Appeal rejected met parking - Won

[Mamaboo4]

Re: Appeal rejected met parking

Thank you so much I just received a email from popla and they have allowed my appeal and instructed met to cancel the charge ... [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you so much I just received a email from popla and they have allowed my appeal and instructed met to cancel the charge ... [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

[mystery1]

Re: Appeal rejected met parking

Sweet. Why ?

M1

[Mamaboo4]

Re: Appeal rejected met parking - Won

I've copied the email and removed my personal info

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******* arising out of the presence at McDonald’s, on 13 May 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark L*******
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******* arising out of the presence at McDonald’s, on 13 May 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark L****** for exceeding the maximum permitted stay.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant parked their vehicle at the site in excess of the maximum permitted stay and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions which I do not intend to deal with and will only elaborate on the reason why I am allowing this appeal, namely that the Operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices.
The Appellant has asked to see proof that the Operator has the authority to issue parking charges. The Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they have the authority to issue parking charge notices and therefore I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission. The onus is on the Operator to prove their case against the Appellant and on this occasion they have not done so.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


Thanks again [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

[mystery1]

Re: Appeal rejected met parking - Won

Lol, thought so. It really is amazing how many appeals are winning on a point that, in theory, shouldn't be an issue.

M1