Harpenden rail station

BT68

OK, so Indigo sent their evidence to POPLA - didn't bother to send to me. I got a copy of it from the nice POPLA people today. I rebutted with

Please see full text of my appeal.
Also,

1. Indigo have only provided a letter from GTR re Landowner Authority, which references an agreement which has not been provided. There is no evidence that GTR is the landowner. I assert that Network Rail is the landowner and, as such, I assert again that Landowner Authority has not been established. I put Indigo to strict proof of otherwise.

2. I appealed as the keeper. However, no Notice To Keeper has ever been received, and it has not been provided in Indigo's evidence pack.

3. I confirm again that a valid e-ticket covered the period in question:

Receipt details:
06 May 2015 £868.44 <my mob num> 20.00%
1 year Parking Ticket
Harpenden, Station Road
From: 07/05/15 06:45 AM
To: 06/05/16 11:59 PM
Vehicle: <my reg>
Reference: <my ref>

The e-ticket checking system seems fallible. I put Indigo to strict proof otherwise.

Regards

POPLA responded within hours with an email to say check the portal - result: Appeal Successful!

Full blurb:

Operator Information and Evidence
Submitted 16/06/2016
The operator will send the evidence independently

Verification Code 3911196227

Operator Name Indigo Solutions
Operator Case Summary
Please see attached evidence pack & copy of land owners consent letter

POPLA assessment and decision
20/06/2016
Verification Code 3911196227

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without clearly displaying a valid ticket.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to establish keeper liability. The appellant does not believe that the operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant does not feel that the amount of the PCN is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant feels that the signage displayed on site is insufficient.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage erected at the site provided to me by the operator, stating that “This car park is subject to railway byelaws”, I consider that the land upon which the appellant parked on this occasion is subject to railway Byelaws, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws. In this case, I have not been provided with a copy of the PCN that would have informed the appellant of what law or regulation they were being pursued under, and also define the standards that I would need to assess the appeal against. Given that the signage in the car park indicates that motorists will be pursued for a Penalty Notice under Byelaws for parking contraventions, that the appellant has stated that he has been issued with a “penalty notice” and given that the response made by the operator to this initial appeal also identifies the charge as a “Penalty Charge Notice”, I am only able to assume that the charge was issued under Byelaws. This is on the basis that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice indicates, under section 14.2 “Misrepresentation of Authority”, that you must not use terms that imply parking is managed, controlled or enforced under statutory authority, such as ‘fine’ or ‘penalty’. Whilst this is not condoned for parking charges issued for non-compliance with the contract, as set out on the signage in the car park, under the BPA Code of Practice, charges issued for contravention of Byelaws are technically penalties and so this restriction does not apply. From the photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in the car park, showing that a yellow wallet had been affixed to the windscreen of the car, and on the basis that the operator has not provided me with any information relating to who the registered keeper of the vehicle is, I must assume that the appellant had been issued with a notice to driver, and that no notice to keeper had been produced at any stage of this alleged parking event. Accordingly, on the basis of the appellant’s statements regarding the event, and the lack of any information about who the keeper of the vehicle is, or a copy of any notice sent to the keeper of the vehicle, I must assume that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle. The railway byelaws state, under 14 (4), that: “In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” Under the Byelaws the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay any outstanding penalty for contravention of the Byelaws. From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I am unable to determine that it has identified the appellant in this case as the owner of the vehicle. Whilst I am willing to consider that a keeper may be held as the owner in the absence of any evidence disproving this fact, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the individual who it is pursuing for the penalty is in fact liable for the penalty. As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with the relevant Byelaws in place on the land, and showing that the appellant is liable for the penalty issued, I must allow this appeal. I appreciate that the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Ace - 3-0. Hopefully helps other railway parking victims.
:beer:

dazster

Anyone who understands that mish-mash is a better man than me. Still, good result.

Coupon-mad

Well done again!

POPLA's 'rational'(e) is soooo irrational though! I've split it into paragraphs as we know POPLA decisions are always a wall of text like this and it's better that we can easily read the slightly daft reasoning in all its glory:



Assessor supporting rational for decision

Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage erected at the site provided to me by the operator, stating that “This car park is subject to railway byelaws”, I consider that the land upon which the appellant parked on this occasion is subject to railway Byelaws, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws.

In this case, I have not been provided with a copy of the PCN that would have informed the appellant of what law or regulation they were being pursued under, and also define the standards that I would need to assess the appeal against.

