POPLA proof read

Tea_biscuits

Hi All,


Just wanted to let you know the appeal was successful :-)


Thanks to the posters on this thread and the invaulable advice given on this subject.

Umkomaas

viki61 wrote: »

Hi All,


Just wanted to let you know the appeal was successful :-)


Thanks to the posters on this thread and the invaulable advice given on this subject.

Well done. Could you tell us on what grounds POPLA found in your favour please. It will help us build the picture of what appeal points are currently convincing assessors.

Tea_biscuits

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “The P&D/permit did not cover the date and time of parking.”


Assessor summary of your case


The appellant has provided a lengthy summary of their grounds of appeal, but has helpfully given a numbered content summary, which is as follows: 1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance . 2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit. Signs in this carpark are not prominent, clear or legible form all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 3. The operator has not shown that the individual who is pursuing it is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. 4. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 5. No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Requirements. 6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance 7. The ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. 8. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what ANPR data will be used for.


Assessor supporting rational for decision


In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. PoFA sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association 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”. The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, I cannot determine whether they have authority to issue PCNs on the site in question. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. As it has not done so in this instance, I allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Coupon-mad

The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, I cannot determine whether they have authority to issue PCNs on the site in question.

LOL, they are stooopid!

Tea_biscuits

Coupon-mad wrote: »

LOL, they are stooopid!

Certainly are but I don't mind :-)