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 155
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jun 18, 6:45 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,534 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hooray! Thanks for confirming.

    Is it in the BPA CoP that signs should be illuminated in the hours of darkness?
    Yes. Very clear that signs MUST be readable in the dark or there is no contract agreed.

    Would a complaint to the DVLA hit their Brownie Points.
    Almost certainly not, but instead, why not do this (below) to waste their time & to try to get the DVLA to let you opt out of future automated decisions and/or giving your data to parking firms:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784

    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • DW190
    • By DW190 6th Jun 18, 7:35 PM
    • 69 Posts
    • 94 Thanks
    DW190
    Hooray! Almost certainly not, but instead, why not do this (below) to waste their time & to try to get the DVLA to let you opt out of future automated decisions and/or giving your data to parking firms:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784

    HTH
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    On that list already.

    Just arguing another with Euro.

    Noticed on the DVLA request for info of the above that Euro had made request but nothing received. Contacted them sounding a bit worried and they replied saying a NtK was sent (it wasn't received) they also said liability could be transferred if we sent the drivers name and address, that offer was declined.


    After telling them the NtK could not have been served on time I've invited them to continue their demands so like them I can clock up the costs and damages for processing data.

    Has anyone got a bigger key for winding up with. (This is not pun to you thinking the clocks fall back in spring.
    • drD
    • By drD 8th Jun 18, 12:38 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    drD
    POPLA successful against Aldi ParkingEye
    There is a thread on Pepipoo with a case about an ALDI ParkingEye in Aldi Crayford.

    ParkingEye pulled out when the OP logged an appeal with POPLA.
    OP lists the grounds for appeal. They may have been longer than the below, but I quote:

    Just to update, ParkingEye didn't bother to contest the case at POPLA when I appealed on multiple grounds: (summarised here)
    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
    (Explaining that the burden of proof for who the driver was under keeper liability lies with them)
    2. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    (Because they did not prove who the driver was in point 1, the Notice to Keeper was invalid)
    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    (I went and took pictures of the signs. There was a space at one point of 9 or 10 bays in between signs, i.e. 24 metres. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that there was sufficient and legible signage under the conditions of the day (night and frosty windows - it was freezing according to historical weather databases at that point in time) and also quoting POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16 that the sizing of the terms and conditions was not adequate enough)
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5. No evidence of validated instruments used to record the vehicle
    This was one I designed myself. I wrote:
    There are clear documented cases of ParkingEye cameras making mistakes (Guardian links removed as this post won't allow me to)
    I therefore put the burden of proof on them to show that the images came from said PE cameras, that the cameras were properly maintained and independently calibrated and that the images could not be tampered with, and that there was no way of telling that the cameras hadn't incorrectly recorded my visit.
    6. ParkingEye is contravening the BPA Code of Practice in their appeals rejection letter
    I also wrote: "In the appeals letter written to me on 26 March, ParkingEye state that if I chose to pursue the POPLA appeals process, I will not be entitled to pay the discounted amount that they currently are invoicing me. This is a contravention of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires no undue influence, or coercion to be put on the consumer to pay their parking fine."

    I don't know which one of these grounds made them back out, but it worked.
    One to add to the list!
    ( I cannot post the link myself as I'm a new user, but the thread is entitled "Parking Eye Violating keeper's POFA?" - OP gets erroneously bogged down in a non-technicality before following the thread's advice I think. It contains the Guardian news article links removed above.)
    • CankerHarpy
    • By CankerHarpy 8th Jun 18, 7:28 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    CankerHarpy
    Grounds that work
    Probably signage and notice to keeper.

    Also reading through these recent posts.... has anyone actually tried denying that they did the thing? O.o

    Seems like every post is fighting with a technicality....
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 8th Jun 18, 9:30 AM
    • 37,762 Posts
    • 84,793 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Probably signage and notice to keeper.

    Also reading through these recent posts.... has anyone actually tried denying that they did the thing? O.o

    Seems like every post is fighting with a technicality....
    Originally posted by CankerHarpy
    This thread is for PoPLA results. If you have a result that you would like to share, please do so. If you want to learn how to beat his scam, please start by reading the Sticky thread for NEWBIES.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • average_joe_blogs
    • By average_joe_blogs 20th Jun 18, 4:11 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    average_joe_blogs
    Successful POPLA Appeal
    I recently had a successful POPLA appeal (the private parking company decided not to contest) based on the following. There are a number of points but my guess is that insufficient signage was the one that clinched it.

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

    1 - There was insufficient and unclear signage at the site. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and the ticket is issued illegally.

    1a- The sign at the main entrance states that the maximum time allowed in the car park is X hours. This sign is situated on an intersection where the drivers vision is directed towards the road. It also does not fall in the field of vision for a cars headlights and so it not clearly visible at night when incident took place.

    1b- There is no mention of a restricted time period for parking at the site on the main entrance sign (see photo A).

    1c- Other signs which state that parking is inside the car park were obscured by the presence of other vehicles.

    1d- The other signs in the car parks small print to state that there is no parking outside the times DAY1-DAY6 TIME1 am to TIME2 pm and DAY7 TIME3 am to TIME4 pm. See attached photo B.

    1e- The additional signs signs stating that there is not parking outside of the times DAY1-DAY6 TIME1 am to TIME2 pm and DAY7 TIME3 am to TIME4 pm are not illuminated (see photo B). At the time in question it was dark and raining heavily hence visibility was poor.

    Taking into consideration the above points the driver cannot be considered to have entered into a contract with the landowner and hence is not liable for for the parking charge.

    2- The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable.

    2a- The business (XXXXX) was closed at the time of the incident, so clearly there is no commercial loss to the landowner by the presence of the vehicle in the carpark.

    3- The parking operator does not have a legitimate business interest in controlling parking on the site at the time of the incident.

    4- The parking operator has not provided evidence that they have authorisation from the landowner to issue tickets on the land in question

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

    Other pieces of advice which may or may not help:

    -- Itemise you appeal points so that the parking contractor has to address each one separately

    -- The POPLA website only provides a small text box for your appeal. However, you can attach supporting documentation. I would advise writing something like "see supporting material" in the text box and putting the full text of your appeal in an attached PDF or word doc.

    I don't know for sure why it was not contested, but hopefully this information will help others sometime.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Jun 18, 4:17 PM
    • 20,244 Posts
    • 31,937 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done on your win. Could you tell us which PPC please, so we have up to date information on which PPCs are capitulating without contesting?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • HaloNerd117
    • By HaloNerd117 26th Jun 18, 12:57 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    HaloNerd117
    POPLA appeal against "One Parking Solution" Successful
    POPLA appeal against One Parking Solution was a success. You can find more info about my journey there by reviewing the following thread I made: forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74371010

    In summary, the operator did not serve an NTK (because they were so confident that I was the driver) but could never prove it, in fact, no evidence of it was ever given...idiots.

    Decision
    Successful
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist failed to display a valid permit.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. The first is that the Notice to Keeper was never served, so Keeper Liability cannot apply. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge. The third is that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The final ground of appeal is that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a 10-page pdf file detailing their grounds of appeal. The document includes a tweet from the UK Supreme Court, an example sign, the appeal form, photographs of the signage provided by the operator and links to websites to support their appeal.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. It is clear from the operator’s case file that the PCN was “issued to vehicle” on the date in question. The only way a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of a vehicle, is by using the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). There is no evidence to suggest that the operator transferred liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Therefore, the operator is not attempting to use the provisions of PoFA 2012. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore liable for the charge. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 26th Jun 18, 1:39 PM
    • 9,305 Posts
    • 12,237 Thanks
    beamerguy
    How many similar cases go to POPLA and the motorist loses ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th Jun 18, 1:44 PM
    • 20,244 Posts
    • 31,937 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In summary, the operator did not serve an NTK (because they were so confident that I was the driver) but could never prove it, in fact, no evidence of it was ever given...idiots.
    Nice summation of the case. This is the 'day job' for these outfits, and almost 6 years on, many still do not understand PoFA. As you say..... idiots .....!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74371010

    Well done on your win
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • Weasel_Watcher
    • By Weasel_Watcher 27th Jun 18, 12:40 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    Weasel_Watcher
    POPLA appeal against LPS (Local Parking Security Ltd)

    Full details at the following thread; https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5809399


    Full (redacted) appeal pdf can be viewed here
    https://www.scribd.com/book/382697256/POPLA-Appeal-red-pdf
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator

    Withdrawn on 27/06/2018
    Verification Code

    3711318005

    Withdrawal reasons

    Upon looking further into the evidence, we have cancelled the Parking Charge Notice on our system.

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


    Thanks to everyone who helped.
    • denz1968
    • By denz1968 3rd Jul 18, 10:50 AM
    • 48 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    denz1968
    POPLA appeal V Euro Car Parks

    Decision
    Successful Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    Amy Butler

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, !!!8220;Charges apply at all times; Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue); Display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle!!!8221;. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle, DN13 GKD, entered the site on 19 April 2018 at 16:00 and exited the site at 16:25. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 25 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of the system print out. This is an online transaction record showing a search for the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle. From this, I can see that the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was not registered against a payment. The appellant has stated in their submission to POPLA that they have attached a PDF document to their appeal. POPLA are unable to view the PDF document, as such I will be making an assessment as to whether or not the PCN has been issued correctly. Upon a review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. Based on the photographic evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that it is both clear and conspicuous that upon entry to the site the appellant would have been able to establish that there was signage and what the terms and conditions of the site are. Ultimately, it is the motorist!!!8217;s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal


    Original thread
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5845461
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 3rd Jul 18, 5:29 PM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,591 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    any one browsing this thread should read the link above to see how bad this decision was / is ...


    Ralph
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Jul 18, 8:11 PM
    • 9,305 Posts
    • 12,237 Thanks
    beamerguy
    What do you expect from POPLA,

    Simply a system that has failed. Where do they they get
    their assessors from ??, another BPA disaster who belong
    in the Gobi desert with them
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • waamo
    • By waamo 3rd Jul 18, 8:31 PM
    • 4,707 Posts
    • 6,079 Thanks
    waamo
    Where do they they get
    their assessors from ??
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Beauty salons and creativity writing courses I believe.
    This space for hire.
    • mezzyd
    • By mezzyd 4th Jul 18, 12:10 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    mezzyd
    Successful appeal against University of Kent, assessor Gayle Stanton.

    Reasons for the Assessor!!!8217;s determination: "In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly.

    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, !!!8220;Private land!!!8221;,!!!8221;Park in marked bays only!!!8221;, !!!8221;Visitors pay and display or pink/blue zone permits!!!8221;, !!!8221;University traffic regulations apply!!!8221;, !!!8221;Unauthorised or incorrectly parked vehicles may be issued with a £70 Parking Charge Notice!!!8221;.
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle parked on the site on the day of the incident.

    Upon review of the evidence I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently.
    I can see from the evidence provided, that the operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using PoFA 2012, and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible.

    As such, I must consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver of the vehicle is based on the evidence that I have received.

    After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the PCN.

    The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal; however I have not considered these as I have allowed the appeal."

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5814615#topofpage
    • Marcel898
    • By Marcel898 5th Jul 18, 6:30 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Marcel898
    Yes, like everyone else does - search the forum for 'Premier Park POPLA lost'.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Did just that (didn`t pay despite letters coming in...), it`s been 2 months since I haven`t received any letters.
    Thank you guys for this forum.
    • evets
    • By evets 10th Jul 18, 1:26 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    evets
    PoPLA appeal against Britannia Parking Group


    Further details here - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5854435


    Outcome
    Appeal withdrawn by operator:


    "Britannia Parking Group have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."


    Thanks everyone!
    • russmc
    • By russmc 17th Jul 18, 3:37 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    russmc
    Ignoring Parking Eye fines
    Hi there, just wanted some advice from anyone. I recently overstayed my parking ticket at a hospital carpark in the North and got a fine from Parking Eye. They rejected my appeal (standard) and have now sent a letter threatening court action or pay the increase in the fine. I don't want to pay on principal. Do they follow through and take people to court?! thanks R
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 17th Jul 18, 3:59 PM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,591 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    welcome to the forum ....



    you have posted in the wrong place ....


    please have a read of the newbies thread and then re post if you need further advice



    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822


    oh and using a PC / laptop will aid the process



    Ralph
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

1,228Posts Today

6,809Users online

Martin's Twitter