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
-
I have just read your message and as I am about to put an appeal into POPLA I just wondered if you were parked in the same car park as us? Cedar Lane, Frimley? We would be grateful for any help or advice. WBW.
Please start your own thread after reading the Newbies Sticky carefully.
Also, a new poster asking potentially identifying questions is liable to be treated with suspicion - PPCs do monitor/stooge/troll this forum with some regularlty.0 -
Kyle Tyrrell (Appellant)
-v-
JAS Parking Solutions (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number JAS18378 arising out of the presence at Staples/Carphone Warehouse Basildon, on 2 January 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark K666YLE.
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
On 2 January 2015 at Staples/Carphone Warehouse Basildon, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that vehicle was left in the car park before or after using either premises. There is photographic evidence to support that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site. The operator submits that the driver was seen leaving the car park, with their car still at the site and that this was a breach of the terms of use of the site. Therefore, they submit that the appellant is liable for the parking charge.
The appellant states that they were a genuine user of the site and has submitted a receipt as evidence to support this. Furthermore, the appellant put the operator to strict proof to show that they were not in the store.
As the appellant has disputed being in breach of the parking terms and conditions, the burden is on the operator to prove otherwise. Although the operator has submitted that the appellant left the site, no substantive evidence has been produced to show that the appellant was not present at the site at the time the parking charge notice was issued.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find on a balance of probabilities that the operator has not shown that the driver was not at the premises, which was the reason for the issue of the parking charge notice.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor
Link to thread with appeal details0 -
Win Against PPS !!! :-)
xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
v
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 1033xxx arising out of the presence at Station Road, Didcot, on 2x September 2014, 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 the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘no valid ticket or permit displayed’. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the appellant’s case that he was not the driver at the time of the incident.
The operator submits that the appellant is liable for the parking charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, according to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant did not display a valid ticket or permit during his stay at the site. There is evidence to support that there was signage erected at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions.
The appellant has not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle. As the appellant has admitted to being the registered keeper of the vehicle, the appellant can only be held liable for the parking charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied.
Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the Act states that a notice to keeper must:
“…state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper –
(i) To pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver…”
I find that the operator has failed to show that it has complied with paragraph 9(2)(e) as it has not, in a single document stated that the operator does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invited the appellant to pay the charge or provide this information. These are clearly separate requirements which must be met separately. The operator has fulfilled the latter requirements but not the former. The operator has failed to state that they do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. Therefore, I cannot find that the requirements for pursuing the appellant for this charge have been satisfied.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal and need not consider the appellant’s substantive case.
Amy Riley
Assessor0 -
Wow, Amy is blossoming - and applying the strict letter of the law.
I doubt there's many NtKs that comply with the totality required in PoFA 2012! A fruitful avenue of approach for appeals in future - referencing Amy's decision.
I wonder how the IAS would have dealt with this appeal? No need for answers!!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 -
I'm not sure that it's that strict an interpretation. I haven't seen details of this case but as I read the decision the failed NTK didn't ask for details of the driver but simply demanded payment. "The operator has fulfilled the latter requirements but not the former."Wow, Amy is blossoming - and applying the strict letter of the law.
I doubt there's many NtKs that comply with the totality required in PoFA 2012! A fruitful avenue of approach for appeals in future - referencing Amy's decision.
I wonder how the IAS would have dealt with this appeal? No need for answers!!0 -
I'm not sure that it's that strict an interpretation. I haven't seen details of this case but as I read the decision the failed NTK didn't ask for details of the driver but simply demanded payment. "The operator has fulfilled the latter requirements but not the former."
Do you recall some of her earlier 'new to the job' decisions? Completely taken in by PPC nonsense.
She seems to have 'blossomed' and got a handle on PoFA intricacies, which other Assessors have side-stepped in favour of GPEOL.
On GPEOL, POPLA is somewhat too predictable - and rather boring now!
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 -
Premier Park Ltd issued a £100 PCN as my permit was not on display. I appealed directly to them informing them that I had every right to park there and included a copy of my permits, and explained that my new permit will be kept in my old tax disc holder.
I also complained their signage was poor, that no contract existed, that their charge was excessive and unfair. I requested copies of their BPA certificate, and asked them to clarify the capacity in which they were claiming £100 (breach of contract? damages?), their authority to issue tickets.
They rejected my original appeal and failed to provide any of the documents I requested.
I then appealed to POPLA who eventually wrote back:The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number [number missing], issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXX. Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator. You are not liable for the parking charge and where appropriate any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.
I have included my letters that I sent to Premier Park LTD and to POPLA in respect to this case:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=51912590 -
David Williams (Appellant)
vs
Total Car Park Management Limited (Operator)
The operator issued parking charge notice number xxx 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 assessors reasons are set out.
The operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessors determination.
It is the Appellants 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 the breach of the conditions of parking occurred not any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking in fact were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
Shehia Pirwany
Assessor0 -
May I just add that I spoke to Star City in Birmingham separately to ask them to remove the parking ticket or at least get TCP to remove the ticket only for them to turn round and tell me in so many words to go swivel. I'm so tempted to send them this and tell them what to do with their ticket.0
-
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 that these clearly stated that non-customers were entitled to park for free for 10 minutes but thereafter they were required to pay a charge of £90 to park at the site. They submit that the Appellant parked for 20 minutes and therefore, as a non-customer, is liable to pay the charge.
The Appellant has raised several submissions in support of their appeal 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 at the site.
In their evidence, the Operator has provided an extract from a contract between themselves and the Landowner which they submit authorises them to operate at 'some of [the Landowner's] properties' and to issue parking charges on its behalf. It has not been established that the Operator has been authorised to issue parking charges at the particular site in this case: 'Lid, Dogflud Way, Farnham'. Therefore, I cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this case.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell
Assessor
For anyone else that is thinking of appealing their charge - DO! I followed the Newbie Flowchart to the letter.
I appealed my PCN to the issuing company (Athena ANPR Ltd) using the MSE template. They refused my appeal. So I used the other MSE template to appeal to POPLA. They have upheld my appeal.
Once again, thank you MSE.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards