POPLA Appeal

TrekkerMike

If you breakdown in a car park and get a parking fine then don't bother appealing through POPLA. Below is their verdict on my case which basically states that I wasted my time appealing. Annoyingly during the time I submitted the appeal and getting the verdict my fine had increased from the "discounted" £40 to £70.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, “Do not park on this car park unless you agree to the Terms and Conditions of use in full” and “CUSTOMERS PARKING ONLY 90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY”. They continue, “By failing to comply with the above terms of use, you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £90”. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. By entering into the car park and remaining in this area, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions in place and agreeing to pay the PCN if they do not comply with them. The terms and conditions of the site restrict parking periods to one hour 30 minutes, by remaining at the site in excess of this, even due to her vehicle breaking down, the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the site. In addition, I understand the appellant’s vehicle has broken down and her departure was delayed, however, I am unable to consider mitigating circumstances when looking at appeals. As when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. In conclusion, from the evidence provided I can only determine that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions by exceeding the maximum time allowed at the site. Therefore, I determine that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Ralph-y

I do not know how much you understand re this 'cowboy industry' (Hansard)

these are some of the comments MP's made in a recent debate

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.


this is the debate


https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

POPLA now seem to be trying their very best to join the PPC's in outrageous decisions ........

there is plenty of precedent re break downs in a car park for POPLA to have sorted this ......

do you still have your POPLA appeal wording ?

who was the PPC?

the only good thing re this 'clap trap' is that most judges would not agree with the bad decision

so do not ignore any small claims letters ...

Ralph:cool:

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas

The_Deep

You would probably win an appeal for a local authority ticket, read MC22

http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/car_parks_and_parking/penalty_charges/how_to_appeal_against_a_pcn/mitigating_circumstances.aspx

A judge recently found for a motorist in a similar case, the PPC are trying to scam you.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/vcs-spanked-in-court-as-motorist-and.html