Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 2
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 24th Apr 13, 3:15 PM
    • 2,015 Posts
    • 2,802 Thanks
    nigelbb
    It appears that any time the PPC fails to answer or provide evidence then POPLA rules against them. It's quite logical if the appellant says "This is a penalty" or "The PPC does not have the right to issue parking charges" & then the PPC doesn't reply or offer any evidence that it's not a penalty or that they do in fact have a contract with the landowner then by default it must be a win for the driver.

    Any PPC will have a very hard time indeed trying to justify that a £70/£100 charge for an overstay in a free car park is not a penalty.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 24th Apr 13, 3:46 PM
    • 8,982 Posts
    • 13,834 Thanks
    trisontana
    PE have already shot themselves in the foot regarding so-called losses. In a letter they have sent out to at least a couple of people, they have included such things as staff wages, rent, and day-to-day running expenses as part of these "losses".

    That argument was shot down in the famous VCS S!!!!horpe case where the PPC tried to include the cost of the parking monkey's uniform as part of the loss.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 13, 6:12 PM
    • 59,854 Posts
    • 73,041 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Another one from pepipoo last month:

    Decision: Allowed

    Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (Operator)

    - The Operator has not shown that they have authority to issue parking charge notices.

    - Further to this, the Operator has not clearly stated how much the Appellant should pay and when, whether £75 within 7 days, £57 within 14 days or £95 within 28 days.

    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

    Reasons for the Assessor!!!8217;s Determination

    ...the Operator issued a parking charge notice because the vehicle with registration mark ---- --- was parked in a disabled bay but the Operator!!!8217;s employee could not see a valid disabled badge on display. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle, one of which shows the parking charge notice on the windscreen.
    It is noted that on the copy of parking charge produced, it states that the full amount of the parking charge is £95, but that the reduced amount of £57 will be accepted if paid within 14 days. However on the back of the notice it states that £75 will be accepted if paid within 7 days. This is confusing for motorists and means that they will know not know how much to pay at what stage.
    The Operator!!!8217;s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the disabled parking areas and state that motorists parking in disabled bays must clearly display a disabled badge. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.
    The Appellant made representations, stating that he has a disabled tax disc and he was with his disabled son. In addition the Appellant states that the Operator has no legal right to enforce parking charge notices issued on this land, and that the charge bears no relation to genuine loss to the Operator.
    The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because no valid disabled badge was displayed on the windscreen.
    The Operator submits that their authority to issue parking charge notices is not in question. In Paragraph 46 of the decision in VCS v HMRC it states:
    VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action
    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the Operator to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner), to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking charge notices.

    However, as the point was raised by the Appellant, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe shows that they do have authority.

    The Operator states that they are not obliged to provide a copy of any authority but that if I wish to see it they will discuss the matter. However I may only make a decision on the basis of the evidence submitted to me and I am not permitted to enter into discussions with the parties. A copy of the contract has not been produced.

    Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifted to the Operator to prove that they do. The Operator has not discharged the burden.

    Further to this, the Operator has not clearly stated how much the Appellant should pay and when, whether £75 within 7 days, £57 within 14 days or £95 within 28 days.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    Shona Watson
    Assessor
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Fergie76
    • By Fergie76 25th Apr 13, 6:49 PM
    • 2,208 Posts
    • 2,283 Thanks
    Fergie76
    So as long as everyone follows the advice from here and pepipoo and challenge the PPC's right to issue tickets, until one grows a pair and produces a copy of their contract, then no one should lose at POPLA again...
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 25th Apr 13, 7:15 PM
    • 10,504 Posts
    • 9,825 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I know I am adding to the padding, but p-l-e-a-s-e keep this thread to reported cases and NOT discussion/opinions.

    Not that discussion is wrong, but if we keep this to a list of actual results, as was envisaged by Aaron, then we won't have to plough through pages of comment to see the wood from the trees.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Apr 13, 9:33 PM
    • 59,854 Posts
    • 73,041 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Eunos1's lost appeal against PE, as discussed in this thread:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2273989&page=5

    The POPLA decision seems to have been based ONLY on the OP's very first rushed/weak email which is buried within the block of text in post #123. The bit about 'gridlocked' and 'going into McDonalds' is the only thing Shona seems to have seen, otherwise she would have mentioned Eunos1's other strong points about PE not owning the land nor having a contract with the landowner, etc.

    ************************************************** *******************************************



    ''I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the terms and conditions were clearly displayed, including the length of stay permitted. I must find that the Appellant overstayed the maximum stay. This was a breach of the terms and conditions.''



    ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

    Decision: Refused

    Reasons for the Assessor!!!8217;s Determination

    On 29 December 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 21 December 2012 the vehicle with registration mark ********** was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the ********* Park Car Park for 2 hours 32 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 2 hours.
    The Operator!!!8217;s case is that the terms and conditions are displayed at the entrance and throughout the site and state that there is a 2 hour maximum stay. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.
    The Appellant made representations, explaining that he returned to his vehicle within the 2 hours maximum stay period, but because the traffic was so bad he did not enter his vehicle but went to McDonalds to wait for the traffic to ease. This meant that he overstayed the maximum stay. The Appellant submits that the traffic was poorly managed.
    The Operator rejected the representations. It is noted that the Operator fails to address the Appellant!!!8217;s submissions or provide any reasons for rejection. The Operator produced a copy of the parking charge notice which contains images of the vehicle entering the site at 09.27 on 21 December 2012 and exiting at 12.00 the same day.

    I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the terms and conditions were clearly displayed, including the length of stay permitted. I must find that the Appellant overstayed the maximum stay. This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

    It is noted that the Appellant saw the traffic was bad and so went to McDonalds, however it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions for parking. On this occasion the Appellant stayed at the site for over 2 hours.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

    Shona Watson
    Assessor
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-04-2013 at 9:47 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • MrDance
    • By MrDance 29th Apr 13, 7:47 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    MrDance
    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    On 31 October 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 25 October 2012 the vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Churchill Retail Park Car Park for 2 hours 34 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 2 hours.

    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions are displayed at the entrance and throughout the site and state that there is a 2 hour maximum stay. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

    The Appellant made various representations, stating that the Operator had missed the deadline to respond to her appeal and that therefore the parking charge should be cancelled. After receiving the Operator’s evidence, the Appellant submits that the Operator gives the impression that they have authority to issue parking charge notices but that she refutes this statement and disputes that they have a contract with the landowner.

    The Operator rejected the representations. It is noted that the Operator fails to address the Appellant’s submissions or provide any reasons for rejection. The Operator submits that they have written authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices at the site. The Operator produced a redacted copy of what appears to be the first page of a contract between the Operator and the landowner of Churchill Retail Park. However, although this provides that the Operator is authorised to carry out "services" at the site, it does not explain what these "services" are, and whether it includes the issuing of parking charge notices.

    The case of

    Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) concerned Value Added Tax but, In Paragraph 46 of the Decision, it states:

    VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action.

    This case has now been considered by the Court of Appeal (

    [2013] EWCA Civ 186) where, in allowing the appeal of VCS, the Court held:

    In the present case the contract between VCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

    The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner) to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking charge notices. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. The contract produced by the Operator does not show that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices.

    Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove that they do. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Shona Watson

    Assessor
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Apr 13, 7:55 PM
    • 59,854 Posts
    • 73,041 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Who was the operator in that one, and was this your case?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 29th Apr 13, 7:59 PM
    • 8,982 Posts
    • 13,834 Thanks
    trisontana
    It's PE, Coupon.This is the related thread:-

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4388179
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • MrDance
    • By MrDance 29th Apr 13, 8:05 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    MrDance
    Who was the operator in that one, and was this your case?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Parking Eye, it was Mrs Dance's, but I did all the work
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Apr 13, 8:50 PM
    • 18,825 Posts
    • 29,613 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Bad luck Rachael

    How many defeats will your bosses stomach?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Apr 13, 10:18 PM
    • 18,825 Posts
    • 29,613 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Here's another (successful) appeal - Contract with Land Owner issue again (via PePiPoo)

    PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
    PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
    0845 207 7700
    enquiries@popla.org.uk
    www.popla.org.uk
    Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
    Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
    25 April 2013
    Reference: xxxxxxxxxx
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    JAMPOTT (Appellant)
    -v-
    Town and City parking (Operator)
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number unknown arising out of the presence 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
    The Appellant made several representations to the Operator, stating amongst them:
    1. No contract was offered by the Operator.
    2. In order to offer a contract the Operator must show that they have sufficient interest in the land. The Appellant has requested evidence of this. Reference has been made to a case Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC.
    The Operator rejected the representations, stating:
    1. The Appellant agreed to the terms and conditions on the signage and thus entered into a contract.
    2. The car park is private land and access is allowed to the public by the owners on the condition that they park according to the advertised terms and conditions.
    3. There is a maximum stay period stated on the signs. The Appellant was parked in excess of this time and was therefore issued a Parking Charge Notice.

    Reference has been made to a decision in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), often referred to as VCS v HMRC, to submit that an Operator cannot issue a parking change notice if they are not the landowner. The case concerned Value Added Tax but, In Paragraph 46 of the Decision, it states:

    VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action.

    In any event, this case has now been considered by the Court of Appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 186) where, in allowing the appeal of VCS, the Court held:

    In the present case the contract between VCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

    The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an Operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, as to their role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

    The Operator has responded to the Appellant’s submissions. I am unable to conclude that the Appellant is liable for the parking charge.

    Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

    Aashna Musa
    Assessor

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Apr 13, 10:24 PM
    • 18,825 Posts
    • 29,613 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Quote:

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, as to their role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

    Am I being cynical in thinking a change in the CoP might be on the cards sometime soon?
    • deadnotstupid
    • By deadnotstupid 10th May 13, 1:05 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    deadnotstupid
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Chris Adamson

    Date: Thursday, 09 May 2013


    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Appellant)
    -v-
    UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Crawley Leisure Park, on XX January 2013, 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.
    Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
    !!!65532;!!!65532;
    !!!65532;Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space’. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state,
    “Park only within marked bays”.
    The appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
    displayed.
    It is the appellant’s case that:
    a) The appellant was parked within a marked bay according to the terms of parking displayed.
    b) The £100 parking charge does not reflect any loss caused.
    The appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The operator has not addressed this submission.
    The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a “Failure to comply” with the terms of parking. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The operator has produced no evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is, in fact, a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to justify the charge in any other way.
    Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable, as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I need not decide any other issues.

    Chris Adamson
    Assessor
  • marcus lowry
    Popla appeal lost.
    7 May 2013
    Reference: xxxxxxxxx
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    xxxxxxxx
    -v-
    Combined Parking Solutions (Operator)
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxx, on 23 January 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.
    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.
    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 permit’.
    The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state, “Clearly displayed valid CPS permits only”.
    The appellant does not dispute that he failed to display a valid permit.
    It is the appellant’s case that:
    a) The terms of parking were not sufficiently well signed.
    b) The building which was located inside the car park, next to which the appellant parked, appeared to be derelict.
    c) It is unclear whether the operator has authority to issue parking charge notices in this location.
    d) The wording used on the back of the parking charge notice is strange and unclear.
    e) The date given on the parking charge notice is 22 January 2013. The appellant submits that his vehicle was not parked in the location in question on that date.
    The operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the appellant that the appellant would display a valid permit or face liability for a parking charge. For such a term to be included in the agreement, it must be ‘incorporated’ into the agreement.
    The only relevant method of incorporation, in this case, is by notice. This means that the appellant must have been made aware of the term, before the agreement was made, in order for it to be deemed part of the agreement. The appellant will be deemed to have been made aware of the term if the operator had taken reasonable steps to bring the term to the appellant’s attention. The usual method by which an operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying clear signs around the site advertising the terms of parking.
    Once an appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.
    The appellant submits that there were only two signs displaying the terms of parking at the location in question.
    The operator has produced a photograph of the appellant’s vehicle which shows that a large, clear, sign displaying the terms of parking was located on the wall, very close behind the appellant’s vehicle. Accordingly, on the evidence before me, I find that the operator had taken reasonable steps to being the terms of parking to the attention of the appellant.
    The appellant has submitted that the building, next to which he parked, was derelict. Although it appears from the photographs provided by the operator that the building next to which the appellant parked was, in fact, derelict, this is not of relevance to the parking agreement. The signs displaying the terms of parking were themselves clear and clear, and there was no indication that they did not apply.
    The appellant has questioned the authority of the operator to issue parking charge notices at this site. Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the control and enforcement of parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
    However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.
    The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner which indicates that the operator has been granted authority to issue parking charge notices at this site in accordance with the terms of parking displayed. Consequently, I find that the operator has demonstrated that it has authority to issue parking charge notices at this site.
    The appellant has submitted that the wording on the back of the parking charge notice is unclear. The operator has produced a copy of the wording; it appears that the text on the back of the parking charge notice details how the motorist may pay the parking charge, and the appeals procedure available. Accordingly, it seems clear that the wording has no relevance to the parking charge notice itself, and so is not a reason for which I have the discretion to allow an appeal.
    The appellant submits that the parking charge notice states that its date of issue is 22 January 2013. The operator disputes this, and submits that the parking charge notice was correctly issued, on 23 January 2013. The operator has produced a close-up copy of the parking charge notice.
    The date of issue appears to be 23 January 2013, although the line of the box in which the date is to be entered, and the ink of the ‘3’ in ’23 January, appear to overlap and so it appears at first glance that the date of issue may be 22 January; however, on closer inspection it seems clear to me that the date of issue given was 23 January 2013.
    The appellant does not dispute that his vehicle was parked on this date, and the operator has produced photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site without displaying a permit, prior to the issue of the parking charge notice. Taking together all the evidence before me, it appears that the parking charge notice was issued in the correct manner.

    I find that, by failing to display a valid permit, the appellant became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.
    Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.
    Christopher Adamson
    Assessor
    • Stroma
    • By Stroma 10th May 13, 3:45 PM
    • 7,917 Posts
    • 8,408 Thanks
    Stroma
    Good luck in getting money off the motorist perky, we know that popla decisions are not binding on us. And would love to see this particular case in front of a small claims judge!!!1095;.
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 10th May 13, 3:51 PM
    • 2,015 Posts
    • 2,802 Thanks
    nigelbb
    Excuse my scepticism but this report of a POPLA loss for the motorist is the first post on this forum from "marcus lowry" & in a first for a PPC at POPLA "The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner". Please can we see the contract that CPS produced? PE have produced documents purporting to be such a contract but are nothing of the sort.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th May 13, 4:49 PM
    • 59,854 Posts
    • 73,041 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Excuse my scepticism but this report of a POPLA loss for the motorist is the first post on this forum from "marcus lowry" & in a first for a PPC at POPLA "The operator has produced a copy of its contract with the landowner". Please can we see the contract that CPS produced? PE have produced documents purporting to be such a contract but are nothing of the sort.
    Originally posted by nigelbb

    Totally agree, shame the appellant never bothered with questioning who issued that 'ticket' (CPS' modus operandi does include allegedly untrained self-ticketing by random people - not employees - incentivised by a 'bounty' to rush out and slap these on cars).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 13th May 13, 11:59 AM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Chris Adamson

    Date: May 2013

    Reported:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79026

    Successful Grounds: Interest in Land/Contract

    PPC: UK Parking Control Ltd

    Reference: <<REF>>
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    <<APPELLANT>> (Appellant)
    -v-
    UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number <<XX>> arising out of the presence at <<XX>>, on <<XX>>, of a vehicle with registration mark <<XX>>.

    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!!!8217;s reasons are as set out.

    The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


    Reasons for the Assessor!!!8217;s Determination

    It is the operator!!!8217;s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: !!!8216;Vehicle parked on yellow lines/ hatched area!!!8217;. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that, !!!8220;All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays!!!8221;.

    It is the appellant!!!8217;s case that:

    a) The operator does not have sufficient interest in the land to offer a contract for parking.
    b) There was no contract formed between the appellant and the operator due to a lack of consideration and incorporation of terms.
    c) The area in which the appellant parked appeared to be a marked bay.
    d) There were no signs indicating that the area in question was for family parking only.
    e) The operator has failed to justify the level of the charge.

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

    The operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, any contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an appellant, it is for the operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

    Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the appellant!!!8217;s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

    Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

    I need not decide any other issues.

    Chris Adamson
    Assessor
    Last edited by Aaron Aadvark; 13-05-2013 at 12:04 PM.
    • Parking-Prankster
    • By Parking-Prankster 13th May 13, 5:40 PM
    • 311 Posts
    • 1,164 Thanks
    Parking-Prankster
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Shona Watson

    Date: May 2013

    Successful Grounds: Visited site twice in one day - first in-last out error

    PPC: Highview Parking Ltd

    Reasons for the Assessor!!!8217;s Determination

    On 7 February 2013, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 26 January 2013 the vehicle with registration mark xxx was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Yate Shopping Centre Main Car Park for 5 hours 45 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 4 hours.

    The Operator!!!8217;s case is that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed within the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced and state that there is a 4 hour maximum stay. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

    The Appellant made representations, submitting that he had visited the site twice on the date in question, but that the automatic number plate recognition system had not registered his vehicle leaving and then returning to the site. The Appellant produced photographs and receipts that he submits show that the vehicle was elsewhere between 10.30 and 15.49. The photographs are not time or date stamped.

    The Appellant!!!8217;s original representations states that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him.

    It is noted that the Appellant states that although the Operator!!!8217;s evidence pack is dated 22 March 2013, it was only sent to him by email on 25 March 2013. However there is no dispute that he received the evidence in good time for this hearing.

    It should also be noted that CCTV evidence was sent to us on an unrecognised file format and therefore could not be viewed.

    The Operator rejected the representations, as stated in the notice of rejection they sent, because they believe the timings stated on the parking charge notice are correct, and they were unable to accept the Appellant!!!8217;s claim that he has superpowers. The Operator produced images that appear to show the vehicle entering the site at 10.10 on 26 January 2013 and exiting at 15.55 the same day.

    However the Operator has not responded to the Appellant!!!8217;s submission that although he did enter the site at 10.10, he left the site before returning again later in the day and then leaving for the second time at 15.55. For example, the Operator could have provided a search for all the images of the vehicle with registration mark xxx taken on the date in question. The Operator received a copy of the Appellant!!!8217;s submissions and therefore has had the opportunity to produce evidence to refute them.

    It is noted that the Operator has produced representations made by the Appellant in relation to two other parking charge notices, however I am only considering evidence relating to this parking charge notice, number yyy.

    I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not produced any evidence to refute the Appellant!!!8217;s submission that he visited Yate Shopping Centre twice on the date in question and therefore did not overstay the maximum stay. I have therefore not been satisfied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Shona Watson
    Assessor
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

902Posts Today

7,092Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin