PE/Aldi Hidden clause.

Coupon-mad

You might want to quote this but I don't have the POPLA code or exact date (no-one has it):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68606590#Comment_68606590

A ParkingEye case was won on the 'genuine customer exemption' clause ''discretionary criteria'' not mentioned in signage nor rebutted by the operator:

''The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that there is a term in the contract or contracts under which the operator has the authority to operator on the site which requires them to exempt ‘genuine customers’ from charges and that the driver was such a genuine customer.

The operator rejected the representations, but has failed to deal with this submission.

As it is not clearly incredible, I therefore cannot find on the balance of probabilities that it is not accurate. As the status of the driver as a ‘genuine customer’ has also not been challenged by the operator, I cannot find that the appellant’s vehicle would not have fallen under this provision, should it exist. As I cannot find that the provision did not exist, and the burden of proof is on the operator, as the party asserting it is owed money, I cannot find that the charge notice was validly issued.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.''

Christopher Monk
Senior Assessor
POPLA (LondonCouncils in 2015)

The_Deep

What is the position when you park to collect your free prescription, or a bottle of Petrus '45 and they are out of stock?

bergkamp

The_Deep wrote: »

What is the position when you park to collect your free prescription, or a bottle of Petrus '45 and they are out of stock?

Then you will have no receipt....

This is about the hidden clause, that has a monetary value,is not on the signage and allows for a cancellation of the PCN at first appeal with a receipt produced.

bergkamp

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You might want to quote this but I don't have the POPLA code or exact date (no-one has it):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68606590#Comment_68606590

A ParkingEye case was won on the 'genuine customer exemption' clause ''discretionary criteria'' not mentioned in signage nor rebutted by the operator:

''The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that there is a term in the contract or contracts under which the operator has the authority to operator on the site which requires them to exempt ‘genuine customers’ from charges and that the driver was such a genuine customer.

The operator rejected the representations, but has failed to deal with this submission.

As it is not clearly incredible, I therefore cannot find on the balance of probabilities that it is not accurate. As the status of the driver as a ‘genuine customer’ has also not been challenged by the operator, I cannot find that the appellant’s vehicle would not have fallen under this provision, should it exist. As I cannot find that the provision did not exist, and the burden of proof is on the operator, as the party asserting it is owed money, I cannot find that the charge notice was validly issued.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.''

Christopher Monk
Senior Assessor
POPLA (LondonCouncils in 2015)

Is It worth including this with no reference number? There are mistakes in it and it could be made up. POPLA MK 1 as well. [ devils advocate ].


The PCN reference numbers I will include all stem from the same site, have all been cancelled at first appeal by PE, with a copy of the drivers receipt.

bergkamp

As I see it, there can be three possible outcomes from the POPLA appeal;

1- allowed. Trouble for PE on all Aldi sites and numerous others... (Decision unlikely.)

2 - dismissed. Fudge from adjudicator in PEs favour . (Probable? but then complaint made to BPA/DVLA as ISPA defunct...)
3. PE offer no evidence, appeal upheld. ( Maybe. But then claim put in for misuse of personal data...)
Only my opinion, but It's Saturday night, a few beers down and feeling like PE could get a kicking!:beer:

Coupon-mad

I would put it in because I subscribe to the view that the longer & more detailed (and relevant) a POPLA appeal is, the more likely it is that the parking firm will give up ''no contest''. And Christopher Monk was the Senior Assessor, whether new POPLA know that or not.

And it does no harm, you don't lose brownie points at POPLA for information they don't agree with, except if people talk about 'disproportionate charge' which causes POPLA Assessors to suffer a brain fart and go into auto-reject mode quoting that pre-written !!!!!! about the Beavis case applying to all others.

bergkamp

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would put it in because I subscribe to the view that the longer & more detailed (and relevant) a POPLA appeal is, the more likely it is that the parking firm will give up ''no contest''. And Christopher Monk was the Senior Assessor, whether new POPLA know that or not.

And it does no harm, you don't lose brownie points at POPLA for information they don't agree with, except if people talk about 'disproportionate charge' which causes POPLA Assessors to suffer a brain fart and go into auto-reject mode quoting that pre-written !!!!!! about the Beavis case applying to all others.

Ok, fair points... I shall add it it to the appeal.:)

bergkamp

One point appeal has gone in to POPLA....


Any thoughts on the outcome?

bergkamp wrote: »

As I see it, there can be three possible outcomes from the POPLA appeal;

1- allowed. Trouble for PE on all Aldi sites and numerous others... (Decision unlikely.)

2 - dismissed. Fudge from adjudicator in PEs favour . (Probable? but then complaint made to BPA/DVLA as ISPA defunct...)

3. PE offer no evidence, appeal upheld. ( Maybe. But then claim put in for misuse of personal data...)

tykesi

My money is on #2

bergkamp

Case file received from PE for POPLA appeal.
I shall update, regarding the contents of the 56pg PDF, when I have digested it!