Popla decision reversed

The_Deep

ManxRed wrote: »

Sounds like POPLA tipped off the PPC and allowed them to submit it afterwards. I wonder if they'd ever do that for a motorist?

Independent, my backside.

Tell POPLA to eff off.

Tell them ... of their lack of independence in handling this appeal fairly.

As such, you are abiding by the original adjudication WHICH IS BINDING ON THE PARKING COMPANY.

Send this to the Lead Adjudicator.

Manxred, do you have any evidence to support that load of old moody? I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but, quite frankly, I think that yours is pure unsupported speculation, have you never heard of Occam's Razor?

ManxRed

You're right.

The OP telling POPLA that no witness statement was in the evidence pack, followed quickly by the PPC submitting one a couple of days later is completely unrelated.

Ignore everything I say.

The_Deep

ManxRed wrote: »

You're right.

Ignore everything I say.

No, I shall not, as much of what you post is good stuff, but you have dropped the pass here I am afraid.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

No, I shall not, as much of what you post is good stuff, but you have dropped the pass here I am afraid.

I think that this is probably what happened.

23 July - I received the evidence pack

27th July - I responding point out no witness statement and also with photos of poor signage

30th July - they responded with a witness statement but ignoring my other points

ManxRed On 27th July, who did you inform that there was no witness statement? POPLA or the PPC?

OP To:appeals@popla.org.uk
CC:enquiries@popla.org.uk

So, POPLA informs PPC that they have failed to send motorist the witness statement, PPC finds out they sent it to neither motorist or POPLA and on 5th August presumably sends statement to both.

Statement in POPLA's hands prior to hearing and is overlooked.

In hindsight, if motorist hadn't contacted POPLA, he would have won, but how was he to know that the PPC had or hadn't sent witness statement to POPLA as well?

OP n

IanP2015

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I think that this is probably what happened.

23 July - I received the evidence pack

27th July - I responding point out no witness statement and also with photos of poor signage

30th July - they responded with a witness statement but ignoring my other points

ManxRed On 27th July, who did you inform that there was no witness statement? POPLA or the PPC?

OP To:appeals@popla.org.uk
CC:enquiries@popla.org.uk

So, POPLA informs PPC that they have failed to send motorist the witness statement, PPC finds out they sent it to neither motorist or POPLA and on 5th August presumably sends statement to both.

Statement in POPLA's hands prior to hearing and is overlooked.

In hindsight, if motorist hadn't contacted POPLA, he would have won, but how was he to know that the PPC had or hadn't sent witness statement to POPLA as well?

OP n

I would also add that the witness statement was dated (27th) after the initial evidence pack (23rd) so it's not like it wasn't included because it was forgotten.

Guys_Dad

If you want help picking it apart, put up a redacted version .

IanP2015

So I finally heard back from WH today and my appeal was rejected on the following grounds:

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.


Reasons for dismissing the Appeal

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has stated in their appeal that the Car Park Operator failed to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) in that all the relevant information was not present on the POFA has been provided on the Notice to Keeper and the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant under POFA. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the ANPR system was not synchronised or properly maintained. Upon reviewing the evidence provided, there is no evidence to suggest that the ANPR system was not correctly synchronised and maintained in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Car Park Operator failed to comply with POFA in that the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor. From the evidence provided it would appear that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with POFA and clearly identifies the Car Park Operator as the Creditor. Accordingly the Appeal is rejected.

DoaM

Another WHOPLA farce of a decision. On the last point alone it is clear they don't know what they're doing ... Highview PCNs have never been POFA compliant (AFAIK), and still aren't.

Where was the appellant's copy of all this evidence that WHOPLA say is sufficient? (Did you get copies of anything submitted by the PPC before WHOPLA made their ruling?)

Remember that this is still not binding on you - you DO NOT have to pay. (If the WHOPLA decision says you do then it is misleading and you should report this to BPA, and maybe also the SRA).

(WHOPLA is our acronym for the "POPLA" appeals adjudicated by Wright Hassall).

Umkomaas

Can you post up a redacted copy of the NtK sent to you by HV please, so we can fine toothcomb it?

Was this a Tesco car park?

fisherjim

Upon reviewing the evidence provided, there is no evidence to suggest that the ANPR system was not correctly synchronised and maintained

I can't get my head around this statement, surely they should have provided evidence that it was, they are not going to supply eveidence that it wasn't!