a contract to exists, the signage must be plentiful, easy to understand and unambiguous. it was not
3) There was no contract between landowner and operator which allows then to issue parking charges. Given the large number of operators operating without a valid contract, including the recent case of Vehicle Control Services operating in an Excel car park, it is reasonable to assume the majority of operators do not have correct contract in place. Other documented instance of operators operating without a correct contract include ParkingEye, Devere, District Enforcement, JAS, CEL and Highview Parking. In the past, CEL have often issued landowner witness statements to POPLA which were signed by Ashley Cohen of CEL, rather than the landowner, and which therefore have no legitimacy. There is therefore reasonable doubt the a valid contract exists.

POPLA Appeal ... Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site for longer than the free stay period and that a parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s ANPR system detected this.
The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacked the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The operator’s assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor

Umkomaas

Well done RH!

I find that the operator has not provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site.

Which, in my view, should prevent the PPC from penalising any one else at this location!

Why isn't POPLA informing the BPA that this operator, on this site, cannot provide evidence that they have any authority to issue charges, and, as such, should be not only sanctioned, but also denied access to the DVLA database until such time as irrefutable evidence to the contrary is provided!

Half_way

Umkomaas wrote: »

Well done RH!



Which, in my view, should prevent the PPC from penalising any one else at this location!

Why isn't POPLA informing the BPA that this operator, on this site, cannot provide evidence that they have any authority to issue charges, and, as such, should be not only sanctioned, but also denied access to the DVLA database until such time as irrefutable evidence to the contrary is provided!

However if the above were to happen then it may appear that POPLA are credible.