POPLA Appeal - help requested!

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Many thanks. I will send those comments to POPLA this evening.

I presume the key point is that the signs talk of permitted stay, whereas the law relates to time parked.

mwt

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Many thanks. I will send those comments to POPLA this evening.

I presume the key point is that the signs talk of permitted stay, whereas the law relates to time parked.

mwt

It's an interesting point but they should look at keeper liability as a whole, that's if they allow the contract argument to be won by them which they don't seem keen on doing at the moment. They only let you win once and then they stop as winning twice or more is pointless.

M1

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Morning all,
I have today received the following in an email from POPLA.
(I wasn't aware that they had held things up, waiting for the Supreme Court, but maybe they told me - it was a while ago)
Would you be able to advise on what I should do (if anything), please.
manwiththree
The Supreme Court has now issued its decision in relation to Beavis v ParkingEye.

As previously advised, POPLA placed this appeal on hold until we had considered our position in relation to
this.We have now considered our position and will allow both sides to provide any further comments or evidence
regarding the Supreme Court's decision for our consideration. We asked parking operators for their responses first, so we were able to share them with appellants. The
parking operator provided no further evidence for your appeal. Please provide your comments or additional within seven days as responses after this point will not be
considered. If the portal does not allow you to submit your comments then we will accept these via email to: info@popla.co.uk.

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Maybe safer to further add :-

I would like to take the chance to submit further comments as requested and say as follows :-

The contract/authority provided in evidence does not contain the information required by the BPA code of practice at section 7 with extra attention to 7.3






7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 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.
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




As this information is nowhere to be found there is no evidence of authority and the appeal must be allowed.


M1

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Many thanks for your swift reply. I have sent the further comments to POPLA as suggested.

Now, we (once again) sit and wait.

[Openlaw15]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Hello, and many thanks for helping people like me!

I have received a Parking Charge Notice from MET Parking Services, telling me that I exceeded the allowed time parked at McDonalds, Milton Heights, Didcot on 31st August 2015 (118 minutes against a limit of 90 minutes). They dated the PCN with 7th September, but it looks like they sat on it for a while, as I received it on 16th September.
I used your fairly straightforward letter to invoke the appeals process. They rejected the appeal (dating the rejection 29th September, but again it seemed to take a while to get to me), and gave me a POPLA reference as I had requested.

I'd be very grateful if you can help me with some text for an appeal. I've seen your "New POPLA Process" blog post, and think I can follow the instructions, but obviously it's that all-important appeal document that I'm missing. Is there anything resembling a template for the appeal, or do we all just ask you to construct something for us as individuals? Either way, I'm very grateful for the help you provide.

Thanks, Ralph

Hello Ralph

Not withstanding Mystery1's comments/ knowledge, there can be no claims in general for private land based on the main law (statute). However, there is contractual law in that the company may have a claim against the driver for breach of contract based on common law (case law), as was raised in Parking Eye v Beavis in the 2016 Supreme Court case. POPLA guidance is not law but it may be persuasive in any appeals you were to make. First, why did the company reject your claim and what was their reason for it?

[Kati]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Many thanks for your swift reply. I have sent the further comments to POPLA as suggested.

Now, we (once again) sit and wait.

M1's not lost at POPLA yet xx

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Hi there,
I have today received notification that POPLA have rejected my appeal.
I've attached a pdf with the text of the rejection.
As ever, I'm not sure what the next step needs to be.
It feels as if they have decided that our various arguments just don't count for anything.
Is this the end of the line?
Regards

manwiththree

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Hello openLaw15, and sorry for not replying to your post.
I don't remember quite why the appeal against the original Notice was rejected, but I imagine it was very bland, along the lines of "we have the photographic evidence". Is there value to be had in going back to that point?
(must admit that having received POPLA's rejection today, I would find it hard to start digging through the correspondence from September)
mwt

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

That's the4th one of these

The evidence relied upon doesn't exist, certainly not in the evidence you posted.

I'll get back to you at the weekend.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Ref popla #xxxxxxxxx




Dear Sir/Madam,




I wish to highlight the failure of your system to both be consistent and take in to account information presented to it. I appreciate that you will not consider the appeal any further but regardless your appeals service needs to avoid repeating such errors and inconsistencies in the future in order to maintain a certain level of trust with the public unlike your competitors TheIAS who are routinely referred to as a "kangaroo court".

The assessor has failed to produce an assessment which follows the standard which the BPA and Popla themselves have indicated with the result that the decision itself calls in to question the knowledge and skill of the assessor or the independence of the appeal handling.


The BPA website states "As well as being judicially independent, POPLA now has an Independent Scrutiny Board; guaranteeing absolute independence"




The Popla website states
"How does the assessor make their decision?




The assessor will review the evidence supplied by both parties to establish what happened during the incident. If it is relevant to the specific appeal, the assessor will consider whether the parking operator has correctly abided by the British Parking Association Code of Practice and relevant law."






Firstly i would like to list some of the reasoning for upholding appeals in other popla cases recently.



