We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA Appeal Refused - advice please
Options
gratuitous
Posts: 19 Forumite
Brief summary: driver drove mistakenly along private bus lane/taxi drop-off - not once stopping. RK appealed to POPLA based on no parking took place - only one photo - cannot be any evidence as no parking took place. Bit disappointed. Any advice on next steps very much appreciated. Any recourse to POPLA ? A recent identical appeal was upheld on one single point - no proof of parking - so decisions seem to be inconsistent.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as the Appellant carried out unauthorised use of bus and taxi drop off/pick up. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that ??? did not park as the driver did not leave the vehicle. The Appellant submits that there can be no evidence that the parking took place, as they did not park. The Appellant also contends that the evidence the Operator provided, namely a photograph is not sufficient, and that the photograph in any event did not specify the date and the time it was taken. It is submitted that the driver of the vehicle did not need to use this route, as they had access to the actual car park of the College.
The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question. At the top of the photograph in yellow font it states the time as ???? and the date as ????This photograph was attached on the original letter sent to the Appellant. Whilst I understand that as the image is reduced in size on the letter sent to the Appellant, and may be difficult to read, I have to make my decision on the evidence provided before me. I can see the date and the time on the image provided by the Operator, therefore I find in favour of the Operator on this issue.
Whilst I understand that you state the vehicle had no reason to travel via this route, the photographic evidence of the vehicle provided by the Operator shows otherwise. The image was from a camera which uses ANPR, and therefore demonstrates that the vehicle was in fact using this road without authorisation on the date and time in question. Therefore, as the Appellant has shown no evidence to disprove they were not at this location, I must find in favour of the Operator who has demonstrated photographic evidence.
I must find that, by using the bus and taxi/drop off pick up the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.
Accordingly, I refuse the appeal.
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as the Appellant carried out unauthorised use of bus and taxi drop off/pick up. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that ??? did not park as the driver did not leave the vehicle. The Appellant submits that there can be no evidence that the parking took place, as they did not park. The Appellant also contends that the evidence the Operator provided, namely a photograph is not sufficient, and that the photograph in any event did not specify the date and the time it was taken. It is submitted that the driver of the vehicle did not need to use this route, as they had access to the actual car park of the College.
The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question. At the top of the photograph in yellow font it states the time as ???? and the date as ????This photograph was attached on the original letter sent to the Appellant. Whilst I understand that as the image is reduced in size on the letter sent to the Appellant, and may be difficult to read, I have to make my decision on the evidence provided before me. I can see the date and the time on the image provided by the Operator, therefore I find in favour of the Operator on this issue.
Whilst I understand that you state the vehicle had no reason to travel via this route, the photographic evidence of the vehicle provided by the Operator shows otherwise. The image was from a camera which uses ANPR, and therefore demonstrates that the vehicle was in fact using this road without authorisation on the date and time in question. Therefore, as the Appellant has shown no evidence to disprove they were not at this location, I must find in favour of the Operator who has demonstrated photographic evidence.
I must find that, by using the bus and taxi/drop off pick up the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.
Accordingly, I refuse the appeal.
0
Comments
-
What was the 'contravention' originally listed on the ticket?
'Parking' or 'Unauthorised Use' as stated in that POPLA assessment?Je Suis Cecil.0 -
Unauthorized use ...0
-
In that case I'm struggling to understand why the appeal was 'not parked' when that wasn't what the charge was for.
Were there any other appeal points made?
Who was the PPC, we can advise on likelihood of them trying court action.Je Suis Cecil.0 -
Make a direct complaint to popla that they adjudicating on an alleged moving traffic violation which is not a parking event and have acted outside of remit.I do Contracts, all day every day.0
-
Marktheshark wrote: »Make a direct complaint to popla that they adjudicating on an alleged moving traffic violation which is not a parking event and have acted outside of remit.
^^^^ This ^^^^^
What competence does PoPLA have to adjudicate on something that is not parking? Since the vehicle was never parked there cannot be a parking charge and PoPLA has no choice but to uphold the appeal.
As well as complaining directly to PoPLA also complain to the PoPLA Independent Scrutiny Board.Je suis Charlie.0 -
This is what I have struggled with ... are they even meant to be considering a non-parking issue ? This is why the appeal only covered this issue - the car did not park. Had I known they could adjudicate on non-parking issues the appeal might have been different. I'm really confused, but will definitely throw it back at POPLA - any clues as to how receptive they will be ?0
-
I take it from your other thread the PPC is Minster Baywatch at York College?0
-
Indeed - it is
Appeal points were - actual driver not established by PPC & parking did not take place0 -
So why didn't POPLA address that first point? If they haven't then add that to your complaint about them assessing a moving vehicle offence.Je Suis Cecil.0
-
gratuitous wrote: »Indeed - it is
Appeal points were - actual driver not established by PPC & parking did not take place
Did you spell out the significance of the driver not being established i.e. that because no parking took place POFA 2012 Schedule 4 does not apply and there is no keeper liability?
This seems to be a very sloppy adjudication by PoPLA.Je suis Charlie.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards