On 26/10/2015, I received a ticket on my car. from Capital Car Park Control. I did have a valid permit, but it had partially fallen past the windscreen so the parking company claim they couldn't see it and issued me with a ticket. The car was parking on communal parking at my block of flats where I am the leaseholder for the flat. I applied to POPLA, but it was declined (although they didn't respond at all to most of the points I raised), and have now received two letters from Debt Recovery Plus, although it is clear from these that they have not actually purchased the debt.
Is there anything more I can do? I've heard of the Beavis case, but I did have a valid permit in the car, and it is in a block of flats to which I am a leaseholder. How likely do you think it is that they would bother taking it to court, and if they did, so you think they would win given the valid permit and the fact that I'm a leaseholder?
Thanks,
Richard
Hello Richard
Very unlikely that CCPC would take a single ticket to court
As long as the matter remains with DR+, nothing at all will happen
Beavis doesn't apply in your situation
The Supreme Court set it was a penalty but they were allowing it because particular conditions applied
They included the interest of the landowner in ensuring a turnover of vehicles and the public interest in a disincentive for unauthorised cars to remain and prevent other customers parking
Neither applies in your situation
Some POPLA assessors look no further than "was the parking notice issued correctly?" and say it's not their job to anticipate what a court would think
Contrary to what POPLA often decide, your lease trumps the signs placed by a third party contractor
If it says that you have a right to park and sets no conditions, CCPC can't take away that right
Who issued the permit ?
Very unlikely that CCPC would take a single ticket to court
As long as the matter remains with DR+, nothing at all will happen
Beavis doesn't apply in your situation
The Supreme Court set it was a penalty but they were allowing it because particular conditions applied
They included the interest of the landowner in ensuring a turnover of vehicles and the public interest in a disincentive for unauthorised cars to remain and prevent other customers parking
Neither applies in your situation
Some POPLA assessors look no further than "was the parking notice issued correctly?" and say it's not their job to anticipate what a court would think
Contrary to what POPLA often decide, your lease trumps the signs placed by a third party contractor
If it says that you have a right to park and sets no conditions, CCPC can't take away that right
Who issued the permit ?
QUOTE
I applied to POPLA, but it was declined (although they didn't respond at all to most of the points I raised)
Getting very strange decisions from POPLA. If you need to complain, complain to ISPA - http://ispa.co.uk/contact
QUOTE (emanresu @ Sat, 21 May 2016 - 05:42) 
QUOTE
I applied to POPLA, but it was declined (although they didn't respond at all to most of the points I raised)
Getting very strange decisions from POPLA. If you need to complain, complain to ISPA - http://ispa.co.uk/contact
I submitted a complaint myself only yesterday for a perverse decision where actual legal facts were not even considered. If they had been points of opinion it would have been acceptable but not actual facts of legal points.
ISPA cannot overturn the decision so a complaint is just that. It flags up a caution of wrong or illogical behaviour that might at some time come home to roost on POPLA's doorstep.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.