POPLA Decisions

Stroma · 12 October 2013 at 9:37PM

No foi request can reveal actual court cases, parking eye know this so that is there to add further to their lies. These are mostly if not all default judgements, I don't go to websites of unscrupulous companies in case they have attack code there. These websites are fronts to lies

zzzLazyDaisy · 12 October 2013 at 9:46PM

Computersaysno wrote: »

* - quote - It should be noted that every court hearing that ParkingEye has attended as Claimant in 2013 (where Judgment has been given) has been listed above. ParkingEye has not vacated any hearing unless the defendant has chosen to pay prior to the date of the hearing. This can be proven by any FOI request made in relation to ParkingEye's court action.

Don't believe everything you read.

Computersaysno · 12 October 2013 at 10:16PM

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Don't believe everything you read.

Hence why I suggested that the ASA might consider such claims to be misleading.

hoohoo · 13 October 2013 at 10:01AM

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Don't believe everything you read.

(Perhaps we should start a new topic rather than cluttering up this one for POPLA results.)

I agree with Daisy...but I also think the ParkingEye statement is nearly correct - it's just misleading.

ParkingEye file about 400 cases a week, but most of those pay up or keep ignoring and get a default judgement against them. Of those that don't ignore and fight, then for a lot of these ParkingEye will make an offer, especially if their case is good or if the defendant asks for proper pre-court protocols (thanks Daisy!).

Very few therefore actually get to court. I really do think this is the entire list - I'm fairly sure 'we' would have heard otherwise.

What ParkingEye do not mention, and this is where there statement can and should be taken to task are the dropped cases where the motorist has not been paid up.

ParkingEye have been ordered several times by landowners to drop cases. I know of several.

ParkingEye have also failed to turn up at court more than once.

I have also heard, but do not know personally so cannot back this up, that cases have been dropped for other reasons.

Aaron_Aadvark · 14 October 2013 at 10:23AM

The index at post #2 has been updated to post #357.

Genuine pre-estimate of loss has produced 49 wins in 52 cases, with no losses since #118. I suspect that POPLA are now using this as an easy way of dealing with a case rather than examining any other ground.

Contract/interest in land has produced 22 wins in 24 cases.

Cases based upon mitigating circumstances are still unlikely to be allowed.

BenefitMaster · 14 October 2013 at 4:58PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm afraid that POPLA completely chickened out on this one, particularly as the 'relevant land' issue was raised at Appeal Point 3, whereas GPEOL was at Appeal Point 5.

A POPLA win at an airport on 'relevant land' would have been very useful in tackling this outfit and VCS.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Well done FL2. :T

I have just won a POPLa against PE on GPEOL, but have another love-letter from them which has just gone to POPLA as a "relevant land" single issue appeal.

I am not liable for the parking charge as the Registered Keeper. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeds the appropriate amount. Additionally, I contend that the vehicle was not improperly parked as no evidence of parking has been produced by the Company.

ParkingEye Ltd of 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA is requiring payment from me as the Registered Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I say they have not met all the conditions imposed by this Act as the act does not apply to the land in question and so there is no obligation or liability on me at all.

For the avoidance of any doubt the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement has not been identified by either party; no admissions or denials will be made in that regard.

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY

This particular site fails to meet the definition of 'relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) that might otherwise have enabled the Operator to pursue this matter with myself (the registered keeper). The Operator has issued a defective Notice citing an Act which does not apply at this particular site, to attempt to claim an unenforceable charge from the keeper (myself). No keeper liability is likely to apply at all, due to the Associated British Ports' Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (the byelaws) taking precedence, and rendering this land outwith POFA and outwith 'registered keeper liability'.

For this Operator to claim in their standard letters that they have the right to 'registered keeper liability' under POFA when that right is simply not available on land specifically covered by local Byelaws, is a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Such land is generally not 'relevant land' under the definition within POFA and if the Operator contends otherwise they will need to show POPLA contemporaneous and compelling documentary evidence from the landowner/client in possession of this site, or maps showing where the Bylaws cease to apply around this Quay.

The byelaws make it very clear that the penalties for parking on the land designated is solely in the gift of the Criminal courts and as such Parking Eye has no standing whatsoever to enforce Civil parking charges or parking systems, as is it not designated as an authorised person within the meaning of the byelaws. Additionally, the byelaws also make clear that the Port of Southampton to which they apply includes the Town Quay.

As such, therefore, if this appeal is rejected, I will consider whether a Judicial Review might lie against POPLA and London Councils for a wholly unreasonable and unlawful decision, contrary to the criminal law.

As such I request that POPLA take "Judicial notice" of the attached byelaws, and order that Parking Eye has no standing to enforce parking contracts on this site whatsoever, thereby cancelling this AND ALL OTHER notice to keepers relating to this site.

Pinacolada_2 · 14 October 2013 at 6:40PM

You can see my appeal here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4697633&highlight=pinacolada

The decision below makes no reference to the many points of my POPLA appeal. There were no mitigating circumstances in my POPLA appeal - admittedly I did write about the wind factor in my initial appeal to the parking company but did not rely on this at all in my POPLA appeal!

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising
out of the presence at XXXX on XX
May 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the
£80 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration
mark XXXXXX. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without
displaying a valid ticket.
The operator’s case is that there is sufficient signage at the site informing
motorists that vehicles must display a valid parking permit and a completed
scratch card or parking ticket. The operator submits that the appellant’s
vehicle was not displaying this, therefore there occurred a breach of the
terms and conditions of using the site and the parking charge notice was
correctly issued.
The appellant’s basis for appeal is that the vehicle was not improperly parked.
In their original representations to the operator the appellant submits that the
strong winds must have blown off their daily scratch card into the foot well.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, the onus is on the driver to
clearly display their scratch card. I find that by parking at the site without
clearly displaying a valid permit and a ticket / completed scratch card, the
appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site and the
parking charge notice was correctly issued.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Stroma · 14 October 2013 at 6:49PM

You lost because you tried mitigating circumstances, sorry but you've basically wasted your popla appeal, if you came here for advice you would have been helped with this. Which parking company is this? You do realise that popla decisions are not binding upon you?

Pinacolada_2 · 14 October 2013 at 6:56PM

Stroma wrote: »

You lost because you tried mitigating circumstances, sorry but you've basically wasted your popla appeal, if you came here for advice you would have been helped with this. Which parking company is this? You do realise that popla decisions are not binding upon you?

I did not appeal on the basis of mitigating circumstances. Coupon-mad helped me write a long appeal using various points of law. The assessor did not even address these in her decision.

You can see my appeal here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4697633&highlight=pinacolada

Stroma · 14 October 2013 at 7:06PM

I stand corrected, you should make a complaint to the lead adjudicator as you have added to your appeal and it has not been considered.

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

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