POPLA Decisions

Recent successful POPLA appeal..... in spite of, rather than because of, my input as you will see!!!!

"DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name XXXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site either without appropriate payment or for longer than permitted. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £90 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the driver was unable to pay to park on site as the payment machines would not accept payment by card or coin, and the payment app would not recognise the site even when the relevant code was entered. The appellant has provided screenshots of the payment app.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant for the charge as the registered keeper in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. POFA requires that when pursuing the registered keeper of a vehicle for a parking charge, an operator must issue a “notice to keeper” by “handing it to the keeper” or “sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”
The relevant period is defined as “the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” The Act goes on to clarify that “a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered […] on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in England and Wales.”
The alleged breach occurred on 11 May 2019 and the relevant period defined above therefore ended on 26 May 2019. POFA requires that the notice to keeper must have been issued so as to be received by the appellant on or before this date. The operator has provided a copy of the PCN which is dated 7 June 2019 and cannot be considered to have been received by the appellant until 11 June 2019, being the second working day after it was posted. This date is outside of the required period.
While it is clear from the evidence both that the terms of the site were made clear by the signs in place and that the driver breached the terms, I am not satisfied that the operator has adhered to the requirements set out by POFA and I am not therefore satisfied that it is entitled in law to pursue the appellant for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal."