IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

POPLA Decisions

1323324326328329455

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,634
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Wait for the threatogram then start your own thread.

    Do you know what I would do right now, this weekend? Take someone (other half or family member) as an independent witness, with Google Location on their phone into that car park and pay the minimum sum to stay (50p, or £1 or whatever, for 30 mins/an hour). Film yourself/passenger making that payment, with the time showing on the film and zoom in on the time displayed on the PDT Machine, so you have all the facts, including the real arrive & leaving time from Google location.

    Do not contravene; leave in good time. Keep the data.

    Then leave it a week to make sure they will have processed that day's data and go to PE's privacy page and upload your V5C as identity and the previous PCN to show they have sufficient information to know you are the relevant data subject for that car and they know that your email address is yours, and ask for the data from their ANPR cameras on (this weekend's visit date). State that you require the two images of driving in and out and the times from the ANPR and the time and payment made from the PDT machine data.

    Pretty sure they retain ALL data/images for a 12 month period (on the ludicrous excuse of storing it in case it's needed to assist the Police re a crime) whether you comply with the terms or not.

    Therefore they must have the images of your brief visit, and under the GDPR you want to see that data, which is easily available to them.

    Then compare the times on their Data Protection Team's reply, with the times you have proved. Different? I expect so (I really do).

    You will then have evidence of unreliability of ANPR/PDT machine timings at that car park and can use your data in your defence for the above case.

    I've never suggested that to anyone before but I think people in your shoes, where the PCN depends on 2 or 3 minutes either way, should revisit and expose the unreliability of the timings. We do need to start exposing this part of the scam.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • misterbarlow
    misterbarlow Posts: 466
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 10 November 2018 at 9:07AM
    Another MSE victory...
    Won by default from operator apathy, no doubt due to my excellently worded appeal they knew they were on for a hiding lol, but still a win!!!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75030185#post75030185
    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Paul Garrity

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: The appellant says the grace period is non-complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned. They say that there is no evidence of land owner authority. They say that there is no evidence of the period of parking. They say that the is no planning permission for pole mounted cameras or signage.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA.
    As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, I have not considered these.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Another MSE victory...
    Won by default from operator apathy, no doubt due to my excellently worded appeal they knew they were on for a hiding lol, but still a win!!!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75030185#post75030185

    GREAT NEWS ...... proving to everyone that Parking Eye were scamming you in the first place

    PARKING EYE - A BPA APPROVED MEMBER ???
  • Got this decision through today

    Britannia Parking Group - Unsuccessful

    Decision- Unsuccessful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver failed to validate stay or make valid payment

