Popla response to appeal help

Monetpainter

I Messaged a few weeks ago about my parking and getting a PCN for over staying by 13 minutes, due to my sons disability issues we returned to the car later, this was due to building work noises and issues nest to the car park.  I have appealed to Popla but I have received a response from POPLA asking for my comments on the LPA disputing my appeal.

They have provided evidence of my non payment, pics of my car entering and leaving, car park signage that are stock photos and not of how the car park is now with the building work in situ, witness statement from 2019 about the car park, pcn and my emails to them appealing. 
They have mentioned nothing about the disability reasonable adjustments in their response.

Please refer to POPLA case – 3711598012 & 3712018003. These appeals were the same as this case and these appeals were Refused. Another case similar to this is verification code 3710529004. Please view this as this was refused also. A Recent POPLA decision for verification code 3710980009 was refused. Parking Charge Notice and any notes: Attached is a copy of the Parking Charge Notice issued to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Registered keeper details and liability trail: We have transferred the liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using PoFA 2012 – Please refer to Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule four for further details. Original representations and notice of rejection: Attached is a copy of the appellant’s original appeal along with our response.

Can someone please advise what to do next please?

Coupon-mad

Hi, I recall this but we can't handle this as a new thread.  Please reply on your original thread.

Le_Kirk

If you cannot find it, here it is: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6354497/disabled-parking-and-grace-periods#latest

Monetpainter

Coupon-mad said:

Hi, I recall this but we can't handle this as a new thread.  Please reply on your original thread.

i did add to my old thread but i didnt get a response

Monetpainter

any help would be grateful i have to respond by friday

Le_Kirk

You received a response here : -
1 May at 9:48PM <<<<<<<LINK

Coupon-mad

Please just reply again each time on the original thread.

Monetpainter

hello i have had a decision from popla - what does it mean?

Successful

Assessor Name

AP

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for failure to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not applied a grace period. They challenge if the operator is authorised to issue PCN’s for this site. They state there is no evidence of complaint signage. The appellant has provided a comprehensive document detailing full extensions to their grounds of appeal, including a description of the parking event, links to related articles, reference to various sections of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, and stated use of a blue badge. In respect of signage the appellant states it fails to bring the sum of the PCN the attention of the motorists, and does not meet the ruling of the 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. The appellant expands on their various grounds of appeal in their subsequent comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the appellant has stated the operator has not complied with the BPA code in relation to the adequate notice of the sum of the PCN in their signage. They have also stated the signage does not meet the requirements of 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis'. I reviewed the signs in this case and must note the reference to a: “£100” PCN is written in a much smaller font than the conditions that precede it. This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. As such, I cannot consider the evidence has rebutted the appellant’s grounds in relation to adequate notice of the rate of the charge, and I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Le_Kirk

It means you won and you don't need to pay the PCN.

Coupon-mad

You won on the point of unclear signs. It is gone!

Umkomaas

POPLA seem to have latched on to poor visibility of the £100 parking charge and upholding appeals on that basis. Most PPCs seem to bury it in their smaller text, so well worth shamelessly exploiting it in POPLA appeals.