Given that the signage in the car park indicates that motorists will be pursued for a Penalty Notice under Byelaws for parking contraventions, that the appellant has stated that he has been issued with a “penalty notice” and given that the response made by the operator to this initial appeal also identifies the charge as a “Penalty Charge Notice”, I am only able to assume that the charge was issued under Byelaws. This is on the basis that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice indicates, under section 14.2 “Misrepresentation of Authority”, that you must not use terms that imply parking is managed, controlled or enforced under statutory authority, such as ‘fine’ or ‘penalty’. Whilst this is not condoned for parking charges issued for non-compliance with the contract, as set out on the signage in the car park, under the BPA Code of Practice, charges issued for contravention of Byelaws are technically penalties and so this restriction does not apply.

From the photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in the car park, showing that a yellow wallet had been affixed to the windscreen of the car, and on the basis that the operator has not provided me with any information relating to who the registered keeper of the vehicle is, I must assume that the appellant had been issued with a notice to driver, and that no notice to keeper had been produced at any stage of this alleged parking event.

Accordingly, on the basis of the appellant’s statements regarding the event, and the lack of any information about who the keeper of the vehicle is, or a copy of any notice sent to the keeper of the vehicle, I must assume that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle.

The railway byelaws state, under 14 (4), that: “In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.”

Under the Byelaws the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay any outstanding penalty for contravention of the Byelaws. From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I am unable to determine that it has identified the appellant in this case as the owner of the vehicle.

Whilst I am willing to consider that a keeper may be held as the owner in the absence of any evidence disproving this fact, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the individual who it is pursuing for the penalty is in fact liable for the penalty.

As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with the relevant Byelaws in place on the land, and showing that the appellant is liable for the penalty issued, I must allow this appeal. I appreciate that the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

:eek:


So she's willing to assume that the site falls under byelaws because a sign says it does, and is willing to assume that a keeper might be 'held' to be the owner (despite no evidence and that this is certainly not always the case!) and is willing to assume that the operator can pursue a keeper as if they were the driver (!!!!!! - evidence?!).

But she isn't willing to take the appellant's word for it when they say ''I appealed as the keeper'' that they are not appealing as driver! She reckons the operator is pursuing the driver despite that person not being identified...so you won because the byelaws say the owner is liable and there's no evidence who that person is.

Yet POPLA has made decisions where appellants have LOST, when the operator wants to hold the driver liable yet there's no evidence of who the driver was. Yet POPLA haven't been bothered about that and think the issue of a NTD means the driver must have appealed it.

Daft. POPLA's 'rational' makes no sense and they can't spell.

And all pointless because POPLA can't impose payment of a penalty under byelaws at all, on anyone!

Still, a win is a win! We could win these railway ones just by saying 'Indigo has not evidenced the identity of the owner'.

BT68

They are taking the mick now. 2 days after the last successful appeal, the vehicle, of which I am the RK, of course, had another penalty notice slapped on it! And STILL despite having a valid e-permit on cashlessconnect whatever-it-is. In Whitesnake's immortal words - Here I go again (thankfully not on my own!!!) cheers

BT68

Last PPC appeal rejected. Will rehash last successful POPLA appeal.

Also, just received a letter re stayed March 2015 appeal at Harp Railway station. Apparently WH have declared a conflict of interest and so Ombudsman Svcs (ie current POPLA folk) will assess it now. PPC gets 21 days then I'll get 14 to respond. Fun and games.

Umkomaas

Apparently WH have declared a conflict of interest

I wonder what exactly is their conflicting interest? Any further info on that @BT68?

billy_taylor

No, sorry, there was no more detail in the letter.
Maybe they act/acted for APCOA?

Coupon-mad

And we were assured by the BPA that WH 'acting as if they were POPLA' involved NO conflict of interest. Hmmm...

Castle

BT68 wrote: »

Also, just received a letter re stayed March 2015 appeal at Harp Railway station. Apparently WH have declared a conflict of interest and so Ombudsman Svcs (ie current POPLA folk) will assess it now. PPC gets 21 days then I'll get 14 to respond. Fun and games.

Given that Byelaws are subject to a 6 months time limit this will be fun!

Coupon-mad

Castle wrote: »

Given that Byelaws are subject to a 6 months time limit this will be fun!

True. BT68 must look at the evidence to check if the PPC are arguing 'bylaws penalty' (or if it is in any way ambiguously suggested that it might be a bylaws penalty) then quote the fact and section from the Magistrates' Courts Act to evidence that the 6 months to lay the case before Mag's court has long gone and anyway, only an individual identified as the OWNER can be liable (thankyou POPLA, re Indigo decisions!).

This will indeed be fun.