Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'popla'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 71 results

  1. Dear Forum members, I would like to ask you if you could kindly help me draft the best POPLA appeal that I can in regards to the NTK I received from UKPC? Appeal sent as the Keeper of the Vehicle on the following grounds and asked for further information: 1. Equalities Act 2010 compliance (have sent them proof of disability for an occupant of the vehicle) 2. Parking Charge amount claim grounds 3. Asking them to give a breakdown of their actual loss. Is the charge a true reflection of damages? 4. Their status – the creditor? 5. Ownership of premises? 6. Contractual Authority (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7) 7. Signage There was no admission on who was driving and that is stated in the appeal letter to UKPC clearly as well. UKPC Rejection of the Appeal: Their reasoning for rejection of my appeal was (verbatim): Disabled parking bays are reserved for Blue Badge holders only and that a valid disabled badge must be clearly displayed at all times. They have not addressed any other issues or points of appeal at all. I have also downloaded the photos they hold on file for my vehicle and they are all silly and also show how inadequate their signs are as they are absolutely unreadable. I have included in this document (further down on following pages) the following: • Copy of the photos UKPC has on their online system for the vehicle at the location • Copy of the photos I have taken subsequently visiting the site to check for signage • UKPC Notice to Keeper copy (personal info scribbled out) • My letter of appeal to UKPC as the owner of the vehicle (personal info scribbled out) • Copy of the UKPC Rejection of Appeal letter to me (personal info scribbled out) Could you please assist me with making the best possible POPLA appeal for this case? Thank you ALL for sharing your time and knowledge so selflessly!!! Below is the summary as per your guide and I have also attached full PDF document with photos and copies of letters etc (redacted for personal details): please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement: 18/11/2018 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]: 19/12/2018 3 Date received: 24/12/2018 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES (copy in the attached PDF) 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] YES (details in the attached PDF) Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up: YES (details in the attached PDF) 7 Who is the parking company?: UKPC (ukparkingcontrol.com) 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]: Great Western Industrial Estate, Southall UB2 4SD PDF case copies for the Forum to ask for POPLA appeal help.pdf
  2. Hi there! I would like to ask for some advice. I found a similar case (same place, same issue) to mine in this forum and would like to know what was the outcome. Or I'm looking for some solution from someone more clever than me. I parked my car in the St Stephens car park in Trowbridge end of May. I purchased my free three hours ticket (still have the ticket) and put on the dashboard in a visible place. Shutting the door moved the ticket further down and fell under the windscreen wiper (not fully visible, but definitely there). I had an hour meeting at Nandos (I'm a manager there) and when I was leaving I realised I got the yellow bag with a parking charge. I appealed straight away. UKPC rejection response came three weeks later. I appealed with POPLA risking my parking charge to be £100. POPLA closed the case today with another rejection. Im a manager at Nandos, work in Trowbridge restaurant quite often. I am fully aware of the rules of that particular car park. My girlfriend is from Trowbridge, we visit the cinema and town shops and we always use this carpark. Why wouldn't I purchase a free ticket and risk a parking charge if I know the rules? I could pay the £100, but I don't think I have been treated fairly in this case. I just don't feel I did break the rules of that car park. Don't think it's okay. My question is: - What shall I do next? - Do I need to be worried if I decide not to pay? - How likely is me to go to court? thanks for the help, it means a lot
  3. If anyone could help I’d appreciate it, We went to Birmingham to collect a friend and driving down to the 30 minute free wait the car started to jerk and pull the engine management light came on. Which forced us to pull over as was not safe to continue. We clocked their sign saying no stopping to collect or drop off. We never did we in fact stopped for two minutes maximum. Enough time to switch the engine off an start it again. The engine management light stayed on but the car seemed a slight rough but wasnt pulling or jerking. We drove up an down for a while then entered the premium set down to collect as they had to wait around for us. We kept the ticket also took a picture clearly showing the enginee on with engine management light on and also a photo of their sign post. As we had not done any of what they said we couldn’t. A week later we received a parking charge notice to pay 50 within 14 days or 100 after. I myself appealed to APCOA never heard anything I got a demanded letter to say the 14 days had now gone and I needed to pay. I challenged them on the phone and was informed I had lost my appeal. But never got a letter I said to the man it was an emergency he said I’d have to appeal to POPLA I did an today I’ve lost. This was a genuine emergency an we literally stopped for 2 mins. To switch off an back on. Will we have to pay can anyone help???
  4. this is the 3rd POPLA success from 3 challenges against Northern Parking Services. Mine was the first last year, a work colleagues was second late last year(he got the decision in february. This third is for a pensioner friend of mine. They were all from the same place ,Cross street retail park,Long Eaton,Nottingham,NG10.
  5. Guys, I have just had my parking fine appeal refused by POPLA. I believe I am in the right with this and was prepared to take it to the next level if Armtrac (the car park operator) wish to do so. The questions I was looking to get some response to are: 1) “should I lose the case, how much more expenses than the £100 fine could there be e.g. with legal costs etc of Armtrac, cost of hearing etc??? In a similar vein if I win the case can I claim against Armtrac? I am retired but work just a few days a year as a consultant for which my fees are substantial – if successful II would seek to claim on this basis (and donate to a pet/animal charity). 2) What would be my chances of winning based on the information below I picked up the parking fine in March at Sennen Beach Cafe (sadly while waiting for a dog to be cremated), I had bought a parking ticket but Armtrac say that it was “not clearly displayed”. I used the car park in order to have a coffee at the Sennen Beach Cafe who own the car park and have contacted the owner - but he is not going to help. This is was the basis of the appeal sent to POPLA: Grounds for Appeal 1) The Information Required was Clearly Visible. The requirements given by Armtrac (see Document 1 attached to EMAIL) are that “For a pay and display ticket to be valid it must be displayed face up clearly showing the date and expiry time on the dashboard of the vehicle”. The photograph provided by the patrol officer of a ticket displayed has been taken at an angle from which this information is obscured. When placed in the same position on the dashboard the required information is clearly visible from an elevated perspective i.e. normal head height (see photographs in Document 2) which show the two perspectives. The Reconstruction of photographs were witnessed (see EMAIL Witness Statements 1) 2) Incorrect times. There are serious inconsistencies with the Parking Charge Ticket issued and the photographs sent by Armtrac and included in Document 1. The Parking Charge Ticket was issued at 13.09 (see Document 3). At this time I had only just arrived in the car park and was queuing at the machine to obtain my parking ticket (which was issued at 13.12). The person in front of me* was having some problems operating the machine and it probably took about five minutes or more to get my ticket and return to the car. It appears that the time settings on the camera used by the operative were incorrect (14.10 - 14.11) – one photograph even shows the passenger door window wide open which is not something that I would do when leaving the car unattended (as I then did) to visit the restaurant and later walk on the beach. *- Lesley B who kindly gave me her ticket when leaving the car park as evidence. I arrived in the car park at the same time as she did and she has agreed to act as a witness (see EMAIL Witness Statements 2) Any thoughts gratefully received!
  6. We need your advice. In December 2016 my partner and I parked one evening at a Euro Car Park in Manchester, paid our £7 evening fee, went to the Christmas market, then left 2 hours after we arrived. At the end of January this year we received a demand for £100 for failing to pay for our parking ticket (it was £100 as we had failed to pay the original £60 charge within 14 days, despite never receiving an earlier purported letter; weirdly, this first letter then turned up two days after the day we received the second letter which was also the day we first contacted Euro Car Parks; hmm). We knew we had paid for our parking, we disputed this notice with the parking company, who said they had no record of our cars registration number having been entered on one of their machines. We also knew we had done this, asked for records of all vehicle details entered onto their machines at the car park, around the time of our arrival on the night in question. This duly arrived and when we read their records we realised what I'd done: I had been driving my partners car that night, and had incorrectly entered my own cars registration number instead of my partners. Feeling relieved that we had proof we had paid the correct charge to park there, we went to POPLA (Euro Car Parks would not budge), explaining how the mistake had occurred, enclosing photographic and documentary evidence to support (photo of my car and reg, proof of ownership and address etc). We're shocked though that POPLA have turned down our appeal on the ground that we breached the terms and conditions of parking in the car park even though we paid to park there, on the ground that we failed to enter a correct car registration ("a valid parking session had not been purchased"), and they have advised us to pay the charge within 28 days; it seems common sense has completely gone out of the window. Euro Car Parks have lost nothing, and we have no intention of paying. Has anybody else had an experience similar to this, and does anyone have any advice on where we stand? Thanks in advance for anything you're able to offer!
  7. Hi, I have had a POPLA PCN Smart Parking appeal rejected and would like any advice on what may happen now. Details My wife was driving my car, parked at Matalan and paid £1 for the correct amount of time. No overstay. Only thing was she put in the car reg of her own car, not mine. When she realised this she tried to contact them to get it changed, but she couldn't get through on the day and on the Monday she was told she'd have to appeal the PCN. (Yes, she should have bought another ticket at the time but it didn't cross her mind and thought it would be an easy thing to rectify.) Appeal We appealed, they said no sorry, it was your responsibility to put in car reg. We went to POPLA, but they rejected appeal with the same conclusion. Question Now what? Will Smart Parking ask for the money again? Does anyone know how likely Smart Parking will take me to court if we don't pay? If they notify me of a court case can I pay at that time if I don't want further hassle? If I go to court and lose, would this be a CCJ against me? Thanks in advance.
  8. I parked up at Cross street retail park, Long Eaton, and ended up with a pcn. I requested information from NPS, but they sent me nothing other than a reminder to pay the pcn, and a POPLA code to appeal. Fast forward evidence from Erewash Borough Council that NPS do not have planning permission for the erection and use of the signage and anpr cameras (2 of them). Fast forward again to yesterday when I noticed the anpr cameras were gone and a cctv camera put up in place. Today,I received my reply from POPLA. NPS, you lose. 55-0 to me against penalty charge companies. 2 more being done.
  9. I have been advised by a friend to post my problem here as a last attempt to perhaps find a solution to it. I moved into a property (flat) in February 2017. The parking area outside these flats are monitored by 'PCL'. A resident can apply for a parking permit (£15 fee) which resident has to display on windscreen. I attended concierge on the day I moved into property and filled out the application form and paid £15 via cheque. Receptionist said he has run out of the badges and I can collect the permit in two days. I think the shift changes and in the evening I found a parking ticket on my car. I wrote to the company clarifying that this had happened and I believe I have a right to park as I have paid the permit fee and submitted the form to your office. I also sent them picture of permit as i was issued permit by then. They refused and asked me to go to POPLA if i would like but if i were to go to POPLA the fee will then be £100 not £60. I thought POPLA would be more reasonable and wrote to them asking them to review my issue. I sent them a picture of the notification that it does not say permit has to be displayed on windscreen so as far as i understand (a) being a resident (b) having paid the amount © my details are with concierge. I was allowed to park. Details from POPLA web site are as follows; Decision: Unsuccessful Assessor Name: XXXX {I have removed as not sure if it goes against your policy} Assessor summary of operator case: The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because the vehicle with registration [edited], “was parked without a valid ticket/permit on clear display” on 18 February 2017. Assessor summary of your case: The appellant states he has recently moved into the property and has been allocated a parking bay which is included in his contract. He says residents can park their vehicles wherever they find space. He adds that residents are issued with a permit to display when parking. He says he went to the concierge to request a permit, paid the administration fee, but the concierge had run out of permits. He states he was told to return later for a permit and that he would be okay to park as he was on record as a resident. He says that on the day in question the PCN was issued for not displaying a permit. The appellant has provided a copy of his parking permit. Assessor supporting rational for decision: The terms and conditions state: “Authorised / permit holder vehicles only” and that “If these conditions are not complied with, parking charge of 100£ [sic] may be issued to the driver”. The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle with no permit on display. POPLA is an evidence-based service. We can only assess an appeal based on the evidence provided to us. The appellant has said that he is allocated a parking bay as part of his lease. However, he has not provided a copy of his lease. The appellant says the concierge advised him that he would be okay to park without displaying a permit as they had run out. However, POPLA cannot consider an undocumented conversation as evidence. Nevertheless, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs, not the concierge. When invited to provide comments on the operator’s case file, the appellant noted that the signs say parking is for permit holders, and do not state that a permit must be displayed. While I agree that this is the case, by his own admission, he was not in possession of a permit at the time of the contravention. When parking on private land it is the motorist’s responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions of the site they are entering before deciding to park. The terms are clear and the appellant, by his own admission, was not a permit holder at the time of the contravention. Therefore, I am satisfied that he did not park in accordance with the terms and conditions at the site. As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal. For clarity, any customer service issues the appellant has regarding information provided by the concierge or it running out of permits are outside of POPLA’s remit. This would be between the appellant and the concierge. I would appreciate if you can guide me if there is anything i can do or there is no other option except paying £100. It is almost half of my weekly salary and I genuinely dont see why it has gone that far. Your help is very much appreciated.
