POPLA Decisions

See the thread;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5762395

Basically, the POPLA assessor did not take into account all my challenges - especially Landowner Authority and Parking Eye did not provide evidence. The initial appeal was unsuccessful, but after complaining of a procedural error, the appeal was allowed.

Letter received from POPLA - appeal allowed!!
Despite the fact that the appeal portal has still not been updated, I have just received a letter from POPLA stating the Appeal is Allowed.

This is great news and shows that I did the right thing to complain about a 'procedural error'.

The salient part of the review said;
"For me to be able to categorically state that the operator has the authority granted to it to enforce parking on this land, I would have expected to have been provided with a copy of a redacted contract or witness statement. Having viewed the operator's evidence pack it has not provided any evidence of either. As such I am unable to determine that on the date of the event that the operator was authorised to issue PCN's to motorists, and am unable to conclude that the parking charge has been issued correctly.....

....Accordingly the Appeal is Allowed."

ParkingEye, the Range, Milton Keynes

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameSteve Macallan
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration xxxx xxx remained at the car park for longer than authorised or without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant believes the operator has failed to adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states the signage is not clear. He is questioning the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this site. He is also questioning the accuracy of the operator’s ANPR system. The appellant has provided: an annotated birds-eye image of the entrance; several photographs of the entrance area; photographs from within the car park; photographs of signs; photographs of a sign belonging to The Range; and a list of businesses.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions state: “2 hour max stay” and that “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 10:37 and departing at 13:04, remaining for a total of two hours and 27 minutes. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, under section 18.1 states: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. The appellant has provided photographic evidence of the presence of parking signs belonging to The Range which advise that vehicles may be clamped. This introduces confusion over who the parking contract is with. I would also note that the clamping of vehicles of private land is illegal in England and Wales. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of the BPA. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

Is there any sanctions which cn be applied to the PPC?

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Hey guys, just to let you know I've had an uncontested win against ParkingEye for the Southampton Town Quay car park (Red Funnel Car Park) primarily based on relevant land / harbour byelaws.

I did add abit about how I'd requested certain information (from the standard appeal template on the main thread and it was totally disregarded and I received an automated rejection letter) so I challenged the appeals process, pointed out that ParkingEye have the responcibility to provide evidence of signage and not me, that ParkingEye have cash meters which are presumably collected on a regular basis and that Due Dilligence would imply that Parking Eye maintain documentation that their signage is visible on a daily basis, or however frequently they empty their parking meters...

Will post up my appeal if anyone wishes to use it. (Some may be old / irrelevant I left it until day 28 so had to rush something through so perhaps not what the experts here would have done)

Appeal is at: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74260638#post74260638

Hey guys, just to let you know I've had an uncontested win against ParkingEye for the Southampton Town Quay car park (Red Funnel Car Park) primarily based on relevant land / harbour byelaws.

PE know they're stuffed on Keeper Liability here, but would be more than content to take the keeper's money if they were totally naive about PoFA - and the vast majority are - so they won't lose sleep over the few that rumble them. And that must be a premeditated strategy on their part.

Well done on seeing through the ruse!