POPLA Decision - Successful - ParkingEye

wolfneo

Hi all,

You all kindly helped me with a case in the past and more recently I went to POPLA for another parking ticket from ParkingEye at million country park who use an ANPR system. 

happy to share additional information if needed. 

The decision was successful so sharing the details here:

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control under Byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, which was also confirmed by the Secretary of State and has been in operation since 2 May 1994. • The land falls outside of the definition of “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). • The parking operator cannot hold them liable as the keeper under PoFA. • The parking operator has not identified them as the driver. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal stating the evidence shows there was no overstay. The appellant has raised new grounds regarding the clarity of payment being required for the full duration and regarding the application of Parking Eye v Beavis ruling. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. The Byelaws document for Milton Country Park. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I will be allowing the appeal, and my reasoning is outlined below: It is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence to demonstrate that it issued the parking charge notice correctly. In this case the PCN was issued for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. The appellant has explained that Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control under Byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, which was also confirmed by the Secretary of State and has been in operation since 2 May 1994. They raise that the land falls outside of the definition of “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore they cannot be held liable for the PCN. The appellant has provided the Byelaws for Milton Country Park in support of their appeal. Having reviewed the parking operator’s evidence, I note it has not commented or addressed this aspect of the appellant’s appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the claim made by the appellant is incorrect. I am not satisfied that the parking operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds of appeal. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the Byelaws boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence presented to me for this appeal. The appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but as I have allowed the appeal, I do not feel that it is necessary to address them.

Coupon-mad

Very good. Yet another one decided in favour of the appellant by a female POPLA assessor.

Please post about it in POPLA DECISIONS.