Care Parking - Metrolink

perseat

POPLA have responded:
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Alexandra Wilcock
Assessor summary of operator case:
The appellant parked his vehicle causing an obstruction.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states there were no keeper liability, as the operator did not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has raised landowner authority. The appellant states no byelaws were breached. The appellant states he was not able to see the signage on site as it was dark. The appellant has raised signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state “A Parking Charge will be issued when: obstructive parking, including parking outside of a marked parking bay or any unauthorised use of a parking space”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant parking his vehicle causing an obstruction. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site in daylight. The evidence provided illustrates that the appellant failed to park outside of the markings of a bay/space. The appellant caused an obstruction as he parked on the end of the bay, on a roadway. The appellant states there were no keeper liability, as the operator did not meet the requirements of the PoFA 2012. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see in the appellant’s appeal to the operator on the 15 February 2017 he stated “My reason for appeals that when I parked up, there was a car parked in front of mine, I have looked at the photos provided and this car is not in them. Because there was a person in front of me at the time of parking on the end of the row, I was not aware that it was not a parking space and assumed it was a valid place to park my car”. Operator’s only use PoFA 2012 when it is attempting to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As the appellant named himself as the driver, the operator does not need to transfer liability therefore, they do not need to comply with PoFA 2012. The appellant has raised landowner authority. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a landowner authorisation contract which confirms that it has the appropriate landowner authorisation to manage the site and issue PCN’s to motorists who do not comply with the terms and conditions. The appellant states no byelaws were breached. I note the appellant’s comments however, this point is irrelevant as the site is not governed by byelaws. The PCN was issued under terms and conditions. The appellant states he was not able to see the signage on site as it was dark. I note the appellant’s comments however, the appellant himself as provided photographic evidence of the signage on the site, in the dark. From the evidence provided I can see at least five signs on the site. Furthermore, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in the dark which shows the signage is still visible. The appellant has raised signage. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the appellant’s and the operators evidence that there is adequate signage located around the site which clearly informs motorists of the terms and conditions. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must park wholly within the markings of a bay/space. As the appellant remained on site without parking in a bay/space, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.

perseat

I've just received a debt recovery letter from Debt Recovery Plus.
Considering the state of my original appeal and the POPLA response, what should I do?

Umkomaas

perseat wrote: »

I've just received a debt recovery letter from Debt Recovery Plus.
Considering the state of my original appeal and the POPLA response, what should I do?

Ignore them - they are powerless. Only respond to a Letter Before Action/Claim from the PPC, or real court papers. Come back if you get either.

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4, covers how to deal with debt collectors.

Coupon-mad

perseat wrote: »

I've just received a debt recovery letter from Debt Recovery Plus.
Considering the state of my original appeal and the POPLA response, what should I do?

To be expected, we've ignored these letters for a decade and don't need updates about DRplus aka 'Zenith' threatograms (please spare us, we've seen 'em far too many times). Easy to Google!

Come back if the PPC try a small claim. Defendable, and highly unlikely, not a big deal if so.

perseat

Alright thank you both, I've had a look around and they do seem to be meaningless, even reducing the "fine" over time.

One thing I am concerned about is how it can effect credit score?
Some places are saying they can, others saying they can't.

This has been linked a few times and is known to be reliable:
http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/debt-recovery-plus-ltd/

Am I correct?

Coupon-mad

Please can we stop discussing this tedious and 'done to death' subject:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

They can't litigate and they can't affect your credit rating. Please no updates on these letters.

perseat

Alright, thank you, and sorry for not re-reading the newbies thread for this point.
I'll update if anything more comes of it.