Meadowhall Car Park

CossieA

So I lost the POPLA appeal�� unsure whether to pay

waamo

CossieA wrote: »

So I lost the POPLA appeal�� unsure whether to pay

What did POPLA say?

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding upon the appellant. Only a judge can now force you to pay AFTER it goes to small claims court.

CossieA

How much wd be looking at if I lost bearing in mind my argument that their wording on signage not adequate & the licence they provided at POPLA appeal didn’t relate to the site

waamo

CossieA wrote: »

How much wd be looking at if I lost bearing in mind my argument that their wording on signage not adequate & the licence they provided at POPLA appeal didn’t relate to the site

Typically under £200 but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Can you give us POPLAs reasoning please? It may be useful to see their adjudication.

CossieA

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was not parked in a designated parking area

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says they had not parked contravening any terms and conditions on signage. They say they parked on the white lines. The appellant has raised new grounds of appeal in their motorist comments, as these were not raised in their original appeal they will not be assessed. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. The operator has provided photographic evidence of signage in the car park that states: “When parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this car park, these Parking Terms & Conditions apply to you…You will receive a Parking Charge of £100 if you do not adhere to these conditions…Vehicles must park in designated parking areas and must not cause an obstructions”. The appellant has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle parked outside of a designated bay. The appellant says they had not parked contravening any terms and conditions on signage. They say they parked on the white lines. Whilst I acknoweldge the appellants comments, I can confirm they are not parked on the white lines, they are parked over them. By leaving the vehicle parked this way the appellant has immediately breached the terms & conditions and accepted the consequence of a PCN. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. Whilst I acknoweldge the appellants comments, signage is clear in advising vehicles must park in a designated bay. From the evidence provided by the operator it is clear the appellant has not parked in a designated bay. When entering onto a private 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. 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 in a designated bay, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

waamo

It looks like your POPLA appeal neglected some points and you attempted to shoehorn them in the rebuttal.

If this ever went to court you would be far better placed to craft a decent defence. With this in mind I would wait and see what they do.

CossieA

http://www.imgurupload.com/images/2019/08/13/Meadowhall.jpg

Car park signage here -I still think that the signs don't say you can't park over white lines nor does it say you need to park in a singular parking area just designated parking "areas" plural so surely I could park across four bays horizontally as long as i was in a designated parking area which I was

CossieA

Also the licence they provided in their evidence did not relate to the site

waamo

Unless both those points were in the initial POPLA appeal they won't consider them. If they were in the appeal then it looks extremely flawed.