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 150
    • doubled1989
    • By doubled1989 11th Mar 18, 2:29 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    doubled1989
    What can I now do?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Mar 18, 4:17 PM
    • 18,035 Posts
    • 28,573 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    What can I now do?
    Originally posted by doubled1989
    Go back to your post and put some paragraphs into that massive wall of text so we know the reasons for the POPLA refusal. You really shouldn't expect regulars, who are reading dozens upon dozens of threads every day, to have to plough through that enormous block of words.

    Help others to help you.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • doubled1989
    • By doubled1989 11th Mar 18, 5:34 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    doubled1989
    Go back to your post and put some paragraphs into that massive wall of text so we know the reasons for the POPLA refusal. You really shouldn't expect regulars, who are reading dozens upon dozens of threads every day, to have to plough through that enormous block of words.

    Help others to help you.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    done this now
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 12th Mar 18, 6:25 AM
    • 1,996 Posts
    • 2,754 Thanks
    nigelbb
    done this now
    Originally posted by doubled1989
    It's still an unreadable wall of text.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Mar 18, 7:36 AM
    • 18,035 Posts
    • 28,573 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    It's still an unreadable wall of text.
    Originally posted by nigelbb
    Edited on the original thread.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74008828#post74008828
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • doubled1989
    • By doubled1989 12th Mar 18, 6:19 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    doubled1989
    Biting the bullet and paying. Cannot be bothered to deal with the hassle and the 6 year wait and a pregnant partner/young children because all it will do and has done is cause arguments. Too time consuming for me and out of my depth. Good luck to others who will but it really is not worth the hassle and time for it. End of the day 100 quid really is nothing for a stupid mistake which I was completely at fault for.
    Thanks to all those who put their time and effort into it and good luck
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 18, 6:22 PM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No you are not! Joke, surely.

    No-one pays these and this is not a place to post such twaddle. Yours is ONLY Britannia, come on!! Please STOP and read what was said on your thread:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74008151#post74008151

    Don't be mugged just ignore them, what do you think we did before POPLA existed?!!

    DO NOT PAY THIS, THERE IS NO NEED WHATSOEVER AND ANYONE WHO DOES...WORDS FAIL ME...

    Here is what you should have done, posted by a person who is struggling after a stroke:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74012999#post74012999

    Anyone can ignore debt letters after a stupid private PCN, I've done so myself, it's almost amusing.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-03-2018 at 8:29 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.

    • waamo
    • By waamo 12th Mar 18, 6:33 PM
    • 3,415 Posts
    • 4,563 Thanks
    waamo
    Biting the bullet and paying. Cannot be bothered to deal with the hassle and the 6 year wait and a pregnant partner/young children because all it will do and has done is cause arguments. Too time consuming for me and out of my depth. Good luck to others who will but it really is not worth the hassle and time for it. End of the day 100 quid really is nothing for a stupid mistake which I was completely at fault for.
    Thanks to all those who put their time and effort into it and good luck
    Originally posted by doubled1989
    Britannia don't do court. They huff and puff but that's about it. I would seriously reconsider paying all that is going to happen is that you get sent paperwork that isn't soft, strong or even very, very long.
    This space for hire.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Mar 18, 8:37 PM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,084 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Britannia don't do court. They huff and puff but that's about it. I would seriously reconsider paying all that is going to happen is that you get sent paperwork that isn't soft, strong or even very, very long.
    Originally posted by waamo
    Perfect Waamo, your summing up is perfection