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who is it pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. The appellant states the PCN and appeal reply show different contraventions. The appellant says the original PCN states the contravention as “Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment.” The appellant states on appealing to the operator the reply stated, “The Parking Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because your pay and display ticket had expired.” The appellant says they are informed that the driver did purchase a valid pay and display ticket, so this highlights that the original PCN was not properly given and the subsequent appeal reply letter is contradictory. The appellant states this breaches the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is appropriate before issuing a PCN. The appellant says there is no evidence of an invalid or expired ticket. The appellant states the Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parking during the relevant period. The appellant says the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. The appellant states by virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, the operator have not been able to definitively state the period of parking. The appellant says the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is inadequate notice of the contraventions. The appellant states there was no contract or agreement of the parking charge at all. The appellant says the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving a huge charge. The appellant states they require the operator to provide evidence of the signage from the view of the driver on the day in question. The appellant says the operator has no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I consider the appellant is the registered keeper, because in the appeal to the operator the appellant has stated, “There will be no admission as to who was driving.” I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “PAY ON ENTRY: Welcome to XXXXXXXXX: RESTRICTIONS AND CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES: £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.” The site operates using an ANPR system. The cameras captured the driver’s vehicle registration, XXX XXX, entering the site at 11:35, and exiting at 15:14. The total period of stay was three hours and 39 minutes. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, and it appears that the appellant did breach the terms and conditions. I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper. I note the appellant’s comments relating to the issue reason on the PCN and the appeal response. However, I am satisfied that the reason on the PCN is correct. The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that a payment for a period of three hours has been made against the vehicle registration number at 11:38. The driver was on the site for three hours and 39 minutes, therefore there was a period of 39 minutes that was unpaid. I am therefore satisfied that the driver did not purchase a valid ticket. When the appellant submitted the appeal to the operator it was able to investigate it further, and at that point found that the payment made by the driver did not cover the full duration they were on the site. The initial PCN will not always completely identify the reason the PCN was issued, however as long as it covers the reason then that is acceptable. I appreciate the appellant’s comments surrounding the operator not being able to definitively state the period of parking. Due to this, there are reasonable periods for motorists to park, review the terms and conditions and then make a payment if they wish to stay. There is also a reasonable period for motorists to leave the car park at the end of the contract. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the driver has made a payment three minutes after entering the site. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable period in which to enter the site, park and then make a payment. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” The driver’s ticket expired at 14:48, however the appellant has not left the site until 15:14. This is 26 minutes after the ticket expired, and the appellant has not provided a reason for the driver leaving the site 26 minutes after their ticket expired. Therefore, the operator does not need to allow an extension to the 10-minute grace period The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. From the site map I can see that there are two levels, and I can see that level one has 31 signs placed at the entrance and throughout the level, and level two has 56 signs throughout the level clearly detailing the terms and conditions. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. The operator is not required to provide evidence of how the signs will have looked to a motorist on the day in question. The motorist just needs to be afforded the opportunity to review the terms and conditions when deciding to park in the initial period when entering a site. Based on the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied the driver had sufficient opportunity to review the terms and conditions. By the fact the driver has purchased a ticket I am satisfied that they have read the terms and conditions by purchasing a ticket and having purchased a valid tariff. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has produced a witness statement in line with the BPA Code of Practice 22.16b, to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, as the driver’s vehicle has been on site without making a payment to cover the time on site, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

    Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,634
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    archie2008 wrote: »
    Got this decision through today

    Britannia Parking Group - Unsuccessful

    Decision- Unsuccessful

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver failed to validate stay or make valid payment

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who is it pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    The appellant states the PCN and appeal reply show different contraventions. The appellant says the original PCN states the contravention as “Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment.” The appellant states on appealing to the operator the reply stated, “The Parking Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because your pay and display ticket had expired.”

    The appellant says they are informed that the driver did purchase a valid pay and display ticket, so this highlights that the original PCN was not properly given and the subsequent appeal reply letter is contradictory. The appellant states this breaches the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is appropriate before issuing a PCN.

    The appellant says there is no evidence of an invalid or expired ticket.

    The appellant states the Notice to Keeper clearly states the vehicle was parking during the relevant period. The appellant says the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. The appellant states by virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, the operator have not been able to definitively state the period of parking.

    The appellant says the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is inadequate notice of the contraventions.

    The appellant states there was no contract or agreement of the parking charge at all. The appellant says the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving a huge charge. The appellant states they require the operator to provide evidence of the signage from the view of the driver on the day in question.

    The appellant says the operator has no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I consider the appellant is the registered keeper, because in the appeal to the operator the appellant has stated, “There will be no admission as to who was driving.” I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “PAY ON ENTRY: Welcome to XXXXXXXXX: RESTRICTIONS AND CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES: £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.”

    The site operates using an ANPR system. The cameras captured the driver’s vehicle registration, XXX XXX, entering the site at 11:35, and exiting at 15:14. The total period of stay was three hours and 39 minutes.

    Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, and it appears that the appellant did breach the terms and conditions.

    I will now examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN.

    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012. Therefore, the operator is able to transfer the liability onto the keeper.

    I note the appellant’s comments relating to the issue reason on the PCN and the appeal response. However, I am satisfied that the reason on the PCN is correct.

    The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that a payment for a period of three hours has been made against the vehicle registration number at 11:38. The driver was on the site for three hours and 39 minutes, therefore there was a period of 39 minutes that was unpaid.

    I am therefore satisfied that the driver did not purchase a valid ticket.