  10. Summary : I had been to a Car park which is adjacent to Rail station to drop by wife. There were road construction, and for safety reason I decided to pull the car into a Car park, and left the site in less than a minute. Exactly, at the same time, I been again to the car park, and left the site in less than a minute. The Car park has issued a Parking charge notice by picking up images of entry on day1 and exit on day2, claiming that my car was parked for 23 hours and 59 minutes and did not pay the parking charges. Parking Charge Notice issued by private car park accordance with the BPA code of practice 1 Date of the infringement - 1st dec 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10th Jan (after 40 days of offence) 3 Date received - 13th Jan 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] no - it was accordance with the BPA code of practice 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes - Entry image of Day1 and Exit image of Day 2 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] Y – I said the fact as what happened. And also acknowledged that I was the Driver. Have you had a response? The response dated 25 Jan was very simple - Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advice your appeal has been unsuccessful on this occassion 7 Who is the parking company? APOCA 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Slough East Car Park, Slough For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. – Yes POPLA. I appealed with Popla on 8th Feb, and they have rejected on 8th Mar saying “In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration X. Therefore, in this case I conclude that the charge was issued correctly.” In addition I’ve raised the following points: “I gather that the Parking Charge Notice issued to me on 10th Jan (Notice to Keeper) does not comply the following: 1. The period of parking to which the notice relates to (POFA 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2) (a) ), is missing from the Parking charge notice issued on 10th Jan, later this information was provided to me in the rejection letter 2. The deadlines by which the Notice to Keeper must be served, which differ depending on whether or not a Notice to Driver was issued first (paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5)) – the Parking charge notice was issued to me (Notice to Keeper) after 40 days. No notice was issued at the site. 3. Automatic number plate recognition (APNR) - Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. In this instance, basic checks are missing.” they responded saying - I note the appellant’s comments however, the appellant has admitted to being the driver of the vehicle on the day in question. As such, the operator does not have to rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper. Therefore, I do not need to consider whether the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012. I also mentioned that “In case, my appeal is rejected then it will be helpful if I can be provided with the evidence that my car was in the car park for the duration mentioned in the appeal rejection letter, the car has not left the car park on 1st Dec and entered again on 2nd Dec. There are several cameras at the site to make the car secure that can help to produce more evidence.” - No response I did attached my credit card statement that contains a transaction dated 1st dec that I been to Tesco Petrol station at Hayes around 8:20am but unfortunately, there is no time in the statement. in addition I attached the rail ticket credit card payment ticket for both the days, but again it was my unfortunate that the print on those tickets is missing the time of transaction. I picked my wife and her colleague from the Ealing broadway station on the same evening and can provide witness statement / contact details for verification. POPLA ignored all the evidence I attached to the appeal. It is very disappointing to see that these companies are making individual life so miserable, I've already spent more than a week since 13th Jan to understand and educate myself so that I can prove that I did not park. I would like to check is there anyway I can raise this complaint with APOCA, POPLA, ISPA and BPA. also, what else should I do so that they don't send me all those unwanted claim letters. It will really appreciable for your suggestions and thank you in advance.
  11. A work colleague received a pcn from ukpc ltd for parking on a kerb on private land where he lives. I drafted a letter of appeal for him to ukpc ltd, as if it was the colleague drafting it, stating that ,I have a parking permit and so am entitled to park up on the premises. The fact that all the parking bays were taken on a first come first served basis has no relevance. The fact that I live in an apartment ,on the land, allows me to park , and ukpc do not have sole rights to change the contract, lease, or covenant on the land. Needless to say, ukpc declined the appeal and it went to POPLA. Here is their reply. Incidentally, that makes it 54-0 to me on pcn's.... .4 successful county court cases out of 4, of which 2 were won at court, the other 2 were settled out of court... .2 alleged speeding charges dropped. 1 was fought in court and ended up with the cps dropping the charges, the other 1 was timed out, for a colleague. Loads of consumer challenges and all won. So far , since 1994ish when I took my very first case on (Boston county court), I have still got 100% success rate....... .I am not bragging, or being big headed, it is just that I use the law where it is needed and when it is needed.
  12. Hi, I received a parking charge notice on the 4th August, about an over stay in a 'free' retail park called Rheidol Retail Park in Aberystwth. The date of the this happened was 22/07/16. I overstayed according to them by 23 minutes. It was pouring down, and i had the wife and my three young kids with me, so they stayed in the shop and i went and got the car, the whole thing took longer than expected, which helped us be late out! Its my wife car, but i was driving. I wrote back appealing, but from my wife as the registered owner, not the driver. They requested evidence of purchase, but we have no receipts, only bank a statement of purchase from a store in that retail park. To compound the issue, the bank statement says a different day, but as we were on holiday there and left the day before the bank statement i guess its just a delayed payment. Anyway, got the POPLA appeal number now, so was hoping for a little advice on how to word it? I can't really check the carpark for signs or anything as its quite a distance away. I was also thinking if i let it go as far as court, i guess i would have to go back near the car park it happened in? What do you think my charges of a successful appeal? The Mrs would rather i just pay i think, but hate paying cowboys for nothing. Many thanks.
  13. Hi Just looking for some advice on below, if anyone can help? I have just recently received the below from appealing to POPLA, I still have the ticket with £2.70 printed on the ticket, the ticket only displays the arrival time, there was parking tariffs on the sign but believed that this would pro rata, ie additional 70p, would more than cover the additional 28mins over the £2 for 2 hours. The operator has provided me with photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the Dovecot Street Car Park at 13:27 and exited at 15:55 for a stay totalling 2 hours and 28 minutes. The operator has provided a system print out, which shows that the appellant purchased a two hours parking time at 13:29. The operator has provided photographs of the signage that is located at the site. The signage states that “Parking Tariffs Apply …Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. The appellant states that he paid £2.70 and purchased a ticket. He states that there were two parking tariffs available to him, one tariff was two hours for £2 and the next option was four hours for £3. He states that as he paid £2.70 he is entitled to more than two hours. However, by the appellant’s own admission, he has acknowledged that the two tariffs available to him were two hours for £2 and four hours for £3. The appellant does not have the option to pay alternate prices in order to receive altered parking time. Therefore, paying £2.70 would allow him to park at the site for two hours. Furthermore, the signage at the site states that “You can purchase additional time (if required) at the payment machines or by phone before leaving”. The appellant had the option to purchase additional time once his parking ticket had expired. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I can conclude that the parking charge was issued correctly. Just doesn't seem fair to me?
