PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

I won, parking eye
post Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 13:22
Post #1

New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,112

Went to Popla and won.

Asked for strict proof that parking eye owned or had written permission from the land over to operate as well as questions over illumination of signs. They failed to provide proof of owners consent.

Assessor Name xxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site without purchasing parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the sings do not comply with the British Parking Association’s (BPA)’s Code of Practice and were not prominent enough to form any contract with the driver. She states that signs saying this was a controlled parking area before entering and once on site, were not seen by the appellant. She states that it was dark and there were no illuminated signs that she could see. The appellant has provided a link to Google maps. The appellant states that the only sign that was illuminated was the White Horse signs located at the entrance to the site. The appellant asks that the operator provide proof that they have a proprietary interest in the land and has the capacity to offer or claim for trespass on behalf of the owner. The appellant states that the operator failed to adhere to the BPA Code of practice for grace periods. The appellant has not supplied any documents or images to support her appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. When it comes to parking on private land, the motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has supplied details showing the location of these signs throughout the site and as such I am satisfied this signage informs the motorist that they are entering private land and are required to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras monitor this site, and from the evidence provided by the operator, it shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 17:30 and exiting at 17:44 after a stay of 13 minutes. The operator has also provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”. The signage also offers exemptions for overnight guest and for customers who spend £6 or more on food in the hotel. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. I note the appellant’s comments that she wishes to know if the operator has a proprietary interest in the land and has the capacity to offer or claim for trespass on behalf of the owner. Section 7.1 of the 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”. As such, I would have expected the operator to have provided me with a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner. As it has not done so, I cannot establish if it had authorisation to issue the PCN on this site on the day in question. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

This post has been edited by seenitall: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 13:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 2)
post Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 13:22
Post #

Advertise here!

Go to the top of the page
Quote Post
post Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 13:53
Post #2


Group: Members
Posts: 1,871
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Member No.: 38,904

Well done!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 18:50
Post #3


Group: Members
Posts: 6,790
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066

Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:



Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 19th May 2019 - 23:27
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.