    When the appellant submitted the appeal to the operator it was able to investigate it further, and at that point found that the payment made by the driver did not cover the full duration they were on the site. The initial PCN will not always completely identify the reason the PCN was issued, however as long as it covers the reason then that is acceptable.

    I appreciate the appellant’s comments surrounding the operator not being able to definitively state the period of parking. Due to this, there are reasonable periods for motorists to park, review the terms and conditions and then make a payment if they wish to stay. There is also a reasonable period for motorists to leave the car park at the end of the contract.

    For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer.

    In this case the driver has made a payment three minutes after entering the site. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable period in which to enter the site, park and then make a payment.

    Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    The driver’s ticket expired at 14:48, however the appellant has not left the site until 15:14. This is 26 minutes after the ticket expired, and the appellant has not provided a reason for the driver leaving the site 26 minutes after their ticket expired. Therefore, the operator does not need to allow an extension to the 10-minute grace period.

    The operator has provided images of the signage at the site, along with a site plan for the car park. The BPA Code of Practice, section 18.2 states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. Furthermore, it goes on to state in section 18.3 “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    From the site map I can see that there are two levels, and I can see that level one has 31 signs placed at the entrance and throughout the level, and level two has 56 signs throughout the level clearly detailing the terms and conditions.

    I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the driver of the vehicle had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. The operator is not required to provide evidence of how the signs will have looked to a motorist on the day in question.

    The motorist just needs to be afforded the opportunity to review the terms and conditions when deciding to park in the initial period when entering a site. Based on the evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied the driver had sufficient opportunity to review the terms and conditions.

    By the fact the driver has purchased a ticket I am satisfied that they have read the terms and conditions by purchasing a ticket and having purchased a valid tariff.

    Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has produced a witness statement in line with the BPA Code of Practice 22.16b, to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7.

    Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

    In this case, as the driver’s vehicle has been on site without making a payment to cover the time on site, the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met. I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

    Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

    A PLEA to NEWBIES to PLEASE add paragraphs when pasting in a POPLA Decision, or we can't possibly read it! Yes we know it arrives like that...I just added some obvious para breaks, above. Took me about a minute max.

    Anyway ignore the eeejits and carry on posting on your thread here if they try a small claim. A loss at POPLA is never game over, ignore it:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5896865

    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • I was successful in appealing against Total Parking Solutions (TPS) who wanted to charge me for parking on Carousel Way, Northampton.

    For my submission to POPLA, I compiled a lengthy pdf containing my entire appeal, including photographs and diagrams all very much based on ideas I found on this board. Thank you to all the sources of that good advice. (I had earlier made a number of mistakes that I could have avoided by reading the advice sooner)

    I appealed on 4 grounds, abbreviated here (and only my belief - not necessarily true):-

    1. Carousel Way is a road with public access. As such all signage including parking signs has to comply with the Road Traffic Act and associated statutes. To prevent parking, that either means double yellow lines or establishing a Restricted Parking Zone. There are no yellow lines so TPS should have implemented a Restricted Parking Zone with the signage that implies. The signs provided by TPS do not meet the requrements so they cannot have established a valid parking restriction. I cannot be charged for parking in an invalid parking zone.

    2. BPA state (on their website, guidance for drivers) that on a road, a driver will either find double yellow lines or signs indicating a Restricted Parking Zone. They state that there will be an entrance sign. I took the entrance sign they provide for a car park as a reasonable guide to the size and clarity of the sign they would expect as an entrance sign to a Restricted Parking Zone (if the Road Traffic Act version could be ignored). Again, TPS's entrance sign came nowhere near meeting the requirement (it is badly placed, too tiny, too cluttered and the parking charge is not highlighted. Other signs along the road are too infrequent, far from obvious and it is only realistic to read them while standing in the middle of the road after parking - and these are no-parking signs).

    3. The limits of a parking restriction have to be clearly marked (exit signs etc). Where I parked, the extent of the parking restriction was unclear and while I might have been inside the area TPS thought restricted, there was nothing to tell a driver this.

