PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Success - CEL / Aldi Hounslow, Thread and decision details
Pummy
post Sat, 1 Feb 2020 - 14:33
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
From: Hounslow
Member No.: 10,745



Thread:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...30866&st=20

Decision Text:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the operator is not authorised by the landowner to operate on site. She states that the site does not meet constitute “relevant land” under either the British Parking Association Code of Practice or the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. She states that signage on site detailed no specific terms for non-permit holders and no contract was therefore formed. She states that the operator did not adhere to relevant data protection regulations. She states that the operator obtained her details illegally from the DVLA. The appellant has provided a document elaborating on the above grounds in detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided a copy of a document entitled “CONFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY”, signed on behalf of the landowner to confirm that it is authorised to operate on site. The document lists the “ENFORCEMENT POLICY” on site as “No parking at any time”. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage clearly states: “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”. The appellant has queried whether the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to manage parking on site. The operator has provided evidence to show that it is authorised by the landowner to operate on site, however it does not appear from the evidence that the terms being enforced by the operator are in line with its authorisation from the landowner. The landowner appears to have authorised the operator to prevent any parking whatsoever on site, whereas the operator is enforcing a permit-holders only policy. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site, or at least that the terms it is enforcing are in line with the authority it has. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.
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:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 16th February 2020 - 18:36
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.