Popla Appeal Lost

jon_1827

I've just lost my appeal with Popla and am not sure what to do next.

I'm a bit confused by the ruling as their assessment has pretty much ignored all of the evidence that I originally submitted and all of my responses to the operator's evidence. They have also dismissed the breaches of the BPA code regarding signage as being irrelevant. But it appears I have no way to question let alone challenge the decision.

My main issue at present is that I challenged whether the operator had the right to issue tickets on the land, this was dismissed by Popla due to a witness statement from the land owner saying they did. Except the witness statement is wrong, it is from the company that manages the land who have now confirmed to me in an email that they do not own the land. So the decision was based on false information.

Is there anything I can do with this now, rather than waiting for a court case?

freester

This is no help at all but my appeal got rejected today. In very much similar circumstances. In fact the signage, and witness statements, and consideration of the response to the operator Case File, sound almost identical to my situation.

I am sure the experts on here will be a long in a minute to suggest a complaint to [EMAIL="complaints@popla.co.uk"]complaints@popla.co.uk[/EMAIL] addressing it to the Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher is worth a try. Where possible find similar cases to your own where appeals have won and pointing out POPLA's apparent inconsistency in it's current decisions.

Coupon-mad

Yes your recourse is to complain to POPLA (not mentioning re-appeal, just complain specifically about errors made by the Assessor), address it to Mr Gallagher. He won't reply but an other staff member will say get lost, the decision is final.

Then you can contact ISPA. This is already covered on the other 'lost POPLA' threads you can find by searching the forum for keywords like 'lost POPLA appeal' or 'complain to ISPA'. Those searches will find threads already going through this and will show you their email address.

More important is who the PPC is because ParkingEye will sue unless you can get the thing cancelled by the landowner - but not many others will. It's not a reason to pay up in a hurry, or at all. Whoever it is, try sgain to get it cancelled by complaints to the landowner/retailers which has great success in most cases where retailers are on site and the driver was a customer.

Half_way

A few things to consider...
First of all, name of the parking company, location of car park, type of car park ( residential/pay and display, free fo X amount of time) Place served by the car park ( retail site/pub/residential etc) and why you got a ticket in the first place.
Next post your appeal in full hat you sent to both the PPC and POPLA, as well as the POPLA rejection in full including ay assessors names

Freester, if you haven't already start a new thread.

Once all the information is provided then you may get some advice that will be useful.
meanwhile read this ( old) article in the guardian, in particular the last bullet point http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/apr/18/how-challenge-parking-ticket

freester

Half_way wrote: »

Freester, if you haven't already start a new thread.

This is my thread I only commented as the outcome had an awful lot of similarities to mine.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5443722

jon_1827

The ticket was issued by Premier Park. It was my car, parked in my parking space at the apartment block I rent a flat in. They claim my parking permit was not fully on display. I let my emotions get the better of me, almost missed the Popla appeal deadline and thought I would easily win. Hence why I have done this on my own so far and may not have filed the best appeals.

My original appeal to Premier Park;

I'm somewhat confused as to why this ticket has been issued and see no reason nor obligation for me to pay.

1. The parking space is legally mine to park in and I own the car parked in it.
2. The permit was on display and the relevant information regarding my right to park in the space was clearly visible.
3. The permit has been on display in the same place for many months and it has not been an issue before.

My appeal to Popla;

The ticket was issued for the reason "permit not on full display". Whilst this is stated on the notices within the car park it does not clarify what is meant by "full display". My permit was clearly on display and all relevant information was visible, which I believe meets the "full display" requirement.

As the ticket was not issued for the reason "no valid permit on display" I can only assume that Premier Park accept the permit was valid and are merely trying to make use of a technicality. I believe their failure to claim that a valid permit was not on display renders the ticket itself invalid.

The permit had been on display in the same position in my car for at least 6 months. As no tickets had previously been issued I can only view this as acceptance by Premier Park that the permit was displayed adequately. Which I believe means they have waived any right to issue a ticket due to it being in the position it was.

The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code Of Practice states in clause 18.2 that entrance signs must be present and in a prescribed format. There are no signs at the entrance to the car park.

The signage within the car park also makes references to "you being fined" for non compliance with the terms.

I am the legal occupier of the parking space and it was my car that was parked in it, the same car that has been parked in the space most nights for nearly a year. I have not given permission for parking tickets to be issued by Premier Park or any other party and neither do any documents in my possession suggest this permission has been given. As a result I believe Premier Park have no legal right to issue the ticket and would request they prove their legal right to do so.

