2 identical popla appeals, 1 successful, the other not

boffintosh

Hello advise needed please

I have had 2 identical popla appeals in the last 4/6 months, they are from 2 parking tickets but at the same land, with the same letters from the parking operator, with the same write up evidence send to popla,

The first one was successful as popla felt the operator did not comply with POFA,

The second one I have just received has been unsuccessful and the moderator said that they have complied with POFA even though both appeals have had the same template letters and evidence packs etc etc.

I also do not think popla have seen my comments relating to the operators evidence in the second appeal which I am emailing popla about to confirm that the moderator did see my comments for this to ensure a fair process of appeal,

Obviously I do not intend to pay the rejected appeal especially as the first one was successful, but I would appreciate advise on where I can go from here.

Thank you.

waamo

Which ppc? Some do court and some don't we may be able to give an indication if they do or not.

beamerguy

POPLA are dysfunctional

Second time the BPA has set up a dinosaur

The other being Wright Hassall solicitors ... WHOPLA, another disaster

The BPA "DRIVING DOWN STANDARDS"

Coupon-mad

It wasn't Highview and that new Assessor who doesn't get the POFA, was it? Again?

boffintosh

This was ukpc.

It’s just incredibly confusing and frustrating,

Do I stand a chance in the small claims court given the fact they are identical apart from the date of issue with identical correspondence?

And as ukpc submitted evidence to popla showing a picture of white parking bays that wasn’t actually the land where the fine happened and the fact we don’t have white line parking bays?

Should I ignore further letters and wait to see if I get a small claims court judgement?

Coupon-mad

UKPC NTKs are POFA compliant, assuming they did send you one.

And as ukpc submitted evidence to popla showing a picture of white parking bays that wasn’t actually the land where the fine happened and the fact we don’t have white line parking bays?

You can't have shown enough evidence to disprove that in your appeal. You can address that when defending the claim, at WS/evidence stage.

Should I ignore further letters and wait to see if I get a small claims court judgement?

Judgment? No 'e' in the middle...

You have misunderstood, of course you don't get a CCJ.

You will get a claim and can defend it - and likely win - like all the rest. Reply here when you get it, and read ahead (post #2 of the NEWBIES thread) for how to defend an SCS Law claim.

boffintosh

Well for reference this is the response from popla on the first and successful appeal.

Reviewing the evidence provided in relation to this case, I can see that the operator is pursuing **************** as the keeper of the vehicle. Considering the correspondence between the two parties involved, I am not satisfied the driver has been identified, and therefore must consider whether the operator has complied with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, in order to transfer liability for the charge from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper (the appellant). As the notice has been issued directly to the keeper, I will be considering Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, which states: to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid” Reviewing the notice, I am not satisfied that it complies with the above requirements, as it simply invites the driver to pay, and does not make any attempt to notify the keeper that they may become liable for the charge after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. The appellant as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge, and as such, I am unable to conclude that the appellant is liable for the charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I would not need to consider the other grounds raised as I have allowed this appeal.

boffintosh

So given that the second appeal had exactly the same correspondence etc i am just baffled why the second case’s moderator didn’t have this response also?

DoaM

Because they are different people and probably previously worked as Nail Technicians at different salons so have different outlooks on life?

Umkomaas

As the notice has been issued directly to the keeper, I will be considering Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4,

If the successful POPLA appeal was related to a windscreen parking ticket, why are they quoting para 9 of PoFA Schedule 4?

Can we see the equivalent element of the second unsuccessful appeal please?

boffintosh

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the parkingcharge should be made within 28days.POPLA is not involved with the payment of the charge and any questions about how much is payable or how to make payment should be directed to the operator.The assessor’s summary of theoperator’s case:The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.The assessor’s summary of the appellant’s case:The appellant has raised several grounds o appeal. These are:He says that the grace period is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.He says that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible.He says that there is no evidence of land owner authority.He says that there is no evidence of period parked and the Notice o Keeper is not compliant with the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.He say that he is a resident at a property with the private land.Reasons for the assessor’s determination:The operator has stated in its evidence pack that it considers the appellant is the keeper. However, having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider the appellant has admitted to being the driver in his appeal. However, he is the registered keeper. I will there-fore be considering his
POPLAPO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL0330 159 6126info@popla.co.ukresponsibility as keeper of the vehicle.The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “...Terms of parking apply at all times...Failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 parking charge...All vehicles must be parked only within a marked bay....”.The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the time of the parking event.In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice.The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed these as follows.He states that the grace period is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.I note the appellant raises grace periods as a ground for appeal and quotes the BPA Code of Practice. However, the grace period is allowed so that the driver can examine the terms and conditions and choose whether they wish to remain or not.The appellant has only quoted the Code of Practice and has not indicated what he was doing during the time the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay. I would also point out that a grace period is not given as a specified length of time. In this instance, the appellant had parked in close proximity to the signage, but still opted to leave the vehicle contravening those terms. By doing so, the appellant was deemed to have accepted the terms of parking, and the reasonable grace period that was provided before the charge was issued. Additionally, as a resident of the site, it is reasonable to assume that he would have been fully aware of the terms of parking.He states that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible.The British Parking Association’s Code Of Practice states in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”The operator has provided several images of the car park signs and I consider these signs are “conspicuous” and are “easy to see, read and understand”.
POPLAPO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL0330 159 6126info@popla.co.ukHe states that there is no evidence of land owner authority.Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parkingcharges”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.He states that there is no evidence of period parked and the Notice o Keeper is not compliant POFA.In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider POFA, as the operator issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of POFA and I am satisfied that it is compliant. There is no requirement for a parking operator to show the length of tome that a vehicle was parked. In this instance, at the time that the parking attendant viewed the appellants vehicle, it was parked outside of the marked bays and as such, in breach of the terms of the car park.He states that he is a resident at a property with the private land.POPLA is an evidence based service and I can only base my decisions on the evidence provided. While I note the appellants comments, there is no evidence to suggest that residents are exempt for the parking restrictions in place on this car park. The signs confirm that theterms and conditions apply at all times. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to park within a marked bay, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.Accordingly, the appeal isRefused