Decision
Successful



Reasons for the Assessor's determination
While the appellant has raised several grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land.
The operator has provided a signed statement regarding the landowner authority. However, as it does not set out all of the conditions covered in section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I am not satisfied that the document provided demonstrates sufficient landowner authority, as the date that the agreement started has not been completed.
In conclusion, the operator has failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that it has the relevant landowner authority. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I do not need to consider the appellant's other grounds for appeal.





Decision
Successful


Assessor Name
Lauren Bailey



Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant overstayed the paid parking time.




Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant has stated that signage at the car park is not sufficient.



Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. However, in this instance the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, the operator has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has failed to meet the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal and the other grounds raised by the appellant do not need further consideration.







Decision: Successful



Assessor summary of operator case:


The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the parking time he had paid for.



Assessor summary of your case:


The appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:
• The appellant does not believe the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).
• The appellant does not believe the operator has the landowner’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).
• The appellant does not feel the operator has applied a reasonable grace period.
• The appellant believes the signage displayed on site is insufficient.
• The appellant feels the PCN is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.



Assessor supporting rational for decision:



The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:06 and exiting the site at 14:16. The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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 not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not need to consider them.







Decision: Successful








Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay on site.








Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he does not feel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant does not believe the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. The appellant believes the Notice to Keeper did not adhere to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant believes the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are unreliable.





Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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 not provided POPLA with the written authorisation from the landowner. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.






Decision

Successful




Assessor summary of operator case

Insufficient time was purchased.



Assessor summary of your case


She is the registered keeper and wishes to appeal as follows. 1. The charge is a penalty 2.
Unfair charges 3. Locus Standi 4.Signage


Assessor supporting rational for decision



The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on
Landowner authority as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. "Section 7 of the
British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have
written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide
any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required
authority to operate on the land in question. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision.




There are other results reported with far briefer synopsis than this for the same thing.







Contrast this with the decision in my case.








The areas of complaint are :-




1. The assessor has stated " I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. " The notice to keeper states 29 days where as the statute states 28 days.

" I note that theappellant states that the notice to keeper arrived on 16 September 2015 and as such, is outsideof the valid time limit however, I note that the operator issued this on 7 September 2015."

There is simply no evidence to support this. The operator chose not to respond to the point or include postage logs or a witness statement although in any case this does not prove receipt by the appellant. Putting a date on a notice by definition is no proof what so ever as it obviously has not been posted at this point.

The assessor has ignored the point regarding a specified period of parking.







2. The assessor has said that they are satisfied on the evidence on the authority/contract point. Once again the evidence does not support this finding. The BPA code states




"7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 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.
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"




Nowhere is the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined explained. There is a name for the land but clearly you cannot tell the boundary, as required, from that. Nowhere does it state the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. You cannot ever decide for the person who has the burden of proof when there is no proof at all in an independent manner unless you err, are badly trained or are corrupt. At the time for rebutting the operators evidence i made it clear that what was provided was not proof. Nobody who makes an independent adjudication can miss that much without poor training, incompetence or plain old fashioned corruption. There are many decisions on the internet where section 7 failures mean the appeal was upheld. Aside from this, the letter of authority is dated 2013, almost 3 years ago and as evidence is practically worthless.










Send to complaints@popla.co.uk, director@ispa.co.uk , aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk




M1

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Inevitably, I've now received a note from MET Parking, telling me that I must now pay the £100 charge, as my appeal was unsuccessful.
Whilst I'm in no rush to pay, I guess I have to ask whether you consider there's any reason to expect the above message to achieve any further developments in my favour.
I'm happy to send the message, as it may help the next batch of people, but do I regard POPLA's decision as Final?
(because, after all, they say it is final, and our note concedes that they won't consider my case any more)

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

The honest answer is that i don't know. ISPA haven't replied to anyone i know and the BPA rather predictably said "feck off" to one.

Popla is in turmoil, i've won cases on points i never really expected to and lost cases i've won on the same appeal. There is even one on pepipoo where one person had 2 identcal situations and appeals and actually has 1 wwin and 1 loss. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104699

The only way to get consistency is to highlight errors. If we do that then we can get it, and hopefully some overturned too. If you don't ask you don't get.

M1

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

Thanks for your swift reply.
I will sit tight for a couple of weeks at least, to see if the landscape changes.
(I have 28 days to pay, at least, before MET Parking will consider their next move)

[manwiththree]

Re: POPLA Appeal - help requested!

I have received an acknowledgement from ISPA. Obviously I'll post any subsequent response from them.

**Dear Mr X,
Thank you for your correspondence.
I shall take your issue to the Board for consideration and comment and then come back to you with a fuller reply.
As you have indicated ISPA Board isn't an appeal body and cannot review or direct an outcome on a PoPLA appeal decision. However we do have oversight of the processes that are undertaken and monitor performance and independence.
I shall get back to you further hopefully by the end of March.
Kind regards
Christine Fraser
Director ISPA **