My response to Premier Park's evidence;

With Respect To Section (B) Case Summary

- "We enclose copies of the signage at this site". The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code Of Practice (BPA AOS) clause 18.2 states that there must be signage at the entrance to the car park in the prescribed format. There is no such signage at the entrance, hence they have not provided any photographs of the entrance to the site.
- "The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage". Neither have I acknowledged seeing valid signage. The BPA AOS clause 18.3 states that there must be "Specific parking-terms signage" showing "detailed terms and conditions" and that these signs "must be at least 450mm x 450mm". I have measured the majority of signs on the site (including all of those in the photographic evidence) and none of them meet these minimum measurements, with all of them being at least 3mm short in both directions. Whilst this is a small discrepancy, clause 18.3 uses the word "must" so the signs are clearly not valid. I have taken pictures of the signs with a ruler showing the measurements but have been unable to attach them to this response, I can supply these pictures if required.
- "The signage states that all vehicles must park with a valid permit or ticket fully on display in the windscreen area". Other signage on the site states "ensure that you display your permit at all times" and "ensure that you are displaying your permit", whilst the permits themselves state "display this permit in a prominent position on the windscreen". The differing requirements for displaying the permit are confusing and contradictory, if the intent was a specific prescribed position this should be clearly stated with graphic examples of valid and invalid placement. As such I feel they have no grounds to claim the permit was not correctly displayed and in any case I believe all relevant information was visible.
- "As can be seen from our photographic evidence….". The angle at which the photos were taken means that additional information that was visible could not be seen as it was hidden behind the black surround area.

With Respect To Section (E) Original Representations And Rejection

- BPA AOS clause 22.4 states that "If a driver or keeper appeals a parking charge you must review the case and decide whether to…..uphold the parking charge and explain why it was issued and should therefore be paid….". Their response to my appeal contains no such explanation and fails to answer any of the points upon which my original appeal was made.

With Respect To Section (F) Images, Plans, Etc.

- The photographs of the site signage were taken on the 12th January 2016, some 6 weeks before the ticket was issued. As a result I feel they are irrelevant as evidence as they cannot be taken as representative of the signage at the time the ticket was issued.

With Respect To Other Evidence

- I am confused by the claim that the landowner/owner of the site is XXX XXX Ltd. I have checked with the Land Registry and this states that XXXXXXXX Limited is the legal owner of the site and has been since 2009. I have a copy of the relevant Land Registry document but am unable to attach it to this response, I can provide a copy if required. I have a tenancy agreement for the apartment and parking space which makes me the legal occupier of the parking space, a copy of this agreement can be provided if required. As such I am at a loss to explain/understand the claim made by XXX XXX Ltd that they are the landowner/owner of the site and as far as I am aware they are simply responsible for the maintenance/management of the site.
- BPA AOS 22.16b states that the Witness Statement should be "signed by a representative of the landowner or their agent". Given the above, it appears this is not the case.
- Reference is made to an agreement dated xx xx xxxx and the witness statement is dated xx xx xxxx. These dates are both before the ticket was issued and no claim or statement is made to the effect that either were still valid on the date the ticket was issued.
- Given the above, I feel no proof has been given that Premier Park Ltd have any right to undertake parking management, issue parking charge notices, or take recovery action to recover unpaid parking charges with regard to the parking space in question.
The sample permit that has been provided is of a different design to the current permits in use and appears to be from 2012. As such it is entirely irrelevant to this parking ticket and especially with regard to their point referencing the photographic evidence.

Popla rejection;

Assessor Name
Ashlea Forshaw
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant was parked without the permit being fully on display.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he was clearly displaying a permit in his vehicle. The appellant says that the entrance to the car park does not display any signage and has therefore, failed to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and has also questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx , parked at the site in question on xx xx xxxx. The operator advises that the appellant did not fully display a permit in the vehicle. The appellant advises that he was clearly displaying a permit in his vehicle. Signage in use at the site clearly states “Vehicles parking with a valid permit, ticket or written authority fully on display in the windscreen area. No exceptions. Park in a marked bay only where present”. Having reviewed the photographs of the vehicle parked, I am satisfied that a permit is not fully displayed. Only part of the permit is viewable and so, it is not clear whether this permit is valid for this site. When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to read the signs and ensure that the terms and conditions have been met before exiting, and leaving the vehicle unattended. The appellant has stated that the car park does not display entrance signs. Within Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver must be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, it states “A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: where there is no clearly defined car park entrance; when the car park is very small; at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations; at parking areas where general parking is not permitted”. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site, I am satisfied that the appellant as the driver was afforded this opportunity. The appellant has also questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence of a witness statement which confirms that authority has been given from the landowner for it to operate on the land. Having reviewed the witness statement, I am satisfied that the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice have been met. Whilst I appreciate the grounds raised by the appellant, it is clear that a permit was not fully on display in the vehicle and so, the appellant breached the terms and conditions in place. Therefore, I can only conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.

Half_way

Ok, based on the above, What does your lease/freehold etc say about parking and more importantly the need to display a permit?

jon_1827

My tenancy agreement references the parking space but no conditions are stated.

I don't have a copy of the leasehold document to check.

Ralph-y

no use for now .... but can you post up a pic of the sigm?

you will need to host on photobucket / tinny pic

then change the link from http to hxxp

good luck

Ralph:cool:

jon_1827

Will do but I checked it and everything appears in order.

Except none of them are the required 450mm x 450mm, but it appears that isn't important?

Coupon-mad

Have you seen thorfan's thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5418086

Did you actually get the same evidence pack as POPLA?

Pretty sure PP do not do court. Check the BMPA entry about them on the BMPA website.