POPLA Appeal

mhugradar

nosferatu1001 said:

OK so you won on one as NCP were incompetent! Good

Yes al 3 have been completed, just waiting for the webpage to update the others

2/3 + 3/3 - Lost - They did not attach no contract .. so how did the first one pass without a contract and this one lose??

Now the first one has been amended .. but currently does not show a decision

There was no contract .. just the document i uploaded on here

It seems my comments on the signs not being where i was parked, or the route taken to this location were ignored - 


When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions: “Drop off Only… Maximum stay 30 minutes… This car park is for Staff Permit Holders only… Failure to adhere to the terms & conditions set on additional signage may result in a Parking Charge Notice of UP TO £40.00 being issued”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver Failed to display a valid permit. The appellant disputes that the signage at the site is sufficient. Within the operator’s evidence pack it has provided photographs showing the signage throughout the site. It has also provided photographs showing the appellant vehicle. Having reviewed these images I can see that there is a clear entrance sign. While I note that it is not in the standard format it is clear, easy to see and read and contains all of the required information. The sign is larger than is required by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The evidence shows that there is signage throughout the site. The signage containing specific terms and conditions is in the locations where these terms and conditions apply. Having reviewed all of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the signage at the site is clear and meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. I also note that the images of the appellant vehicle show that there is a warning sign in clear view of the vehicle. I note that the appellant has not provided any evidence to POPLA which casts doubt on the evidence provided by the operator. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. Within the operator’s evidence pack it has provided a copy of a signed witness statement, this document confirms that the operator is full authorised to manage parking on this car park. Having reviewed this document I am satisfied that a valid contract exists between the landowner a parking operator. I feel it important to explain that parking contracts are commercially sensitive, so parking operators are not required to provide them to POPLA. The operator has provided photographs showing the appellants vehicle parked without permit display. This breaches the terms and conditions for the use of the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

mhugradar

Decision 1 still stands as won, but now on a different ground - no images showing when my car arrived and left .. The contract part has been removed and changed as below

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions: “Drop off Only… Maximum stay 30 minutes… This car park is for Staff Permit Holders only… Failure to adhere to the terms & conditions set on additional signage may result in a Parking Charge Notice of UP TO £40.00 being issued”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver exceeded the displayed time limit. The appellant disputes that the signage at the site is sufficient. Within the operator’s evidence pack it has provided photographs showing the signage throughout the site. It has also provided photographs showing the appellant vehicle. Having reviewed these images I can see that there is a clear entrance sign. While I note that it is not in the standard format it is clear, easy to see and read and contains all of the required information. The sign is larger than is required by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The evidence shows that there is signage throughout the site. The signage containing specific terms and conditions is in the locations where these terms and conditions apply. Having reviewed all of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the signage at the site is clear and meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. I also note that the images of the appellant vehicle show that there is a warning sign in clear view of the vehicle. I note that the appellant has not provided any evidence to POPLA which casts doubt on the evidence provided by the operator. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. Within the operator’s evidence pack it has provided a copy of a signed witness statement, this document confirms that the operator is full authorised to manage parking on this car park. Having reviewed this document I am satisfied that a valid contract exists between the landowner a parking operator. I feel it important to explain that parking contracts are commercially sensitive, so parking operators are not required to provide them to POPLA. The operator has provided photographs showing the appellants vehicle parked but these images have all been taken within a few minutes of each other and do not show how long the vehicle had been parked on the site. The operator has indicated that the driver exceeded the 30-minute maximum stay, but this is not supported by the evidence provided. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

nosferatu1001

I would complain to tPOPLA pointing out they were NOT supplied with a contract
The details are on the forum. 

mhugradar

Even though they have accepted that document as a contract? As contracts are sensitive documents?? (As per the comments)

nosferatu1001

No theyre not sensitive! Not to the extent theyre claiming
THAT DOCUEMNT IS NOT A CONTRACT. It does not prove there is a contract in place. This isnt something POPLA can just go "ok thats good enough" on, not without challenging them on it. which is what youre being told ot do. 

mhugradar

ok found the email address to send the complaint to:

Good Afternoon

I am emailing in regards to 3 cases which I appealed against.

Ref Numbers:

The first one was initially successful on the following ground

They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. As the appellant has disputed that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner, I would have expected it to provide evidence showing that a valid contract exists. In this case the operator has not provided any evidence of this nature. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

The other 2 appeals were unsuccessful on these grounds:

They dispute that the operator has a valid contract with the landowner. Within the operator’s evidence pack it has provided a copy of a signed witness statement, this document confirms that the operator is full authorised to manage parking on this car park. Having reviewed this document I am satisfied that a valid contract exists between the landowner a parking operator. I feel it important to explain that parking contracts are commercially sensitive, so parking operators are not required to provide them to POPLA

 

A few mins later the 1st appeal was retracted, and the outcome remained the same but the contract part was amended to match the second 2 appeals but it was still upheld as the Operator did not provide images of my car arriving.

I would like to remind you that the document that was provided is NOT a contract, and you cannot assume a contract is in place.  It was simply a document requesting service.

The Operator failed to provide a contract so my other 2 appeals must be upheld.

I would also like to mention the assessor has failed to view my points on signage.  The images provided by the operator are from other parts of the Hospital.  The location i parked in (including the entrance from Haslingden Road, Near KF, Entrance Has No SIGNS at all.  

On the above grounds my appeal must therefore be upheld

MistyZ

What the heck?

Am I getting this right, i.e. the first appeal was allowed on the grounds of no valid contract.  The second two were disallowed.  The decision on the first appeal was then amended though allowed on different grounds??

This is all very suspicious and shouts 'undue influence' (from the parking company).  Have POPLA gone completely barking mad on top of their frequent incompetency?  There would seem to be two things going on here, the inexplicably 'changed' decision, and the seriously flawed basis of the ultimate decisions.  

I know you will complain vigorously to all relevant bodies, you're doing a great job on that front.  Why not include James & co.: 'here's what happens when people appeal to POPLA, a body in which you seem to put so much faith!'

mhugradar

MistyZ said:

What the heck?

Am I getting this right, i.e. the first appeal was allowed on the grounds of no valid contract.  The second two were disallowed.  The decision on the first appeal was then amended though allowed on different grounds??

This is all very suspicious and shouts 'undue influence' (from the parking company).  Have POPLA gone completely barking mad on top of their frequent incompetency?  There would seem to be two things going on here, the inexplicably 'changed' decision, and the seriously flawed basis of the ultimate decisions.  

Yes
that is exactly what happen
It is a good job i saw the first email and went straight on, or i could have easily missed it and not spotted the change

Any tips on this email to POPLA

MistyZ

It is a very good job you saw that first email and the fact that you captured the decision is even better, a cynic might think POPLA were hoping you wouldn't notice.  

I suggest putting the extracts from the decisions in quotation marks, just in case the person who reads it needs a little more help.  That paragraph about signage goes a bit strange - maybe that's just how it has appeared on your post here.  And 'KF' should be KFC shouldn't it, though that's just a detail.   Others may suggest that you make your email a little more hard-hitting so wait & see what they think.

mhugradar

ok, i will do that and wait for any more responses on what else i could say in the email

in another note - Not had an email response on my email to James Magguire