Appealed to PE, Rejection of Invalid invoice & NO POPLA CODE

Pmanesh

ampersand wrote: »

pmanesh - have a look at the POPLA Decisions Thread. #1791 and 1792.

I'm seeing some good, relevant para.s there in various Assessors' reasoning in allowing each Appeal. Nothing better than following their thinking :-)

Thanks,
looks like they were both in relation to "the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities."

would my paragraph which says the below cover this too?

There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between ParkingEye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which ParkingEye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.

Pmanesh

the operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx/xxxxxx arising out of the presence at aldi boscombe, on 4 april 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx xxx.
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 4 april 2015, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark xxxx xxx by remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.
The operator’s case is that the site is a 1 hour free stay customer car park when a customer enters their registration into the terminal within the store as stated on the signage and the vehicle in question remained at the site for 52 minutes without adhering to the conditions of parking. They have enclosed supporting evidence with their submissions.
The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, i will only elaborate on the one submission that i am allowing this appeal on, namely that the operator does not have authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices on site.
The operator rejected the appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. They advise that they have written authority to operate and issue parking charge notices at this site from the landowner.
The onus is on the operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities. Once an appellant submits that the operator does not have authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices in the car park in question, the onus is on the operator to provide any evidence or explanation to show otherwise. The operator has not provided any evidence to address the appellant’s submission such as a valid contract or a witness statement and they have not discharged the burden of proof.
Accordingly, i allow this appeal.
Aurela qerimi
assessor

hurrrrrrrrrray :T

Umkomaas

Well done. Time to do a little bit to help the cause.

1. Complain to the DVLA and ask them to stop providing keeper details to ParkingEye for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement.

2. Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to ParkingEye in view of the POPLA statement.

Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Update this thread with the details when received.