Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail Park Ashford, Kent
« on: July 09, 2025, 07:06:07 pm »
Hi Team,
Bit of a weird one!
Got my appeal back from POPLA which it was successful. However, upon reading it I think they've got the appeal??? This is what the comments are:
[START]
POPLA assessment and decision
09/07/2025
Verification Code
2921135509
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Amy Smith
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking without a valid pay and display ticket.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They tried to pay using the ticket machines, but both were out of order. They say they tried the QR code system, however this also malfunctioned as it would only accept the letter 'Y'. They say after multiple failed attempts, they paid by phone, which worked but charged more than usual which was £5 instead of £3.80. • The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds that the correct vehicle registration was not and they say this was false. They say the invoice and screenshots show they entered the correct registration number within the required timeframe. • They say that the phone payment method charged a higher rate than advertised on signage. This raises questions about the legality and fairness of the contract, especially since other payment methods were unavailable. They argue this could constitute a frustration of contract. • They tried to explain the situation to the parking attendant at the time, but they were not concerned and refused to talk to the appellant. • They question whether operator is properly authorised by the landowner to issue tickets. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant states: The appellant has provided a copy of the text confirmation as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay. The appellant questions whether operator is properly authorised by the landowner to enforce parking. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has not provided POPLA with any evidence that it has a valid contract with the landowner to enforce parking on this land on the date in question. They say the operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid contract with the landowner in accordance with Section 14 of the code. This contract must not redact any critical parts of the contract and if heavily redacted will fail to meet the standards of section 14 of the code. The operator states the following within in its evidence pack: “We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority, they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The photographs included in Section F show that signage and equipment is in place at the site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority.” I must advise that it is within the operator’s gift to rebut the appellant’s claims with proof that a valid contract was in place in order for POPLA to determine it was granted the authority to enforce parking on the land on the date in question. In the absence of any proof it had authority to enforce, I cannot conclude that the operator had a valid contract based on testimony alone. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator failed to provide a copy of a landowner agreement, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued this PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
[END]
With my situation i did none of the above. Do I just keep quiet and take it as the win?
Bit of a weird one!
Got my appeal back from POPLA which it was successful. However, upon reading it I think they've got the appeal??? This is what the comments are:
[START]
POPLA assessment and decision
09/07/2025
Verification Code
2921135509
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Amy Smith
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking without a valid pay and display ticket.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They tried to pay using the ticket machines, but both were out of order. They say they tried the QR code system, however this also malfunctioned as it would only accept the letter 'Y'. They say after multiple failed attempts, they paid by phone, which worked but charged more than usual which was £5 instead of £3.80. • The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds that the correct vehicle registration was not and they say this was false. They say the invoice and screenshots show they entered the correct registration number within the required timeframe. • They say that the phone payment method charged a higher rate than advertised on signage. This raises questions about the legality and fairness of the contract, especially since other payment methods were unavailable. They argue this could constitute a frustration of contract. • They tried to explain the situation to the parking attendant at the time, but they were not concerned and refused to talk to the appellant. • They question whether operator is properly authorised by the landowner to issue tickets. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant states: The appellant has provided a copy of the text confirmation as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay. The appellant questions whether operator is properly authorised by the landowner to enforce parking. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has not provided POPLA with any evidence that it has a valid contract with the landowner to enforce parking on this land on the date in question. They say the operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid contract with the landowner in accordance with Section 14 of the code. This contract must not redact any critical parts of the contract and if heavily redacted will fail to meet the standards of section 14 of the code. The operator states the following within in its evidence pack: “We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority, they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The photographs included in Section F show that signage and equipment is in place at the site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority.” I must advise that it is within the operator’s gift to rebut the appellant’s claims with proof that a valid contract was in place in order for POPLA to determine it was granted the authority to enforce parking on the land on the date in question. In the absence of any proof it had authority to enforce, I cannot conclude that the operator had a valid contract based on testimony alone. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator failed to provide a copy of a landowner agreement, I am not satisfied that the operator has issued this PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
[END]
With my situation i did none of the above. Do I just keep quiet and take it as the win?
