Hilton Gatwick Drop off Charges

Coupon-mad

It's complaints@  ...you even quoted it!

CaptainYellow

Well, POPLA have responded to my complaint with this gem. I particularly like how they dismiss the map showing the ariport boundary out of hand as there is 'no context' and that it's unclear "how it relates to the claim that the area highlighted is not relevant land". This goes to the very heart of whether the byelaws apply at that location or not!

Your complaint about POPLA case 2412194090

 Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Euro Car Parks.

It is important to explain that POPLA is a one-stage process, and we would not change a decision because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to allow a motorist to comment on a parking operator’s evidence pack. My role as a complaints handler is to determine whether a procedural error has occurred during the assessment of your appeal.

I have completed a full review of your case and will address my findings below:

You have stated that the assessor has incorrectly applied the law regarding keeper liability at the airport. You have referred to a previous complaint response.

Within your grounds of appeal, you stated:

 “The Gatwick airport site is governed by the Gatwick Airport - London Byelaws 1996 and on the airport's website it states: 'The Gatwick byelaws regulate the operation of the airport including all of the land, buildings and roads at the airport'. The area covered by the byelaws is that shown highlighted yellow on the attached map, and the location of the alleged parking contravention is shown on the map by a red cross. As a site governed by byelaws, this means that it is an area where parking is under statutory control and, therefore, Schedule 4 of POFA does not apply. This means that the parking control company are not able to assert keeper liability.”

Within their rationale, the assessor stated:

 “There is nothing on the signage to indicate that the Byelaws are in operation here and the PCN is a Parking Charge Notice rather than a Penalty Notice, which would have bene issued if Byelaws were in operation. Therefore, I am satisfied that the parking operator is able to issue PCNs here under PoFA and seek keeper liability in this case.

Furthermore, the parking operator has provided evidence that they have the authority of the landowner to operate here. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question.

This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case, the parking operator has provided evidence of the landowner to operate on this land. Furthermore, this contract explains that PCNs are to be issued here and makes no reference to the alleged Byelaws that the appellant claims are in operation here. As such, I am satisfied that parking operator has complied with BPA and can issue PCNs here”. 

Having reviewed the assessor’s response, I am satisfied that the evidence was considered and that the assessor based their judgement on this. While the assessor acknowledged you had provided a map, the assessor was not convinced that this demonstrated that the land was not relevant land, in the absence of any context; it is unclear where the evidence has been sourced from and how it relates to the claim that the area highlighted is not relevant land. The assessor, however, was satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the land was owned/managed by a private company and was therefore relevant land for purposes of pursuing the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Further, as you claimed the land was governed by byelaws, the assessor responded to state that the evidence demonstrated that it was not.

Although you have referred to a previous complaint in which a misassessment occurred, it is important to explain that POPLA assesses appeals on a case-by-case basis and outcomes are dependent on the evidence provided by both parties. In this case, I am satisfied that neither a misassessment nor a procedural error have occurred. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

In terms of POPLA’s role in the parking industry, I refer to the FAQs section of our website which explains:

[Inserted screenshot of how they are independent of the parking industry, honest] 

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

Yours sincerely,

Alexandra Roby

POPLA Complaints Team

KeithP

@CaptainYellow, why have you taken over this thread?

You seem to have total disregard for the issues and problems suffered by the thread starter - @Razburley.

CaptainYellow

@KeithP Apologies if I've messed up with some forum etiquette here, but I'm am sharing my own experience with exactly the same issue at exactly the same site and was subsequently responding to the guidance given by @Coupon-mad. Again, I apologise if that was the wrong thing to do, but it doesn't justify the tone of your message one bit.

LoneStarState

CaptainYellow said:

@KeithP Apologies if I've messed up with some forum etiquette here, but I'm am sharing my own experience with exactly the same issue at exactly the same site and was subsequently responding to the guidance given by @Coupon-mad. Again, I apologise if that was the wrong thing to do, but it doesn't justify the tone of your message one bit.

Usual forum etiquette is not to not cross-post onto other threads with your own predicament that should have its own thread.  If discussion continues on this thread about what you've posted, even if relevant, something from the original poster might be missed by regulars and it also bloats the thread unnecessarily.  I appreciate you were trying to help.

That said, what you've put is interesting and is worthy of discussion on your own thread as POPLA's stance is incompetent at best and I'm embarrassed for them and this needs highlighting.  You might need to escalate that complaint to a lead adjudicator whoever that is.  As said, you'll get better tailored guidance if starting your own thread.

fisherjim

CaptainYellow said:

@KeithP Apologies if I've messed up with some forum etiquette here, but I'm am sharing my own experience with exactly the same issue at exactly the same site and was subsequently responding to the guidance given by @Coupon-mad. Again, I apologise if that was the wrong thing to do, but it doesn't justify the tone of your message one bit.

Sorry but I have to agree with @kiethP who has in no way been in a bad tone.

You did take over this thread from the OP who now seems to have gone to ground, and it now looks like your thread if you don't go back to the very start.  

Your comments have been about your own event progression not a sharing of experience as such.

 

Your story is of course very interesting and telling, it's worth pointing out that we have in the past seen POPLA over turn an accepted appeal when an operator has complained so their "one step appeal decision" has been altered when it suits their paymasters

That explanation from them is totally farcical, the fact that the operator has not referenced your claim of non relevant land and POPLA have ignored that fact smacks of either incompetence or collusion which should be addressed in my view by a complete re-assessment of the case.