P4Parking - residential car park - appeal rejected

Umkomaas

On what basis did your appeal succeed?  Can we see the POPLA decision (suitably paragraphed, not their standard wall of text) please?

Fruitcake

Well done and thanks for letting us know. As above, which of your points won it for you?

untitled2020

Of course:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

xxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid permit was visibly on display.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they were the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant advises that the signage is not prominent and legible from all spaces within the car park and the sum of the charge is not prominently displayed. They dispute that the operator has a valid contract for the management of the site. They advise that their tenancy agreement cannot be overridden by signage. They explain that the space comes with their tenancy agreement and the parking permit was issued after they moved into the flat. In their comments the appellant advises that the operator has not provided an unredacted copy of the contract and the document provided does not comply with the Companies Act 2006. They advise that the operator has failed to show what how the signage appears from the driver seat.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. In order to transfer liability for the outstanding amount of the parking charge to the registered keeper, the operator will need to demonstrate strict compliance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 relies on the operator providing certain information within strict timescales to the registered keeper within its Notice to Keeper. In order to establish that the correct processes have been followed, I will need to examine the Notice to Keeper, which was given to the registered keeper of the vehicle. I must consider if the notice meets the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)), which states “(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” The operator has not provided a copy of a notice to keeper so I cannot tell if this complied with the requirements of POFA 2012 or not. As I have allowed the appeal I do not need to consider any further grounds of appeal.

Umkomaas

Nicely done and thank you for the feedback. POPLA decisions are fewer and further between these days, we see many more court cases. But you've dodged one of those with this win. 👍

KeithP

So you actually won on a point - keeper not liable - that you didn't mention in your appeal.

Well done - a win is a win. 

Fruitcake

I suspect PoPLA did not want to reveal that the scammers had no standing to issue charges, so came up with the wizard wheeze of using a different point altogether.

Did you hand your permit back and tell the scammers and MA to put your vehicle on a whitelist so you don't get a scamvoice again?

Coupon-mad

Love the fact that Assessor upheld the appeal on the fact there was no NTK issued, which is completely correct, but wasn't in the appeal, haha!