  14. Hi there, I recently was given a PCN, for £100, which I felt was unlawfully issued based on the following facts. The PCN was based on the following sign: Maximum 90 minutes free parking while the store is open. My argument was that the store (KFC) was shut when I parked there, for 25 minutes, and the words of the sign which they base their charge on literally means that there is a limit of 90 minutes, for parking while the store is open. They make no mention of any restrictions for parking while the aforementioned store was shut. I have made an unsuccessful internal appeal to Civil Enforcement Ltd so am now forced to appeal to POPLA. Based on this do I have a case? Thanks Michael
  15. Hi After following all the steps advised on the forum, UKPC have finally issued the POPLA code, so I am now at the stage of drafting my appeal to submit to POPLA. To give some background, UKPC issued a windscreen ticket as the vehicle owner/driver left the site. The NTK to keeper was issued within the correct time period. So now my appeal has reached POPLA stage and I have drafted an appeal based on the following grounds: Evidence for leaving site The notice to keeper states that the vehicle owner/driver left the site. Therefore for this reason a parking charge of £100 is due. I require evidence from UKPC, which shows the vehicle driver leaving the site. Such evidence should include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left. No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes leaving the site and it has not been established whether the driver was on site all along. The evidence they've added online is simply a photograph of the signage and pictures of the car with the charge notice already stuck to it. If no such sign nor evidence exists then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of evidence I deny that there was any contravention. I say there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in 'exchange' for going off site; there was no consideration, offer nor acceptance and no site boundary defined. The burden of proof shifts to UKPC to prove otherwise and to explain why their attendant (presumably) watched a driver walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary, yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver nor even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?...there is a duty to mitigate the loss.' In this case now under POPLA appeal, I contend that UKPC have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss. Contract with landowner UKPC do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that UKPC has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract or terms & conditions of parking. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow UKPC to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid. So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between UKPC and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 Signage Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]) As such, the signs were not so prominent with their terms and conditions that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park in the event that they left the site- and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence. The signage is not a contract or offer of a contract but an invitation to treat. Please can you advise whether the above is sufficient and is a strong argument to go to POPLA? Thanks in advance
  16. Hi everyone I sent a claim to POPLA and I got the decision on the 12th September. I will post the decision below, I just want to know if there's anything more I can do or should I just pay it. Thanks Andrew Decision: Assessor summary of operator case The operator’s case is that the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter. Assessor summary of your case The appellant’s case is that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator. The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site. The appellant further states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915. Assessor supporting rational for decision Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued are done so out of the driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract by parking the vehicle on relevant land. Upon review of the information provided in relation to this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections set out in PoFA, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA. As a result, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, registration number 0000000, entering the car park at 12:19, and exiting at 15:20, totalling a stay of three hours. The operator states that it has issued the PCN as the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter. The appellant states that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do 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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming that an agreement has been in place effective from the 4th January 2016 for a period of 36 months. As the PCN was issued on the 25th May 2016, I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention. The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site. 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 the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “2 Hour Free Stay: If you want to stay longer, parking tariffs then apply and a ticket must be purchased: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map establishing the locality of the 61 signs in place throughout the car park. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. While I acknowledge the appellant has concerns regarding planning permission to erect signage, I do not consider this necessary to the particular case. When looking at appeals, POPLA must consider whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions of the car park, and whether the PCN was issued correctly. The appellant states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915. The case of Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915 was an appeal heard in the House of Lords over one hundred years ago. As such, I have not considered this case to be relevant, as the precedent set in regards to parking charges has been reviewed more recently by the Supreme Court, in the case of ParkingEye-v-Beavis. 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: “…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”. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. 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. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter. As such, the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has complied with PoFA, and the keeper is now liable for the charge. Based on the evidence provided, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
  17. Parkingeye gave false photographic evidence on signs to POPLA Wright Hassell. My appeal to them was rejected.. I did not find this out until after the rejection letter having looked at PEs evidence in detail. I complained to BPA and ISPA but I don't think they want to get between the dog and his bone. I have now had the letter before county court claim and expect court claim to follow. I have written to PE informing them of the false evidence with copies of the photographic facts but nothing from them to date. What are my chances of defending and winning on confusing and nonexistent signage and false evidence to POPLA.