    #OP ......... DO NOT PAY SCAMMERS
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Mar 18, 8:59 AM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,301 Thanks
    The Deep
    If you pay this you will be funding white slavery, the import of class A substances into our schools, and knock off Nikes in our markets. Man up and fight man.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • mezzyd
    • By mezzyd 14th Mar 18, 7:33 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    mezzyd
    APCOA Bellingham Leisure Centre
    APCOA chose not to contest my appeal to POPLA so am posting details as requested by Fruitcake. Happy to give more detail if wanted.
    I appealed on 6 grounds:
    - challenge over legal authority for APCOA to make contracts/enforce parking on the land
    - truly awful signage, both in position within the car park & content of the signs
    - non-compliance with Data Protection Act as APCOA not registered with ICO for ANPR
    - additional contract term advised on rejection of appeal, contrary to Consumer Rights Act
    - no warning to keeper in original PCN therefore unable to transfer liability under POFA
    - Council owned/not relevant land/no keeper liability
    As evidence I had photos of the signs, a satellite image showing the long distance from terms & conditions sign at entrance to parking bays, Google street view photo to show position of signs on right hand side of roadway, screenshot of Title Deed showing ownership by London Borough of Lewisham.
    Think APCOA took one look & couldn't be bothered to put the work in to counter it, but to be honest their position was indefensible. A very pleasing result, thanks to everyone who contributes to this forum.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Mar 18, 11:58 AM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,301 Thanks
    The Deep
    They have wasted your time, now waste theirs. They do this time after time when their claims are robustly contested. Send them a LBC for your time, you do not have to follow through but it will cos them money to reply

    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/going-to-court/taking-court-action/step-one-write-a-letter-before-action/

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged 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 nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    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 most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    Last edited by The Deep; 16-03-2018 at 12:10 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Dorajames
    • By Dorajames 19th Mar 18, 6:30 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Dorajames
    Hi Everyone,b
    I am new on the platform. Will appreciate some help on a PCN i have been trying to get off my back but not sure how to post on the forum.. Please help. Thank you.
    • Dorajames
    • By Dorajames 19th Mar 18, 9:32 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Dorajames
    @ Coupon-mad . I didn't mean to disrupt the thread. Was only seeking for help. Am also new on the platform still trying to navigate around. I have tried to delete my post as directed not sure if it went through help me confirm if it deleted please. Thank you. With regards to the POPLA code when translated the code summary states;

    Issuing operator:141
    Date Code generated: Thur Mar 01 2018
    Code Sequence number: 573

    Deadline information
    Appeal deadline is Thu Mar 29 2018 to reach POPLA.

    I understand that I have about 10 days from today.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Mar 18, 9:35 PM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    NO REPLY HERE PLEASE. IT WILL BE MOVED OR DELETED BY A BOARD GUIDE.

    Please delete the above posts or copy them into a new thread, using the new thread button. If you don't know how to use the forum, see here

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_vb3_board_usage

    Please, please delete your posts from this thread, now.

    Deadline information
    Appeal deadline is Thu Mar 29 2018 to reach POPLA.
    Copy/adapt another similar POPLA appeal and start a new thread, showing it to us. NOT HERE!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-04-2018 at 5:20 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.

    • JB83
    • By JB83 3rd Apr 18, 9:47 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    JB83
    Hi guys,

    This is my appeal to local parking security (LPS) and then to POPLA, my thread link is below and the successful decision from POPLA is below that.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5789201

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the operator failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They say that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority. They say that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the charge itself. The appellant says that the operator is not authorised to issue excess charge notices.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA which demonstrates the terms and conditions of the site and how they were breached. On this occasion, no evidence has been provided and the operator has therefore failed to demonstrate the validity of the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 3rd Apr 18, 5:24 PM
    • 182 Posts
    • 321 Thanks
    bergkamp
    PE/Aldi Hidden clause mk2.

    Decision Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name Alexandra Roby
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the motorist remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that there is genuine customer exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to motorists. The appellant states that his appeal was rejected as he did not meet the landowner!!!8217;s discretionary criteria, despite having provided a copy of his receipt to prove that he was a genuine customer. The appellant states that the hidden clause is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The appellant has provided a copy of his receipt to support his appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

    The terms and conditions of the site state: !!!8220;1 ½ hour max stay. Aldi customers only. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70!!!8221;. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised. Images from the operator!!!8217;s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle entered the car park at 13:XX and exited at 18:XX on the day in question, staying for a total of four hours and XX minutes.

