Unaurthorized use of bus and taxi dropoff/pick up - Minster Baywatch!!!

StarSaver

I won on one Issue
Does this mean the other Issues were not valid or do the assessors at POPLA only use one Issue and not waste their time on the rest?

Redx

they focus on one area they can make an instant decision on, and ignore all the rest

well done on the win, an interesting point the assessor made there too

nigelbb

Redx wrote: »

they focus on one area they can make an instant decision on, and ignore all the rest

well done on the win, an interesting point the assessor made there too

Without actually saying it the assessor is acknowledging that no parking event took place. In fact there was no claim that a parking event had taken place & if there was no parking then POFA 2012 keeper liability cannot apply. However even if the driver was known there still there was no parking & POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals) cannot deny an appeal against an alleged parking charge when in fact there isn't even an allegation that the vehicle was parked.

Umkomaas

Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 provided that it applies "where a driver of a vehicle is required.....to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land." As keeper liability can only be created through the operation of schedule 4, the appellants vehicle must be shown to have parked at the site.

Where does that leave ANPR camera-based NtKs?

StarSaver

Umkomaas wrote: »

Where does that leave ANPR camera-based NtKs?

ONLY ONE CAMERA - ON EXIT- IN THIS CASE so they could not prove how long the vehicle was on the land in question.

Umkomaas

Even with entry and exit cameras, even though they can possibly prove the vehicle was on the land (but check out 'double dipping'), they cannot meet the statement 'shown to have parked' stated by POPLA.

The_Slithy_Tove

StarSaver wrote: »

in order for the appellant to be liable for the charge the keeper requirements of schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012 must be complied with

Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 provided that it applies "where a driver of a vehicle is required.....to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land." As keeper liability can only be created through the operation of schedule 4, the appellants vehicle must be shown to have parked at the site.

Indeed. Any charge which relates to non-parking issues, such as disobeying traffic signs, do not fall under POFA. Same for stopping (rather than parking), particularly at airports, irrespective of whether Byelaws make it relevant land or not.