Help with Popla appeal

TattieHead

UPDATE




POPLA assessment and decision
02/03/2018



Verification Code
**********


Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
L**** M*******

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the charge for the contravention !!!8220;Abused Patron Parking!!!8221;.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant!!!8217;s case is as follows: !!!8226; The appellant questions the witness evidence on which it bases its allegation: !!!8226; He states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) placed on the windscreen is invalid: !!!8226; He states that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the statutory wording: contained within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: !!!8226; He states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been liable for the charge: !!!8226; The appellant states that there is a lack of standing authority for the landowner: !!!8226; He states that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces: !!!8226; He states that there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has included a 12 page document expanding on the above grounds for appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, !!!8220;2 Hour Max Stay. You must remain on site at all times your vehicle remains in this car park!!!8221;. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The PCN has been issued for !!!8220;Abused Patron Parking!!!8221;. In this case I would take this to mean that the driver has left the site and as such, has breached the terms and conditions. This being so, I would have expected the operator to provide me with proof that the driver did indeed leave the site. On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided a screenshot taken by the operative on site that states, !!!8220;2 females left the site going towards the shopping centre!!!8221;. This does not states that the females seen exiting the vehicle or were in anyway related to the vehicle in question, only that two random females were seen going towards the shopping centre. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant!!!8217;s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant!!!8217;s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.






Thanks to everyone for their help, especially Coupon-mad, who obviously has and does put a lot of time and effort into helping others fight these unscrupulous companies and their trumped up charges.

beamerguy

Good to see that POPLA has at least one assessor who can
get things right.

Leaving the site indeed, where are Care Parking
getting this rubbish from ???? UKPC maybe

It's only a thought guys but could "upskirt Pat" be back ???

Coupon-mad

Love it! An unusual one that's not a template:

The PCN has been issued for 'Abused Patron Parking'.

In this case I would take this to mean that the driver has left the site and as such, has breached the terms and conditions. This being so, I would have expected the operator to provide me with proof that the driver did indeed leave the site.

On reviewing the evidence, I can see that it has provided a screenshot taken by the operative on site that states, '2 females left the site going towards the shopping centre'.

This does not state that the females were seen exiting the vehicle or were in anyway related to the vehicle in question, only that two random females were seen going towards the shopping centre.

...and even if it did say they got out of that vehicle, it's still no evidence of what the DRIVER did!



Can you post a summary and a link to this thread, in POPLA Decisions at the top of the forum?

TattieHead

Hi Coupon-mad,


I have posted summary on the POPLA Decisions board but unfortunately as I am a new user, I am not allowed to post links.


Regards,


TattieHead.