Success against Gemini |
Success against Gemini |
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 12:49
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 131 Joined: 15 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,392 |
Link to case: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...13331&st=20
POPLA assessment and decision 14/06/2017 Verification Code 4161157108 Decision: Successful Assessor Name: Alexandra Wilcock Assessor summary of operator case: The driver failed to display a valid parking ticket. Assessor summary of your case: The appellant states he is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The appellant states there is no keeper liability; as the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states St George’s leisure centre and Mill end leisure centre are at different addresses. The appellant states the signage on site does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 18.3 or Appendix B. The appellant states the signage on site is vandalised. The appellant states he wants to see evidence to show that the operator has the appropriate authorisation to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) on the site. The appellant states the charge does not comply with Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. Assessor supporting rational for decision: After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing 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 PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park, in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that the PCN was issued correctly. In this instance, the operator has failed to provide a notice to driver and notice to keeper. As such, I am not able to determine if the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed this appeal on PoFA 2012, I will not take these into account. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:04 |