MET parking ticket - decision overturned

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket

A fair percentage of appeals submitted have not come back. They seem to have parked them pending some skullduggery, or to reflect on Beavis as they put it.

M1

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

M1,

I guess I assumed that the process would be slightly faster, or that they would at least make a decision.

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket

Indeed, and for the most part it was. Beavis and the change of operator for popla has , for now, put paid to that so we'll just have to wait.

M1

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket

Popla have responded to the Appeal, and would just like to say thanks to all on here who gave me advise, especially Mystery1 and Ostell, POPLA have found in our favour, comments copied from their website are bellow. Format is a bit wonky but readable

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant remained at the car park for longer that the stay was authorised.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds of appeal including keeper liability.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (f) of PoFA it states “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. From the evidence provided to me the PCN reads “Payment to be made within 28 days of issue.” As such, I can only conclude that the operator has not adhered to the PoFA guidelines and issued the PCN incorrectly.



- - - Updated - - -

Oh apparently wonky ness sorts itself out when posted.

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

In an interesting twist, I have now received this email this morning...... I would assume that this suggests that additional data has been received after the consideration time, and would have thought that this rendered it all invalid, am I correct in this?



We recently contacted you regarding a decision that was made against your appeal.

Please accept our apologies but due to an error on our behalf, this was completed without the full information being considered.

Due to this error, your appeal is to be reassessed to ensure a fair and accurate outcome. We will contact you once a decision has been made.

Yours sincerely,

Kayleigh Craven
POPLA Team.

[ostell]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

Who was this additional information from? I suppose they don't say.

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

No just the email contents, nothing else was given and the statement I posted previously is all that is on the popla appeal tracker.

The statement from the parking company is as bellow.

Operator Information and Evidence

Submitted 05/01/2016

The operator will send the evidence independently

Verification Code

3863275868

Operator Name
MET Parking Services

Operator Case Summary
The operator didn't provide a case summary

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

I have now received this via email.

which states there is a change to the appeal outcome but there is no change to the appeal website, may need to wait for a while for it to refresh..


Your parking charge Appeal against MET Parking Services.

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for this Appeal.

We have now reached the end of our investigation process and the decision can be found on the portal.

Yours sincerely

Linsdey Rogers

ET6121/001

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

https://www.popla.co.uk/help-with-your-appeal

Phone them and ask what the hell is going on. If required ask what ew evidence is there as you apear not to have seen it.

M1

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

M1, I have spoken with them they will not discuss over the phone and have, since received the following letters and email.

Dear XXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for contacting POPLA.
I am sorry that your case had to be reviewed after a decision was made. This was due to some of the operator’s evidence being overlooked at the assessment stage.
The assessment has been completed again taking the operators full evidence into consideration.
I am sorry that this has changed the outcome of the decision, however this decision is not final and there is no opportunity to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Lauren Bailey
POPLA Assessor

I have responded to the email to query how a decision is not final but can't be appealed, and have had no response yet.

I assume I now need to shut up and pay up?

Mark

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

I'll get back to you later this week.
[MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] any chance you can make the attachments upright ? ta.

M1

[Kati]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

@Kati any chance you can make the attachments upright ? ta.

done xx

[markwindsurf]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

Thanks Kati.

[mystery1]

Re: MET parking ticket - won

I'll have a better look later but it seems that they just changed the decision as in both the decide on the notice to keeper so it was always available !

Seems operators have a right to appeal but the motorist doesn't. Wonder what ISPA will say.

M1

[Kati]

Re: MET parking ticket

Popla have responded to the Appeal, and would just like to say thanks to all on here who gave me advise, especially Mystery1 and Ostell, POPLA have found in our favour, comments copied from their website are bellow. Format is a bit wonky but readable

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant remained at the car park for longer that the stay was authorised.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds of appeal including keeper liability.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (f) of PoFA it states “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. From the evidence provided to me the PCN reads “Payment to be made within 28 days of issue.” As such, I can only conclude that the operator has not adhered to the PoFA guidelines and issued the PCN incorrectly.

out of interest ... did THIS decision mention that it was "final"??

I'd be arguing (up to a court appearance) that the first decision should stand ... but I'm a stubborn Yorkshire lass xx