Private parking appeals up 7% - but fewer are successful - MSE News

beamerguy

Castle wrote: »

Money basically; uncontested cases are free and there's no need to disclose any awkward documents like landowner's contract, (if there is one!).

As I've said before on other threads, POPLA codes should be paid for upfront by the PPC; it will concentrate their minds when dealing with the initial appeal from the RK/Driver.

I totally agree with you.

The PPC's take the pi*s out of POPLA. If the PPC paid everytime, it would mean POPLA could afford real assessors not the junk we see now. But, this is just another BPA ill founded crackpot idea

StaffsSW

Umkomaas wrote: »

A quote from the report by Uncle Bryn:


Espoused by absolutely no one in the private parking game.

twhitehousescat

I seem to recall that the origional assessors (london councils) sis get paid for every POPLa appeal code issued , however after the "lovers tif" and the ombudsman's service entering the scene , worsing was amended on the contract
they only get paid IF the parking co contest

Castle

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I seem to recall that the origional assessors (london councils) sis get paid for every POPLa appeal code issued , however after the "lovers tif" and the ombudsman's service entering the scene , worsing was amended on the contract
they only get paid IF the parking co contest

The original London Councils contract recharged all of its costs, (both direct and overheads), to the BPA, who in turn recovered the costs by a mixture of annual fee and per case appeal charges from the individual PPC's.

Fruitcake

MSE_Callum wrote: »

More motorists are contesting private parking tickets but those who are successful has dropped by more than 10%, according to figures published by the UK's largest private parking appeals service...

Read the full story:
'Private parking appeals up 7% - but fewer are successful'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

We know, and as already said, the advice on the "official" private parking pages is inaccurate and out of date.
However, it is very rare for anyone from MSE Towers to come back to one of these threads and address our concerns, or explain why they keep quoting rubbish that in some cases cost the motorist money.

So MSE Callum, will you come back and prove me wrong by at least acknowledging our comments? Better yet, ask us what is wrong with the information you have published and then put it right.

beingignored

I recently appealed to POPLA via my dispute with Parking Eye at Chester railway station. I didn't realise the disabled bays were short stay so I used the PE car park. My train to Manchester was due to leave @ 15.04 and I intended to use the space for 8 hours. However my texts to pay weren't being delivered and my call took 3 mins to get through so I downloaded the app. Time was moving on. At about 2.55 I knew I'd miss my train so left the space. I was then issued with £100 penalty which I appealed against. I provided screenshots of my outgoing calls and texts, times and dated as my attempt to pay for 8 hours stay. PE refused my evidence and later as did the assessor. Stating one of the criteria as
''The operator has provided a system generated print out, showing a search for the appellant’s vehicle registration number. This confirms that the vehicle has not been registered on the system for parking time on the date of the event.
Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, and it appears that the appellant did breach the terms and conditions. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN.
I appreciate the appellant’s comments relating to the issues trying to make a payment. However, I do not consider it reasonable for a driver to remain at a site for 36 minutes, without purchasing a valid ticket.
For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions.

For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer.

In this case the appellant says they entered the car park, and then tried to make a payment via text, phone and via the app. However, they were unable to do so, and left the car park after 36 minutes.
I appreciate the appellant has provided evidence of the attempts that of them trying to make a payment. However, I am unable to determine the time of the attempts, as the phone call and text messages do not show the times on them. Therefore, I cannot confirm the time the call was made or when the two text messages were sent. The operator has provided a site map showing the layout of the site, and from this I can see the car park is reasonably small. Based on this, I am not satisfied that 36 minutes is a reasonable period to enter the park, attempt to pay and then leave when the appellant realised, they could not make a payment. ''. I again sent blown up screenshots and highlighted the time/date of 3 texts and one call, again he refused to either acknowledge this opposition to his claim the time could not be confirmed nor an apology for claiming this. So one one hand the assessor agrees I tried to pay..and then somehow denies the proven time? I personally feel that evidence I provided was overlooked and brushed aside. Not a very good system tbh.