2 identical popla appeals, 1 successful, the other not

boffintosh

That is what I got from the second unsuccessful appeal.

Umkomaas

Could you paragraph that out for us? We have to read so much on here, day in day out. Trying to work through that mahoosive wall of text just causes me to shut down the iPad to avoid a migraine setting in! Otherwise I'm flocked!

boffintosh

Of course I shall do that tomorrow! As I’m away from home currently.

boffintosh

Your parking charge Appeal against UK Parking Control Ltd.
Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your appeal.
We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the parking charge notice number; *******.
The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal. The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused.
The assessor’s summary of the operator’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
POPLA
PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL 0330 159 6126 info@popla.co.uk

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 28 days. 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.

responsibility 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”.
POPLA
PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL 0330 159 6126 info@popla.co.uk

He 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 parking charges”.
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 the terms 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 is Refused. Yours sincerely

boffintosh

that is the response from POPLA for the second ticket,

as they are both identical cases, it does not make sense that there is a different outcome.

I am determined to not pay the second ticket.

I just need to know if I have any chance of defending in court considering one of my appeals was successful.

Coupon-mad

You do NOT need to know anything more...I answered that already:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

Was the first NTK different in wording than the second one?

UKPC POFA version NTKs do talk about the keeper being liable after 28 days beginning with the day after the date of service of the NTK

Non-POFA versions are occasionally seen, with some old twaddle about 42 days!

Loadsofchildren123

POPLA is rubbish, and this illustrates why.


but back to your original question of whether you can use the 1st successful POPLA appeal to your advantage.


If proceedings are brought, you should argue the POFA defence and in your evidence, rely on that first POPLA appeal saying the assessor agreed with you, same carpark, same facts.

Guys_Dad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

POPLA is rubbish, and this illustrates why.


but back to your original question of whether you can use the 1st successful POPLA appeal to your advantage.


If proceedings are brought, you should argue the POFA defence and in your evidence, rely on that first POPLA appeal saying the assessor agreed with you, same carpark, same facts.

.....................and not mentioning the 2nd POPLA adjudication of course!