(SUCCESS AT POPLA APPEAL) Green Parking - NG2 Nottingham Car Park

parcaal

Okay, thank you all for the great feedback. I have improved the draft and added a few sections for which I adapted or created myself, so will appreciate if you can review 1-4 arguments with a bit more rigor.

Link to the draft is this.

I plan to submit it to Popla tomorrow or Monday. Thank you once more for the invaluable help!

parcaal

Thank you all for the advice so far. My POPLA appeal was successful. Please see the POPLA statement here.

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Anita Burns
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the motorist not displaying a valid ticket/permit.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a 10 page document to POPLA, listing grounds of appeal and going into detail on each specific point. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, however I have ensured I have checked each point the appellant made before coming to my conclusion. The appellant states that: 1. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). 2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice 2019 – non-compliance 3. Photo evidence not sufficient to identify the vehicle, confirm the observation of the vehicle contravening the terms and conditions of use of the car park, nor confirms the time of the alleged breach 4. Notice to Keeper dated XX XXXXXXXX 2019 is invalid as it states inconsistently within the document the demanded parking charge 5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 6. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.
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. Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 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. When entering onto a privately managed car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park but due to the poor resolution I am unable to read any of the information on the signage. The operator has provided a document titled Terms and Conditions Updated 28.05.2018. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, observed on XX YYYYYYY 2019 from XX:XX The operator has provided a copy of the PCN that was issued for the contravention: Not displaying a valid ticket/permit. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states in section 20.5a: “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” Additionally section 20.5b states: “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle, you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows.” Having viewed the images of the vehicle taken at site by the attendant, I am not satisfied that the operator has complied with either section 20.5a or 20.5b of the BPA Code of Practice, as the photograph’s taken do not provide a clear view of the appellant’s dashboard , therefore I am not satisfied that a thorough check of the windscreen has been done. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. While I acknowledge that the appellant has submitted further grounds of appeal in support of their case and additional comments on the operator’s evidence, as I have allowed this appeal for other reasons, I do not consider it necessary to consider them further.

Umkomaas

Well done. I note you did spell out precisely (and correctly) how the NtK(s) failed to meet the strict requirements of PoFA, yet POPLA comes out with this:

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.

Utter garbage, unbelievable. The sooner POPLA is laid to rest the better.

parcaal

Umkomaas wrote: »

Well done. I note you did spell out precisely (and correctly) how the NtK(s) failed to meet the strict requirements of PoFA, yet POPLA comes out with this:


Utter garbage, unbelievable. The sooner POPLA is laid to rest the better.

Thank you for the nice words!.

100% agree on POFA wording, but given it is successful I will take it :beer:

Umkomaas

parcaal wrote: »

Thank you for the nice words!.

100% agree on POFA wording, but given it is successful I will take it :beer:

A win's a win in anyone's money.

It leaves the PPC thinking their NtKs are PoFA compliant, so no need to amend, something we might be able to exploit further at some stage - different assessor, hopefully a different result. POPLA is becoming more of a lottery than the small claims court!

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Happily, it's very much a non-POFA NTK and makes no grammatical sense either. Looks like a child made it.

The keeper wins, as long as POPLA don't do something stupid & decide it's a POFA one.

Jesus POPLA are stupid these days. This NEVER happened with London Councils service of POPLA (the best version) where they had legal brains and an eye for detail.

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.

Honestly, that Assessor needs retraining. Or sacking.

Utterly shocking and WRONG, despite the fact the case was won on another point.