POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas · 9 March 2015 at 7:40PM

Well done gimbers. It's great to see a successful outcome from an OP with just one post count.

Shows that the NEWBIES FAQ sticky is understandable (if somewhat containing a 'new language' to those new to this game) and the whole process can be navigated and won without any help from forum regulars.

Once again, well done gimbers - you're a glowing example of self help, resilience and the ability to see things through on your own.

Brilliant.

Coupon-mad · 10 March 2015 at 3:48PM

Athena always lose on that basis - it's worth people knowing about as they will only win at POPLA like this is they raise the issue of landowner authority among the usual 'no GPEOL' and 'dodgy signs not seen', NTK is pants so no keeper liability, etc.

Mike172 · 11 March 2015 at 11:23AM

Another win against UKCPM

Usual - UKCPM did not submit any evidence.

erind · 11 March 2015 at 12:34PM

Popla win against Athena

10 March 2015

(Appellant)

-v-

Athena ANPR Limited(Operator)

The Operator issuedparking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at LidlLiverpool, on 5 January 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx

The Appellant appealedagainst liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor hasconsidered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasonsare as set out.

The Operator should nowcancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for theAssessor’s Determination

It is not in disputethat the vehicle was parked on the site for longer than the 90 minute freeparking period. A parking charge notice was issued after this was detected bythe operator’s ANPR system.

The appellant made anumber of representations. However, it is only necessary to deal with the oneupon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacks the authority toissue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.

The operator rejectedthese representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that theyhad authority from the landowner for their activities.

Considering theevidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided any evidence thatthey have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking chargenotices in respect of the site. The letter from the landowner produced by theoperator is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted, as itrefers to ‘some of our properties’, and does not state which they are, so I amunable to find that the authority extended to this site. Accordingly, I cannotfind that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter intocontracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be heldto be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider theother issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appealmust be allowed.

Christopher Monk

Assessor

bod1467 · 11 March 2015 at 1:01PM

That's almost word-for-word the assessment gimbers above got.

Same PPC, different assessor.

DonQuixoteDeLaMancha · 12 March 2015 at 12:35AM

I appealed against a PCN to the issuing authority (HighView Parking, HV) who were so lethargic in their responses (second class post, etc) that I had no time to petition POPLA while keeping the PCN at the "reduced rate" (£50). This seems to be a deliberate strategy of HV in order to manoeuvre myself (the motorist) into paying the full charge (£85)! Thus, mindful of escalating costs and the uncertainties over the outcome, I decided to pay the PCN - but NOT because I believed I was liable: simply to prevent the costs escalating.

On principle, I nevertheless sent to POPLA what I believed to be a perfectly valid appeal the very next day (inside their 28 day time limit) together with full supporting evidence and explanation WHY I decided - under duress - to pay the PCN. They mechanically rejected my appeal without any further consideration of the facts therein stating:

“As you have paid the parking charge notice, liability has been accepted.”

But I NEVER accepted that I was liable!

According to NMAG a pronouncement by POPLA of this nature is false:

“If the payment of a penalty or fine is subsequently disputed, actual liability to have made the payment can be established only by the courts, not by pronouncements of council officials and members.” (NMAG Operations Limited: Google "fallacious-admission-of-liability")

Can POPLA simply dismiss my appeal in this way?

To whom might I complain about the actions of POPLA?

Mike172 · 12 March 2015 at 9:49AM

DonQuixoteDeLaMancha wrote: »

I appealed against a PCN to the issuing authority (HighView Parking, HV) who were so lethargic in their responses (second class post, etc) that I had no time to petition POPLA while keeping the PCN at the "reduced rate" (£50). This seems to be a deliberate strategy of HV in order to manoeuvre myself (the motorist) into paying the full charge (£85)! Thus, mindful of escalating costs and the uncertainties over the outcome, I decided to pay the PCN - but NOT because I believed I was liable: simply to prevent the costs escalating.

On principle, I nevertheless sent to POPLA what I believed to be a perfectly valid appeal the very next day (inside their 28 day time limit) together with full supporting evidence and explanation WHY I decided - under duress - to pay the PCN. They mechanically rejected my appeal without any further consideration of the facts therein stating:

“As you have paid the parking charge notice, liability has been accepted.”

But I NEVER accepted that I was liable!

According to NMAG a pronouncement by POPLA of this nature is false:

“If the payment of a penalty or fine is subsequently disputed, actual liability to have made the payment can be established only by the courts, not by pronouncements of council officials and members.” (NMAG Operations Limited: Google "fallacious-admission-of-liability")

Can POPLA simply dismiss my appeal in this way?

To whom might I complain about the actions of POPLA?

What on earth did you do that for?

Start your own thread dont hijack.

Youll never get your money back btw.

Coupon-mad · 12 March 2015 at 10:09AM

DonQuixoteDeLaMancha wrote: »

Can POPLA simply dismiss my appeal in this way?

Yes and the POPLA website makes it clear they cannot consider an appeal where a person has been daft enough to pay! Why pay, it wasn't a real fine?! Paying and appealing are mutually exclusive... sorry to say, you just grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory as our POPLA appeals always beat Highview 100% of the time. There was no risk of paying a penny.

DonQuixoteDeLaMancha wrote: »

To whom might I complain about the actions of POPLA?

You can't as you will get nowhere - you should never have paid the thing. POPLA do not consider appeals where full payment has been made - come on, think about it, otherwise EVERYONE would do what you did then 'bother' POPLA ad infinitum.

Your only recourse to possibly getting that money back would be either:

(a) to complain to the retailer (e.g. Tesco) with your receipt, email the CEO, they have a new guy starting soon from Halfords but he's not starting till May I think. Have a rant and mention your Clubcard shows until now, you were a regular Tesco shopper but this fake fine has left a very nasty aftertaste and can Tesco now ask Highview to refund...blah blah.

(b) to Google 'Challenge the fine' and read Michael Green's website, a Cambridge graduate who is gathering emails addresses and names from people who are interested in a massive quest for refunds. Add your email details - nothing to lose, some of us have spoken to him and he's genuine, young and keen to get this done. He's been on the news and you may as well add your details as another victim - he needs 100,000 signatures/details to be able to move it forward.

No more discussion please on this thread - and you don't need a new thread either now as there's really nothing else to add. This thread is for 'POPLA DECISIONS' reporting with one post per case.

Katefitz · 15 March 2015 at 10:58PM

Hi,

I'm new to this so hope I've posted on the right thread. I've received a PCN from Athena after I overstayed in a Lidl car park by 13 minutes. I thought I could stay for 2 hours but it was 1.5 hours and have now received a charge of £90. I've used a template from this site in order to appeal but not sure if it is all relevant or whether there is more I can add to increase my chances of a successful appeal...

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.

waamo · 15 March 2015 at 11:01PM

Can you start your own thread please. This one is for POPLA decisions and a request for advice is likely to get lost. In the meantime read this http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free