NTK from Parking CSL - POPLA Appeal won

tellytart

I've had an email back from POPLA stating the PDF has been attached to my case, but in the POPLA portal it's still showing as I can enter my comments.

Reading elsewhere I've seen it's been noted that POPLA have sometimes been "forgetting" to view the rebuttal PDF's, so is it worth filling in the comments part of the portal with wording along the lines of:

"See the PDF with the registered keeper's rebuttal of operator's evidence, e-mailed to POPLA on 2nd March 2016, and confirmed as added to the appeal by <name of POPLA employee> by email at <time of email> on 3rd March 2016."

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yes I would do exactly that, good research. I think the Parking Prankster recommended that approach a while back and it is a good idea.

tellytart

Just an update - had my appeal upheld. The basic grounds were that the signs stated one penalty, and they tried to charge the driver a different penalty. Thanks for all your help with this.

I'll post the full think in the results thread, but here's the text of the adjudication.

The appellant is appealing on the following grounds 1: The notice to keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability 2: The vehicle was parked with permission of the owner of the parking space and no method of identifying legitimately parked visitor vehicles has been provided to the resident. 3: The charge of £120 is in excess of the maximum charge outlines in the BPA CoP 4: No genuine pre-estimate of loss 5: No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers 6: No contract formed to pay £120 due to unclear sporadic signage where the parking charge is not prominent. The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the driver parked without displaying a valid permit. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of a sign that is situated within the car park, furthermore the sign clearly state the terms and conditions set out by the operator. This includes the result of breaking the terms which will result in a PCN of £100. The operator has sent the appellant a PCN for £120 which is more than what the signage stipulates. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states under 19.5 that if the charge is to be more than £100 in the first instance (before debt collection) then it must be “justified in advance”. In addition, under 19.3 it states the charges must be shown clearly and fully to drivers on the signage as part of its terms and conditions. Based on the evidence provided we are not satisfied that the higher charge of £120 was shown and justified on the terms and conditions signage. As such, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

The_Deep

Well done, the words "hoist" and "petard" spring to mind.

Coupon-mad

The operator has sent the appellant a PCN for £120 which is more than what the signage stipulates.

I despair about the English being taught in schools - and I work in one!

Please post this decision in the sticky thread 'POPLA Decisions' and put a link to this thread and state with PPC it relates to. Nice result!

tellytart

Thanks C-M. I had already added it to the sticky, but forgot to add a link to this thread and name the parking company - now edited. (I also changed the title of this thread to indicate a POPLA win!)