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
Options
Comments
-
PLEASE would all msers posting their excellent wins at POPLA, ALSO give the Popla Assessor's name?
#
Well done to each and every one of you: now, Name that excellent Assessor too:-)CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET
0 -
Thanks to all who contribute to this forum, loads of info to be found!
Successful appeal against USC Parking LTD.
(Appellant) -v-
UCS Parking Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor0 -
Successful appeal against LCP at Harlesden Plaza car park.
First I must say thank you to the people who contributed to this forum. After LCP rejected my appeal to them, which was made mainly on the ground of inadequate signage and lighting, I was going to give up, but reading this forum made me think I should appeal to POPLA.
Second, I must thank the assessor, Christopher Monk, for determining that of the pile of photos that LCP submitted as evidence, only one had been taken at night (but it was taken with a flash!) but that's dated 2012, so there is no evidence on how the car park and signs look at night.
What happened:
Driver used car park for the first time, entered car park at night, parked in front of Burger King, genuinely did not see P&D signs. Owner got NTK through post, appealed to LCP on grounds of inadequate signage and excessive charge but was rejected. Owner wrote a few more letters to LCP but they refused to show any understanding. About to give up, but came across this forum. Appealed to POPLA on grounds of inadequate signage, NGPEOL, non compliant NTK.
POPLA decision:
The Operator issued parking charge notice number LC100xxxxx arising out of the presence at Harlesden Plaza, on 31 January 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and no payment for it to park was made. A parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s ANPR system detected this.
The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the driver was unable to see the signs at the site because it was dark.
The operator rejected these representations, stating that the site was adequately illuminated.
Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has provided a number of photographs which are said to show signs at the site during darkness. However, the sky is only dark in one of them, which was taken in 2012, so is not a reliable guide to the level of light at the site on the date of the parking event. The photographs of the site in daylight, although they do show lighting, are also not useful in determining whether the signs were visible at night, as I cannot know what effect these lights had on the date of the parking event, as they may not all have been functioning. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to permit me to find on the balance of probabilities that the signs were sufficiently visible to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the driver, so cannot find that they were bound by them. Therefore, I cannot find the charge notice to have been validly issued.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
Christopher Monk
Assessor
0 -
Win against UKPC in Beaconsfield
A satisfying victory i suppose in that it happens to also be in the 'home' town of this lot. ...! Just goes to show that whilst GPEOL may be on the sidelines for now the old 'no authority' works . Christopher Monk was the assessor
19 May 2015
Reference 86608xxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
xxxxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Bakery Court, on 20 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the appellant parked at the site without displaying a valid permit and received a parking charge notice after this was observed by the operator’s employee.
The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The operator’s assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor0 -
POPLA_appeal_allowed wrote: »Successful appeal against LCP at Harlesden Plaza car park.
First I must say thank you to the people who contributed to this forum. After LCP rejected my appeal to them, which was made mainly on the ground of inadequate signage and lighting, I was going to give up, but reading this forum made me think I should appeal to POPLA.
Second, I must thank the assessor, Christopher Monk, for determining that of the pile of photos that LCP submitted as evidence, only one had been taken at night (but it was taken with a flash!) but that's dated 2012, so there is no evidence on how the car park and signs look at night.
What happened:
Driver used car park for the first time, entered car park at night, parked in front of Burger King, genuinely did not see P&D signs. Owner got NTK through post, appealed to LCP on grounds of inadequate signage and excessive charge but was rejected. Owner wrote a few more letters to LCP but they refused to show any understanding. About to give up, but came across this forum. Appealed to POPLA on grounds of inadequate signage, NGPEOL, non compliant NTK.
POPLA decision:
The Operator issued parking charge notice number LC100xxxxx arising out of the presence at Harlesden Plaza, on 31 January 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and no payment for it to park was made. A parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s ANPR system detected this.
The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the driver was unable to see the signs at the site because it was dark.
The operator rejected these representations, stating that the site was adequately illuminated.
Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has provided a number of photographs which are said to show signs at the site during darkness. However, the sky is only dark in one of them, which was taken in 2012, so is not a reliable guide to the level of light at the site on the date of the parking event. The photographs of the site in daylight, although they do show lighting, are also not useful in determining whether the signs were visible at night, as I cannot know what effect these lights had on the date of the parking event, as they may not all have been functioning. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to permit me to find on the balance of probabilities that the signs were sufficiently visible to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the driver, so cannot find that they were bound by them. Therefore, I cannot find the charge notice to have been validly issued.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
Christopher Monk
Assessor
It's useful to know that the lighting thing is still not well evidenced at Harlesden Plaza. Please can you give us your full verification code to quote (Reference 86608xxxx) now you are safe and it's all over?!
