Abbeywood Retail Park Success

CAPPELLA_2

[FONT=&quot]I received this successful POPLA appeal in April 2017[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The red lettering is mine.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Operator Information and Evidence [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Submitted XXXXXXX [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Verification Code[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Operator Name[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Horizon Parking Ltd[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Operator Case Summary[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA assessment and decision [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XX/04/2017 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Verification Code[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Decision[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Successful [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assessor Name[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of operator case[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the driver exceeded the maximum time allowed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of your case[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The appellant’s case is that the operator have not shown that they were the driver and therefore liable for the charge. The appellant says that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant says that the charge is disproportionate and punitive. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assessor supporting rational for decision[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “Abbeywood Retail park: Maximum stay 4 hours: A Parking Charge Notice of £70 will be issued in the following circumstances: Parking over 4 hours.” The operator’s case is that the PCN was issued because the driver exceeded the maximum time allowed. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), the appellant’s vehicle registration WR14 YUH was captured entering the site at 13:08, exiting at 17:32. The total period of stay was four hours and 23 minutes. The appellant’s case is that the operator have not shown that they were the driver and therefore liable for the charge. PCN’s issued are done so out of a driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract, by parking the vehicle on relevant land. Parking operators are able to transfer this liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if it has not been able to identify the driver. If a parking operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. After reviewing the evidence provided by the appellant and operator, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. The PCN that was issued was sent via post to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The registered keeper has then responded with an appeal. The operator has then sent the notice of rejection to the registered keeper of the vehicle; therefore it would appear that the operator is holding the registered keeper liable. The PCN sent does not appear to have been issued under PoFA 2012 as it only mentions recovering the charge from the driver, and not the keeper. Therefore, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hope this helps somebody.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The_Slithy_Tove

Yup. If there is any doubt about POFA compliance and the driver has not been identified or even hinted at, then any POPLA appeal must detail exactly which parts of the POFA requirements have not been met.