    4. There was no evidence that TPS had the right to regulate parking or demand parking charges on this land.

    I am a little sorry that the assessor only commented on number 4 and made no comment on the other three. I would have liked to know the assessors thoughts on number 1 in particular as that would apply to anybody parking there and to all similar roads. After that the arguments get more limited in their general effect. I do wonder whether TPS deliberately provided no evidence of authority to provide an obvious, easy decision for the assessor and save the possible damage to themselves of having their entire approach to signage thrown out.

    The assessors findings were:-

    Decision Successful

    Assessor Name *************

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked in a no parking zone.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has provided a 15-page summary for this appeal. To keep this review to the point, I have completed a brief summary of the key points.

    The appellant states that he parked behind a lorry that had already parked there. The appellant explains that he got out of his car and stepped through the barriers situated beside the road. The appellant claims he saw a number of signs, but they were inadequate as they did not conform to statutory legislation and did not clearly inform the driver of the parking restriction.

    The appellant has indicated in his initial appeal to the operator that the signage did not clearly stipulate where the “No Parking/ No Waiting” conditions applied and did not meet standard British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He further explains that the operator also did not provide any evidence of its authority to issue PCNs on the land. As such, the appellant believes the PCN was issued incorrectly.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has identified that he was the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering his liability for the PCN, as the driver.

    The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly.

    The operator has not provided any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, I cannot determine whether authority to issue PCNs on the site in question. As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Well done :beer:

    Total Parking Solutions were trying to scam you in the first place

    Total Parking Solutions = yet another BPA approved member

    The list of BPA scammers keeps growing
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 11 November 2018 at 11:10AM
    POPLA won't open themselves up to anything vaguely outside the brief they've been given by the BPA. Anything that drifts into the areas of responsibility of other 'authorities' it will ignore.

    As the finding is that TPS has not produced evidence of its ability to issue charges at this site, then please complain to the DVLA, ask them to investigate and if the finding is true, sanction TPS, require them to repay any charges already paid by motorists for this piece of land, and all outstanding charges to be cancelled.

    ccrt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • I parked, Paid for parking and submitted a copy of the ticket with reg printed on it. Ticket was on the dashboard but in a concave centre of the dash. Operator took a photo from 10 ft away so you couldnt see in this part of the dash. I supplied a photo in my appeal standing next to the van showing how items on display can easily be seen if you stand closer.

    Appeal denied by POPLA but area for text explaining why says the appeal was succesful & my evidence not taken into account.

    Result below



    Decision Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name ******* ******
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has provided a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). However, this does not state clearly why it was issued.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that they feel it is unfair for their original appeal to be declined. The appellant says the ticket was paid for, but simply fell to an area the warden issuing the ticket did not see. The appellant states the ticket flipped or moved out of view after placing it on the dashboard. The appellant says photos have been presented by the operator, but they do not show the full dashboard. The appellant states they thought that the fact the tickets have registration numbers on would add weight to their case. The appellant says you can purchase online tickets, and no ticket is required to be displayed. The appellant states they do not see the difference. The appellant says if they did not buy a ticket, they would pay the PCN. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a PCN the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The PCN the operator has provided states “The vehicle was parked at the location stated and at the specified time, in breach of the Terms and Conditions advertised on the signage.” It is the duty of the operator to provide clear evidence to POPLA of the exact reason as to why the PCN that was issued to the appellant. In this case the operator has not done that. Therefore, I am unable to determine why the PCN was issued. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal. However, I do not need to consider these as I have allowed the appeal.
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    It is the duty of the operator to provide clear evidence to POPLA of the exact reason as to why the PCN that was issued to the appellant. In this case the operator has not done that. Therefore, I am unable to determine why the PCN was issued. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal. However, I do not need to consider these as I have allowed the appeal.
    That is most definitely a SUCCESSFUL outcome for you. But I expect the operator will see the headline 'Unsuccessful' annotation and pursue this. If this is the case, please open a new thread and we will advise you on involving the BPA.

    I do wish POPLA assessors wouldn't use previous decisions, then edit to reflect their decision on the one they are currently assessing. Sloppy proofreading by them before issuing.

    Which parking firm please?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards