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 161
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 9th Oct 18, 9:24 PM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 85,338 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I have today received email from POPLA informing me my appeal with MET Parking Services has been unsuccessful.

    I submitted good evidence that seems to have been brushed over with lots of reasons as to what MET Parking Services have done and what apparently I hadn't.

    The main evidence was proof of purchase from the Mcdonalds restaurant which I supplied except this has been ignored and the focus put to me pressing a button at the barrier and breaching a invisible contract.

    Where do I go from here do I pay the fine or wait for court.

    Cheers

    SJB
    Originally posted by SJBANGRYPARKER
    Nobody here will suggest that you pay. The PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist. Complain to the manager and CEO of Muckdonalds, and complain to your MP and the MP where the cafe is located if different.
    You aren't the first person to be caught pressing the button that lifts the barrier. Do a search for McD's/MET at that same location as yours to find other threads about this scam. Set the search facility to Search Posts, not threads.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 09-10-2018 at 9:35 PM.
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Oct 18, 9:28 PM
    • 11,195 Posts
    • 11,760 Thanks
    KeithP
    Where do I go from here do I pay the fine or wait for court.
    Originally posted by SJBANGRYPARKER
    Wait for court - but don't hold your breath.

    This will show you the chances of that happening:


    Over two hundred thousand tickets issued over the last three years but only four court cases during that time... and we don't know if any of those four court attendances were anything to do with parking.

    Odds look good to me.
    .
    • notparked
    • By notparked 12th Oct 18, 1:05 PM
    • 49 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    notparked
    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Carly Law


    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 BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.”
    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 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 “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” 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. The operator has provided images of the signage at the site.

    The charge amount is not prominent on the signage, due to the size and colour of the font. There is other information on the signage in a bold font and I would expect the charge amount to also be prominent.

    Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirem
    ents of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

    As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

    As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
    Last edited by notparked; 12-10-2018 at 1:09 PM. Reason: split text
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Oct 18, 1:12 PM
    • 9,631 Posts
    • 12,701 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well done ...... this makes a nice change given that
    POPLA nowadays has become a white elephant
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Oct 18, 4:07 PM
    • 20,513 Posts
    • 32,424 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Carly Law
    Euro Car Parks at Festival Park, Stoke on Trent.

    Original thread:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5881970

    Well done OP.
    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.
    • savisha
    • By savisha 13th Oct 18, 11:20 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    savisha
    Successful - MET Parking BP
    Another successful MET BP Stansted appeal.
    I used the template to get the POPLA code and then used snippets from other appeals as well as some images from Google Maps.

    "MET Parking Services 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."


    POPLA Appeal-------------------------------
    A Notice to Registered Keeper was issued on XXXX and received by me,
    XXXX, the registered keeper of the vehicle Reg: XXXX for the alleged
    contravention of ‘Breach of terms and conditions’ at BP, Stansted. I am writing to
    you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my
    appeal for the following reasons.

    1)
    a) MET Parking has deliberately chosen not to use the POFA 2012 and has not
    shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the
    charge (ref: POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).
    b) The MET Parking Notice was not compliant with schedule 4 paragraph 4 POFA 2012 regulations.
    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
    compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    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.
    4) Amount demanded is a penalty

    1) MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA has not shown that the individual
    who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case
    Carly Law 6061796103)
    MET has deliberately chosen not to use POFA and make no mention of such or the
    transfer of liability to the keeper under POFA 2012 in the Notice to Keeper I have
    received.

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met as outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. MET PARKING has failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK, as outlined within paragraph 9. Specifically ,there is no mention of the limit of the premises and no warning of the right to recover the full amount after 28 days.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA
    must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the
    driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about
    liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the
    owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was
    entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right
    not to name that person.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told
    to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been
    no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has
    been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be
    enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still
    not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4
    which they have not in this case. This applies regardless of when the first appeal
    was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of
    the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be
    deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in
    this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in
    place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They
    cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed
    by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead
    Adjudicator, in 2015:
    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided
    certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking
    charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is
    the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by
    the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of
    itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material
    time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the
    driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to
    Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no
    legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied
    with then keeper liability does not generally pass."
    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as
    keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for
    the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which in this case the
    operator is not.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016,
    where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the
    charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator
    continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am
    confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence 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 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 the other grounds of
    appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in
    appeal point 5 above.

    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
    compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they
    produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and
    any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such
    as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's
    'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator
    is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact
    have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an
    agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices,
    that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting
    drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action
    regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this
    operator to strict proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges,
    they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their
    appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the
    land can be clearly defined
    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations,
    including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be
    subject to parking control and enforcement
    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    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
    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted
    that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this
    huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar
    'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a
    contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and
    unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the
    car park, according to the Judges.
    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this
    case:
    2.bp.blogspot.com/-
    eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_00
    1.jpg
    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering'
    and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed
    them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract
    and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas.
    A number of the signs around the site are not illuminated either through poor
    placement or faulty lighting. The reported date & time of the
    alleged contravention is 18/08/18 at 01:25. Therefore in night-time conditions, visibility of the already poorly legible signs would have been reduced when not properly illuminated.

    Image 1: Evidence that the sum of the parking charge in not displayed at all on the
    sign positioned at the entrance to the site.
    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16,
    where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a
    busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and
    understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In
    addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...]
    The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I
    have allowed the appeal.''

    Image 2: Evidence that only the blank reverse of signage can be seen after entering the car park.

    Image 3: Further evidence that the signs setting out the terms and conditions are not made
    prominent in and around this site. There is only one sign located on the far left end of
    the car park in front of BP shop, and someone parking in front of the shop at night would not see the signage.

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed
    inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately and not illuminated at night. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed
    here:
    signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far
    away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales
    advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people
    in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are
    hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them,
    design your letters at 3” or even larger.''
    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:
    ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-
    /10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of
    the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the
    best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the
    max viewing distance.''
    So, a letter height of less than half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and
    placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully
    inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a
    wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective
    and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder
    (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with
    expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms)
    should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY
    clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in
    the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the
    'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all
    information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be
    displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with
    fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the
    Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer
    notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is
    expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that
    the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000]
    EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT
    deemed bound by them.
    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my
    argument, not the operator's case:
    bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not
    seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has
    not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there
    is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not
    seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear
    finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was
    not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the
    car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.
    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and
    (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that
    date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this
    operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock
    examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be
    read from a car before parking and believe that the photographic evidence I have
    submitted here supports this view. Mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the
    (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


    4) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights
    Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised
    by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider
    the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was
    neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone
    consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage
    cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.
    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 13th Oct 18, 11:29 PM
    • 9,631 Posts
    • 12,701 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well done savisha

    Proves to you that MET were scamming you in
    the first place.

    What can we say ? ..... another BPA member on the scam
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Dave59
    • By Dave59 14th Oct 18, 11:49 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dave59
    Parking Eye Golden Ticket Success
    Many thanks to all.

    Another success against Parking Eye with a Golden Ticket, even though I was a bit quick off the block (Sorry, Coupon-Mad!)!!

    Dear ********

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 60625*****.

    Parking Eye Ltd 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.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team



    showthread.php?t=5895633
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Oct 18, 11:51 AM
    • 9,631 Posts
    • 12,701 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Many thanks to all.

    Another success against Parking Eye with a Golden Ticket, even though I was a bit quick off the block (Sorry, Coupon-Mad!)!!

    Dear ********

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 60625*****.

    Parking Eye Ltd 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.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team



    showthread.php?t=5895633
    Originally posted by Dave59
    As said on your thread .....

    Good news ...... just goes to show that Parking Eye
    were scamming you in the first place

    Only to be expected as they are BPA approved members
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 15th Oct 18, 5:39 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    Erinon
    Popla appeal against OPS successful
    Dear All,
    Posted on its own thread but thought I'd add it here too.

    Just like to say that my POPLA appeal was successful. POPLA Ref#: 4982188013 Assessor: Zara Parkinson

    Interestingly the appeal was upheld not on any grounds I made but on a seperate issue of visibility of the parking permit...see below.

    Quote from popla decision/assessor:
    "While I note the appellant grounds for appeal, I do not deem it necessary to respond to the same in this instance. I must clarify that Section 20.5b of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows”. In reviewing the evidence provided, I am not satisfied a thorough check was completed. In order to satisfy the strict guidelines set out by the BPA Code of Practice I would expect to see a full close up visual of the entire windscreen. From the evidence supplied, I can only view the windscreen at a distance; I am therefore unable to make a fair assessment of what was actually displayed on the dashboard. Without clear evidence of what the items were, I cannot be sure that a permit was not amongst them. The operators parking charge notice issue reason is stated as; “Failure to display a Valid Permit”. I’m not satisfied its evidence proves this, further the operator has failed to provide a photograph of what a valid permit looks like. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am not satisfied the operator has proven that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be allowed."

    Thanks very very much guys.
    Last edited by Erinon; 17-10-2018 at 12:37 PM. Reason: adding detail
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Oct 18, 8:35 PM
    • 20,513 Posts
    • 32,424 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    A little bit of gold dust there from POPLA.

    @OP - could you give us the name of the POPLA assessor and the POPLA reference number, as this can be quoted in future similar cases.

    Great result for you, well done.
    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.
    • anar
    • By anar 15th Oct 18, 9:25 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    anar
    Hello,

    Just to do an update about my case. I sent an e-mail to Steve Clark and here goes is response:
    "I have heard back from the Lead Adjudicator and I would make the following comments;



    Ø He agrees with my contention that it is not within my remit to get involved with individual cases.



    Ø He has apologised that the line that the Assessor has used here, has made its way into this Assessment - it was removed in February.



    Ø That said, he has looked at the case in total and has concluded that the part of the Assessment regarding to the BPA checking the ANPR as described is not material to the case and that he would still have rejected the appeal if this factor was removed.



    Ø He is not prepared to rehear the case or to reverse the decision.



    Ø You will appreciate that a POPLA decision is not binding on the motorist and subsequently you are not required to pay if you don’t feel inclined to do so.



    Ø The Operator may seek further action against you and if that does happen, you will need to decide whether to pay or to defend your position in Court."

    Now I will wait because there's nothing else I can do. Just wait for debt collectors letters.

    Thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Oct 18, 9:36 PM
    • 20,513 Posts
    • 32,424 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Ø He has apologised that the line that the Assessor has used here, has made its way into this Assessment - it was removed in February.
    So how come was it made some 8 months on if it was removed? They have been reminded about this for months, yet they still trot it out. It is not an 'original' quote from the assessor, it is a stock template response. Surely it's a simple case of management intervention to get the standard statement removed from the database of statements - and a check by management that it has been done!

    I'm afraid this says more about the Lead Adjudicator's ability to manage the processes he is paid for than anything else.

    I've seen more professionalism in a Sunday pub league football team!
    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.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Oct 18, 10:12 PM
    • 9,631 Posts
    • 12,701 Thanks
    beamerguy
    That said, he has looked at the case in total and has concluded that the part of the Assessment regarding to the BPA checking the ANPR as described is not material to the case and that he would still have rejected the appeal if this factor was removed

    POPLA has had it's day, it's no longer viable with
    such comments.

    The BPA is such a white elephant now and Steve Clark
    should carefully consider his position and do the right
    thing and resign
    POPLA does not have a clue and the BPA is now infested
    with scammers
    Last edited by beamerguy; 15-10-2018 at 10:22 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Oct 18, 9:27 AM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 85,338 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    A little bit of gold dust there from POPLA.

    @OP - could you give us the name of the POPLA assessor and the POPLA reference number, as this can be quoted in future similar cases.

    Great result for you, well done.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    From Erinon's original thread.

    (OPS26014) from One Parking Solution

    Whilst the PoPLA reference number would help, we at least have the PPCs ref number which is presumably the PCN number.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 16-10-2018 at 10:21 AM.
    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
    • gd14sts
    • By gd14sts 16th Oct 18, 9:14 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    gd14sts
    2 of 2 at Fistral Beach, Client withdrawl

    Another success for MSE forum.
    A little more added into the appeal on this one regarding grace periods, but this time

    Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator
    Withdrawn on 16/10/2018

    Verification Code
    8512xxxxxx

    Withdrawal reasons
    withdrawn - client request

    once again thanks to you all.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Oct 18, 9:20 PM
    • 20,513 Posts
    • 32,424 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done @gd14sts

    Original thread:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5891071
    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.
    • Erinon
    • By Erinon 17th Oct 18, 12:37 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    Erinon

    A little bit of gold dust there from POPLA.

    @OP - could you give us the name of the POPLA assessor and the POPLA reference number, as this can be quoted in future similar cases.

    Great result for you, well done.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    Done.
    • applesponge
    • By applesponge 17th Oct 18, 10:53 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    applesponge
    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Chris Markey

    "The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. As such, I must consider whether the operator has provided evidence in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that if the operator does “not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).” On this occasion, the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Therefore, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Therefore this appeal must be allowed."

    Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5853716
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 17th Oct 18, 10:58 PM
    • 9,631 Posts
    • 12,701 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Chris Markey

    "The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. As such, I must consider whether the operator has provided evidence in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that if the operator does “not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).” On this occasion, the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Therefore, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Therefore this appeal must be allowed."

    Original thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5853716
    Originally posted by applesponge
    GREAT ..... but WOW, a POPLA assessor actually reading
    the BPA CoP ...... WOW ??
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

246Posts Today

1,183Users online

Martin's Twitter