POPLA Appeal Rejected: ECP car park

crizzy123

Hello all,
Unfortunately I did not look into the different threads prior to submitting an appeal to POPLA (I really wish I had  ), as I thought I had a really strong case for them accepting my appeal.  I've just had my POPLA decision and they've rejected it.

The main complaint of ECP was I was not parked within the bay as per their terms and conditions, I appealed to say that I was parked the way I did because of the neighbouring car and I was parking at the end bay which did not cause them to lose money essentially. 

What do I do now? Can I appeal the POPLA decision or do I pay ECP to end it all?
I've seen people say that ECP never chases you up for payment etc or they're unlikely to take you to court but I don't want this to get CCJ or affect my credit rating.  


Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the appellant failing to park within a marked bay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states whilst they acknowledge there is a requirement to park in a marked bay. They were unable to do so due to the positioning of the vehicle next to them. They state they attempted to park in a manner which would not obstruct other motorists or cause an inconvenience to others. They state payment was made for parking and the ticket was displayed. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and raises new grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided proof of payment and images of the vehicle as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state motorists must park only within a marked bay. The operator has provided warden images which show the appellant’s vehicle not parked wholly within a marked bay, the appellant has also provided images which support this. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states whilst they acknowledge there is a requirement to park in a marked bay. They were unable to do so due to the positioning of the vehicle next to them. They state they attempted to park in a manner which would not obstruct other motorists or cause an inconvenience to others. They state payment was made for parking and the ticket was displayed. The appellant has provided proof of payment and images of the vehicle as evidence to support their appeal. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and evidence, all motorists are required to comply with the conditions of the site. In the event a motorist cannot comply, they have the opportunity to find an alternative bay or find alternative parking. I appreciate the other motorist failed to park wholly within the bay however this did not provide the appellant with exemption from the conditions. Although the appellant made payment, they were still required to park wholly within the bay markings and therefore this does not dispute the validity of the charge. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these this as part of my decision. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant failed to park within a marked bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it is never too late to do so.

Other than that, you are now in ignore mode unless you get a letter of/before claim or a court claim from the PPC.
If that happens, come back to this thread after reading the second post of the NEWBIES in conjunction with the template defence sticky Announcement.

As long as you follow the advice on this forum there is nor risk of you getting a CCJ, nor anything that will affect your ability to obtain credit even if you lost in court.

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. I cannot imagine a judge taking more than 32 nanoseconds to throw this out if the PPC were stupid enough to try a claim!

h2g2

Is  Excel v Miss Bradsell C1DP6Q75 Oldham. 27/2/17  similar?

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/03/wheel-slightly-over-line-de-minimis.html

Coupon-mad

What do I do now? Can I appeal the POPLA decision or do I pay ECP to end it all? 

Neither. There is no advantage to paying.

Come back if they try a small claim. This DOES NOT affect your credit rating, unless you ignore the claim (you won't) or if you move house and let them choose the old address for the claim.

You are not going to do that!