  18. Hi all! POPLA decided my appeal against a "PCN" was successful. However they have just reviewed the case after the operator challenged the decision a have given a Refused Appeal. Had this happened to anyone else? And where does one stand with this?
  19. Received today; It seems that all outstanding London Councils POPLA appeals have been ' adjourned ' regardless of the appeal. My PE appeal was based on only one point- lack of standing. This has no connection with Beavis and as such I was expecting a decision... Five weeks after the hearing estimated date, I get the above email which has no relevance to my case. So who, when and if a decision is made is any ones guess....
  20. Hi guys, Today I got the result of my POPLA appeal from an incident from October 2015. I've lost the appeal, here is what they have said: The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was captured by ANPR entering the site at 17.14.24, exiting at 17.27.00. The appellant was at the site for a period of 12 minutes and 36 seconds. The operator has provided a system generated print out which shows that the appellant’s vehicle registration number does not appear on the date of the event. The operator confirms that the site is a paid parking car park which is clearly stated on the signage at the site. The operator confirms that there are 15 signs, placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. The signage at the site is in full compliance with Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice with particular reference to Section 18.3 which states “signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to read and understand”. The signage on site states that, “By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with this Parking Contract and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions. If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the "Parking Charge").” Section 13.2 of the British Parking Association states “you should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go”. The operator confirms that it has a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose. The appellant states that he was dropping a relative at the train station and went across the road to get change for parking. He states that he wanted to stay for more than an hour but as it was a Saturday it was a fixed charge so decided to go and park at the train station car park instead. The appellant says that there was no indication on the signs about how long he could stay before a fine is implemented and the writing was too small. I acknowledge the comments from the appellant however, if you decide to remain at a car park site you must have the means to stay, a grace period is given in order to establish the terms and conditions at the site and should not be used to obtain the means to remain. By leaving the site to obtain the means is an acceptance of the terms and conditions of contract at the site. if the appellant had considered the terms and conditions prior to establishing if he had the means to remain there would have been sufficient time to leave prior entering into a contract with the operator. On this occasion the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly this appeal should be refused.
  21. Hello, Would be extremely grateful if I could get some feedback on the following please. Received 2 parking charge notices from Parking Eye back in November for non purchase of a parking ticket at a car park in Manchester. I appealed the charge for the following reasons. I believed I'd paid the charges online via 'Pay by Phone', however I'd actually paid for the wrong car park. 'Pay by phone' is a method I often use for the is car park when I have no change but the number which was stored on my app was for a SIP carpark (literally 100 metres further up the road) which I'd last paid for by 'pay by phone' (Parking Eye was the one I'd used just before that so it had overridden their car park number). I didn't realise and paid as usual with my credit card. The price of £2.20 came up which is what I pay for the Parking Eye car park and the description came up as Rochdale Road which is the same as the Parking Eye car park. I actually did this for 5 days and honestly had no idea I was paying for the wrong car park (strangely enough Parking Eye have only sent charges for 2 of the 5 days which is in a way a slight form of mismanagement, perhaps another angle to use?). I only realised on the sixth day when I was loading something on to my back seat and caught sight of the car park number and clicked it wasn't the same as that on my e-mail receipts). On checking I realised I'd been paying for the SIP car park and immediately changed the number and paid for the right car park. I've continued to use this car park as it's the most practical option for work. I appealed the 2 charges with Parking Eye quoting the honest mistake I'd made and providing them with payment statements from 'pay by phone'. As a regular user of this car park for many years I was hoping for a bit of common sense and compassion from them, at the end of the day I was paying for a car park that I wasn't even using. Of course I offered to recompense the payments that had gone to SIP. However 2 letters arrived today stating that the appeals were unsuccessful. I wonder if they've even read the reasons behind the issue as the wording says. 'Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question'. Of course no parking was purchased because stupidly I was paying for the wrong car park. The letter gives the option to appeal to POPLA but with the barb of if the appeal is unsuccessful then I have to pay the full amount £200 total rather than £120. Could someone please advise whether they feel it's worth the appeal or will it just get thrown out and potentially costing me an extra £80. Thanks.