    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that there is genuine customer exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to motorists. The appellant states that his appeal was rejected as he did not meet the landowner!!!8217;s discretionary criteria, despite having provided a copy of his receipt to prove that he was a genuine customer.
    The appellant states that the hidden clause is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: !!!8220;!!!8230;the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.!!!8221;
    As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.!!!8221; Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: !!!8220;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.!!!8221;
    As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site.

    In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. The Act then moved on to define !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

    Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park.

    Furthermore, whether such a clause in the contract exists between the landowner and the parking operator has no bearing on my decision in this case. I do not consider that it would have affected the motorist!!!8217;s ability to comply with the terms and conditions in the first instance.

    While I note that the motorist may have been a genuine customer of the Aldi store that day, this did not make them exempt from the site!!!8217;s terms and conditions. As the motorist remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

    Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

    Comments on this thread;


    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5820692
  • hap397
    Hi all

    Followed the templates and appealed to POPLA which was successful (see below). Thanks for taking the time providing your invaluable support.

    Operator Name First Parking
    Operator Case Summary
    The operator didn't provide a case summary

    POPLA assessment and decision
    30/03/2018

    Verification Code
    xxxxxxxxxx

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Carly Law

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was on site without a valid permit.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant!!!8217;s case is that a ticket was purchased by the driver of the vehicle and it was clearly displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle. They say that the parking operator has advised that the signage is clear and that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions. The appellant says that the wording on the signage is open to different interpretations and is ambiguous. They say that the driver of the vehicle feels that they complied with the terms and conditions as the signage states, !!!8220;Clearly displayed a valid permit OR Pay and Display ticket, face up in the windscreen!!!8221;. They add that the ticket was displayed with the correct fee paid for. The appellant has provided a photograph of the signage at the site, along with an image of the ticket purchased.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked on site without a valid permit. The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified in either the appeal to the operator or to POPLA. While I acknowledge that the operator has advised that it has not issued a Notice to Keeper as an appeal was made against the Notice to Driver, this is insufficient to identify the driver of the vehicle. If the operator wanted to pursue the keeper of the vehicle, it would have needed to have transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle using the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. As the operator is not seeking to pursue the keeper under PoFA 2012, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 4th Apr 18, 2:55 PM
    • 960 Posts
    • 748 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Good one!!


    From my reading of this, the appellant [owner] didn't actually put 'no keeper liability/driver not identified' as a point of appeal?


    The adjudicator seems to have done that for themselves??


    Now that would be nice if POPLA did the work for us!!!
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • soupersoo
    • By soupersoo 4th Apr 18, 7:51 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    soupersoo
    POPLA Decision - Win on non-compliant NtK
    Hi, hope this is the correct place to put this. My appeal against Carflow re the St Peter's Court, Car Park, Chalfont St Peter was successful. Thank you for all the help that is on the MSE site. Hope this might help others.
    27.3.18
    POPLA Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: LB

    Assessor Summary of the operator case: The operator's case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay.

    Assessor summary of appellant's case: The appellant's case is that the signage is inadequate. The appellant said the signs are unlit and illegible. The appellant has questioned if the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant said that the NtK does not meet the requirements of the POFA 2012. The appellant stated the signs do not comply with section 21.1 of the BPA Code regarding ANPR.

    Assessor Supporting rationale for decision: While the appellant has raised a separate ground of appeal, my report will focus solely on if the NtK was compliant with the POFA 2012. As the appellant has not declared he was the driver of the vehicle, I must consider whether the conditions of POFA 2012 were met. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver 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. The NtK will need to comply with section 9 of POFA 2012 that states that the creditor must 'warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given - (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, . the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Section are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid'. The NtK sent by the operator states "the charge must be paid no later than 28 days from the date of issue". In this case I do not consider that the operator has fully met the requirements of POFA as by informing the appellant it can seek to recover payment after 28 days, it has failed to meet section (2f) as this 28 day period will not begin until the day after the notice is given. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly."

    [Carflow put 9(2)(f) in its own (wrong) words on the NtK, so it is worth checking what others have on their NtK's. If it says "...29 days from the date of issue.." etc, as my NtK did, plus the Assessor's other points, then that is very helpful for an appeal.
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

176Posts Today

1,634Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin