POPLA appeal comments stage

SWtable92

First off apologies if this is covered, I have looked and not found anything.


I have an open appeal with the POPLA whereby UKPC has responded to my evidence.


I saw the below successful appeal which states that UKPC have not provided proof that issue and enforce parking tickets .


My question is, the response they provided shows a contract that was signed as of June 2012, saying that runs for a year and then monthly from there until either party may terminate the contract with at least one months notice.


Would the points made in the POPLA decision quoted still stand today, I am unsure as the appeal is over 3 years old but the contract they provided is 6 years old and therefore would be no different?




"I've had my appeal allowed by POPLA - the details are on a separate thread but the details of the appeal are below:

Fairway76 (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at Stevenage Leisure Park, on 7 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and a parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s employee allegedly observed the driver leaving the site whilst remaining parked.

The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.

The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.

Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The witness statement provided by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority has been validly granted as it does not name the landowner, from which the authority must flow. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed

Christopher Monk
Assessor"


thanks In advance

Fruitcake

We will need more information about what has happened so far. We have no background information about the alleged event or what you put in your initial appeal, one of the most important points being, do they know the identity of the driver?

We don't even know the reason why the PCN was issued. Was it also for leaving site as they are extremely difficult for a scammer to prove.

I suggest you look at post 3 of the NEWBIES and draft an appeal using all the relevant points available to you, not just a ingle point about a contract.
We don't usually advise using a single point appeal.

SWtable92

So the PCN was issues because driver left site, I didn't know of this forum and therefore appealed straight away admitting that I was the driver and that I had used a cash machine before making use of the facilities. The cash machine, UKPC have said, is off site. My appeal was under the basis that there is no explanation of the sites boundaries and therefore how was I to know I had left the site. Also if i was seen to leave the site why is it the parking enforcement officer didn't try and mitigate any loss by making me aware of this.

Another point i made was that of the illegibility of the signs at the site, some of which being 10 feet of the ground. UKPC submitted images of the signs at the site, which i don't feel it proves otherwise, the image is also outdated and shows an eye level sign that is no longer there, coincidence? That same photo clearly shows someone looking at the sign which is far above their head showing how high it is.

i think there is another point i raised by i don't have access to it right now.

There are other points i was going to make however this is one thing i needed clarification on

I hope this makes things clearer.

nosferatu1001

SO you point out their photos are of signs that dont exist, and helpfully proves the signs are high up AND shows that the site boundary is not defeind.

Fruitcake

Unfortunately you have rather shot yourself in the foot by admitting to be the driver. Learn from this if it ever happens again. The onus is on them to prove the identity of the driver and that they left site.

As I said, it is extremely difficult for the scammers to identify who was driving and virtually impossible for them to prove that the driver left site.
The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not.

The points about the site not being defined are valid and should be included in your PoPLA appeal, as should inadequate signage as well as any others that might be relevant.

None of the UKPC signs I have ever seen meet the requirements of the BPA CoP. See if you can read the charge from even a few paces away to understand what I mean, then compare it with the sign in the Beavis case.

Create your draft appeal using the template appeal points from post 3 of the NEWBIES and post it here for checking before you submit it.

Umkomaas

Do the signs warn about leaving the site? Does the original contract with the landowner include any reference to UKPC having authority to issue charges for leaving the site?

SWtable92

I will make sure to do that, I suppose the question I really wanted to ask was, can I use someone's previous successful POPLA decision as a grounds for my appeal?

SWtable92

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do the signs warn about leaving the site? Does the original contract with the landowner include any reference to UKPC having authority to issue charges for leaving the site?

they do say about leaving the site but this information is very small and hardly legible. there is no definition of the boundaries of the site however. the contract from what i can tell is with the management company rather than the land owner but does state that UKPC will issues parking charges to drivers

Fruitcake

SWtable92 wrote: »

I will make sure to do that, I suppose the question I really wanted to ask was, can I use someone's previous successful POPLA decision as a grounds for my appeal?

Yes. The lack of authority is a valid appeal point, and the scammers would have to prove their contract allows it. Showing they couldn't prove it in a previous case is to your advantage.
It might also be a good reason for complaints to the BPA and DVLA because it appears they still don't have the authority to issue charges

Umkomaas

SWtable92 wrote: »

they do say about leaving the site but this information is very small and hardly legible. there is no definition of the boundaries of the site however. the contract from what i can tell is with the management company rather than the land owner but does state that UKPC will issues parking charges to drivers

The key point is the lack of definition of site boundaries.

Most contracts do state that the PPC will issue parking charges to drivers. But that isn't what I asked.

Does the contract specifically authorise the issue of parking charges for leaving the site? If not, that's another key point.

SWtable92

Umkomaas wrote: »

The key point is the lack of definition of site boundaries.

Most contracts do state that the PPC will issue parking charges to drivers. But that isn't what I asked.

Does the contract specifically authorise the issue of parking charges for leaving the site? If not, that's another key point.

It states that “we will issues parking charges to drivers (or registered keepers/owners) pf vehicles parked in breach of the restrictions at the premises.”


It later defines the restrictions, one of them being “no parking a vehicle on site and the occupants to leave the site”