  22. Hi Every one I had received a parking ticket for allegedly parking in a restricted area (client permit area) from High view parking. to further explain, we wanted some new carpets and went in a shop in hillsborough in sheffield which allows free customer parking. We parked in an area where there was a board of customer parking on the wall that i parked against, on the adjacent wall there was permit parking board. I genuinely thought it was customer parking, parked only to get a notice that i had parked in restricted area which was for clients only from high view parking. I stayed there for 17 mins. they had camera to prove i entered and stayed in what they say was a restricted area. i appealed to them initially really not understanding difference between client & customer saying my visit was for a genuine reason and they could cross check it with carpet shop. (my stupidity) and it got rejected , no surprise. I wrote to popla and giving them the explanation that the signage suggested customer parking, and there was ambuiguity and had it been more clear i would have not parked in the area. Popla has replied back saying it was still my fault to park there. I tried uploading my evidence but the website would not allow (technical problem) and than popla would not accept my pictures as case was submitted. What do i do now. ? As submission to popla, highview parking submitted a document delineating the various signage they have, but not mentioning that they have a misleading sign board in the restricted client area. Feel the decision is unfair, as i feel there should never be misleading signs. i dont know the laws regarding misleading signs in a private parking. I have now received a notice to pay £125 in 14 days. Should i take them to court ? because i still feel my case was not fully heard by POPLA. i have emails from POPLA where i have tried to convince them on allowing me to give them picture evidence but they have rejected it. ANy advice or help will be useful. attached is the picture of the area and signage
  23. As the registered keeper, a PCC was issued on July 2015 via post from ANPR controlled car park with pay and display. I sent an appeal to Parking Eye with help of the forum and was given a POPLA code. I attempted to appeal via POPLA, but this was during the period of change from London Council to Ombudsman Services. A letter was sent from POPLA stating I will be contacted to submit my evidence in due course. Despite this I received a Letter Before County Council Claim. To which I sent a reply, stating I was awaiting an opportunity to submit evidence to POPLA. I received no reply and then got my County Court Form (N1) – stating that I have not taken my opportunity to appeal. I have taken the following action: 1) Complaint to POPLA - no opportunity to submit evidence – I have evidence from POPLA I submitted by intention 2) Acknowledged the County Court Claim to extend to 28 days for defence 3) Prepared a skeleton defence 4) Sent a letter to ParkingEye (Free proof of Postage) with CPR 31.14 requesting the following: a. Contract with the landowner that demonstrates the right to enter into contracts and make claims in ParkingEye’s own name b. Data that shows the parking event c. Signage map d. Terms and conditions 5) Taken photographs of the signage at the car park My questions: 1) Can I defend by stating that due to administration errors at POPLA that I was denied the opportunity to appeal? 2) Are they required to prove as stated on the County Court Papers – ‘no valid ticket’ - as the system involves entering your reg into the machine? 3) On my defence, can I use The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Does ANPR-controlled care park, count as ‘Automated Premise?’
  24. I would like some advise please? I am a landlord of a freehold property and was issued a parking charge for parking in the communal car park. I never received correspondence that UKPC was going to be managing the communal car park. My tenant later informed me he had not received any correspondence also about UKPC managing the car park and so had received parking charges for 3 consecutive days but was going to ignore the charges as he was a tenant and was within his rights to use the car park. I decided to appeal the parking charge unlike him, however POPLA have refused my appeal. I am unhappy with POPLA's decision, what can I do? Swan Housing has now provided us (my tenant and I) a parking permit. Swan Housing own properties in the surrounding area. Find below the correspondence from POPLA. • Appealing with POPLA • Track appeal • Start a new appeal • Case Studies/Reports • FAQs Your appeal was not successful As your appeal was not successful, we would consider the parking charge as effective. It is advised that you now pay your parking charge. Your Information and Evidence Received Operator Information and Evidence Received POPLA Assessment Received Decision Unsuccessful Operator Information and Evidence Submitted 24/09/2015 POPLA assessment and decision 14/12/2015 Verification Code xxxxxxx Decision Unsuccessful Assessor Name Anthony Davidson Assessor summary of operator case No parking permit was displayed. Assessor summary of your case xxxx did not illegally park, xxx is a landlord in xxxxxxxx which is a freehold property. xxx has explained to Swan Housing that xxx property was a freehold and it was against the law to issue xxx a penalty notice. Assessor supporting rational for decision The terms and conditions of the car park clearly state no unauthorised parking, terms of parking apply Monday to Friday between 10am and 2pm. A valid permit must be clearly displayed at all times. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100. The appellant has parked without displaying a valid parking permit. I acknowledge that appellant says xxx is a landlord in xxxxxx, which is a freehold property and xx has explained this also to Swan Housing. However, I am satisfied that the photographic evidence of the signage provided clearly advises the appellant of the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle parked at 10:47:40 without displaying a valid parking permit. By leaving xxx vehicle parked, the appellant has indicated xx acceptance of the terms and conditions. When doing so, the appellant equally accepted that the operator would issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to comply with any of the conditions. I am satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal must be refused. Print Your POPLA appeal is now complete You can print out a copy for your records The parking operator has been informed of the decision. Finish Paying your parking charge In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 28 days. If you would like to pay your parking charge now you can do so by selecting 'make a payment' below. Please note: The parking operator has provided us with the payment site for your convenience and POPLA is not affiliated with the payment site in any way. Make a payment Unhappy with the outcome? You cannot challenge POPLA's decision. However, there are alternative routes to resolve your dispute. You may wish to seek advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau or seek independent legal advice. Proceed to Citizen's Advice Bureau
  25. Hi I wondered whether I could seek some advice for my appeal with POPLA against UKPC please? To summarise, UKPC issued a Parking charge ticket on a vehicle on 9/8/2015 for parking in a disabled persons space without displaying a badge. The vehicle owner was not the driver at the time. A NTK was then issued by UKPC to the vehicle owner on 8/9/15 and the following appeal was sent to UKPC by the keeper: As UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) have failed to contact the keeper of the above vehicle within the time stipulated in the provisions of the PoFA, then on this basis UKPC Ltd are timed out and therefore the Notice to Keeper issued is deemed to be invalid. Please note that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 8 September 2015. According to PoFA a Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered NOT later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked (alleged date the vehicle was parked is 09/08/2015). Therefore, as UKPC Ltd are timed out to pursue the above parking charge and have breached the PoFA guidelines, this shows that UKPC Ltd have failed to comply with the PoFA rules and as a result any further contact about this matter will result in a complaint of harassment. Also, due to UKPC Ltd’s failure to comply with the above rules BPA, POPLA and Trading standards have been notified of UKPC Ltd’s illegal practices as a company. The above appeal was rejected by UKPC and a Popla code was issued. An appeal was then made by the Keeper to Popla with the following: The parking incident was on 09/08/2015 and the Notice to Keeper was received on 08/09/2015. According to PoFA, paragraph 9(5), a Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered NOT later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge. Further to this PoFA, paragraph 8(e) requires the creditor to state that they do not know the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. T his is not mentioned on the Notice to Keeper, although it is one of the criteria’s that is required to be met, as stipulated by the law. In addition, no Creditor has been identified on the Notice to Keeper. Failing to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be is misleading and not compliant, in accordance to paragraph 8(2)(h) and 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. The Notice to Keeper simply mentions UKPC as the company the payment is to be made payable to. However, in the Notice to Keeper UKPC makes reference to ‘your vehicle was recorded on our client’s private property’ but does not refer to or specify the details of the actual creditor making this £100 parking charge demand. Also, the total charge due in the Notice to Keeper is £100. I strongly believe that this charge is punitive. According to the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the charge of £100 exceeds the potential cost or consequential loss to the landowner and therefore, the burden of proof is on UKPC to prove that it is not. UKPC replied to the popla appeal with the following defence: On 09.08.15 our warden issued a parking charge to vehicle registration ? at ?. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked in a disabled person’s space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person’s badge. The Parking Charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within 14 days. An appeal was received from ? on 30.09.15, to which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject. ?? states in appeal to both UKPC and POPLA that the notice to owner she received is invalid as it cannot be sent later than 14 days after a charge has been issued, a notice to owner is only sent after 14 days if it has been issued by an ANPR camera. As ?? charge has been issued by a warden, the NTO was sent out after 28 days therefore not breaching the BPA code of practice. We note your reference to Schedule 4, Section 7(2)(e) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We have now corresponded with you on more than a single occasion and in doing so, we have clearly identified that we are the creditor and that we seek the outstanding charge. A s you have correctly pointed out, identifying ourselves as the creditor is not the same as naming ourselves as the creditor. We have sent correspondence to you in our own name, we also have our registered address, contact details and a means to pay on our documentation, all of which fully complies with the requirements in the Protection of Freedoms Act and all of which indicates clearly that we are the creditor. The highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, has unambiguously confirmed that parking charges issued on private land are fully enforceable. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 their Lordships stated that private parking charges were enforceable because they served a legitimate interest and were in the interests of the public generally. The case confirmed that the amount of the charge does not have to reflect any loss that might have been caused by breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The Supreme Court decision is binding law on all other courts throughout the UK. UKPC asked ?? for a disabled badge as she was clearly parked in a disabled bay, as this was not provided the charge was correctly issued. We have a duty to ensure these bays are kept free for disabled people under the 2010 Equality Act a nd there is sufficient signage in view of ?? vehicle stating the terms and conditions on site. There are sufficient signs warning drivers that should they choose to park in a disabled person’s space without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge they may become liable to receive a Parking Charge. ?? vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge and consequently the Parking Charge was issued correctly. Please note for anonymity name has been replaced with ??. Based on the above I would be grateful if anybody could offer advice as to whether there is anything further I need to submit to win the appeal? I have 7 days from today to reply to Popla. Also, is the appeal submitted strong enough to win the appeal? Thanks in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...