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 THREAD0 -
Won again against CPM, reason was no evidence sent which seems usual. Interestingly the reply from BPA to my complaint about debt collected letters sent while the appeal was at POPLA stated that evidence was sent to myself and POPLA but too late resulting in a win for me but I received nothing. Big thanks again to all on here. Xx0
-
Won again against CPM, reason was no evidence sent which seems usual. Interestingly the reply from BPA to my complaint about debt collected letters sent while the appeal was at POPLA stated that evidence was sent to myself and POPLA but too late resulting in a win for me but I received nothing. Big thanks again to all on here. Xx
Good to see more people costing that cancerous organisation more money!
Ive got another ticket (Thats 8 so far haha!)Mike172 vs. UKCPM
Won:20
Lost: 0
Pending: 0
Times Ghosted: 150 -
Thanks to members of the forum for providing templates and advice.
I received an email today from POPLA saying my appeal against Parking Eye has been allowed.
"The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination:
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking (“the Terms”) are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit the Appellant breached the Terms by parking without authorisation or without paying to park and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge.
The Appellant has made several submissions however it is only necessary to consider one submission for the purposes of this appeal. This is the submission that the Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charges on the land.
The Operator has not provided a copy of a contract between themselves and the Landowner which authorises them to operate at the site and to issue parking charges on the Landowner’s behalf; nor have they provided a signed witness statement confirming the existence of such a contract. Therefore, I cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this case.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell
Assessor"0 -
ParkingEye @ Southampton Town Quay: Not Relevant Land
Parking Incident: January 2015
POPLA Appeal Allowed 21st May 2015 (POPLA Reference 6060755093)
For a short period in late-2014 PE stopped bothering to claim keeper liability at Southampton Town Quay. However, early in the New Year, they resumed claiming POFA 2012 on their Notices to Keeper.
Our appeal was based on the single point that Southampton Town Quay is subject to ABP Port Byelaws and is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012.
PE delivered their evidence electronically to POPLA just two days before the scheduled hearing date. We received PE’s evidence by snail-mail some six days later (i.e. four days after the scheduled hearing date); this has prompted us to complain to the BPA to highlight this potential sanctionable breach of the BPA Code of Practice.
PE’s evidence was based on their bog-standard pack and made no attempt to rebut the case that the Town Quay was not relevant land. Nor did PE provide any evidence that they had the landowner’s authority to operate there (not even a witness statement). Assessor Ricky Powell picked up on the absence of evidence of landowner’s authority as the primary reason to allow the appeal.
However, great credit is due to him for also confirming that he accepted the case that Town Quay is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012. :beer:
The full text of his determination is set out below.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking (“the Terms”) are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to purchase the appropriate parking time and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge.
The Appellant has made several very strong submissions however it is only necessary to consider determine one area of dispute for the purposes of this appeal. This is the submission that the Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charges on the land.
The Operator has not provided a copy of a contract between themselves and the Landowner which authorises them to operate at the site and to issue parking charges on the Landowner’s behalf; nor have they provided a signed witness statement confirming the existence of such a contract. Therefore, I cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this case.
I think it is important to add that I also accept the Appellant’s submission that the land is not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) because this was their main submission. I find that the land is subject to statutory control for the reasons given by the Appellant and therefore, by virtue of paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of POFA, the Operator has no right to recover under POFA.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell
Assessor0 -
Very interesting comment from POPLA.I find that the land is subject to statutory control for the reasons given by the Appellant and therefore, by virtue of paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 4 of POFA, the Operator has no right to recover under POFA
1. I wonder how many other POPLA Southampton Town Quay appeals have included the 'not relevant land' point, yet have been dismissed? Presumably they will check old files and rectify?
2. Presumably POPLA will report this to the BPA as a sanctionable event?
3. Presumably the BPA will instigate an investigation into how many motorists have been pursued by PE - and paid - in this regard?
4. Presumably they will require PE to reimburse those motorists?
Lots of 'presumptions'.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 Street0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards