I've just been through this thread and it is a classic example of how wrong POPLA can get it sometimes. Assessor bingo is certainly an apt description. In this case you probably got the "tea-boy' filling in on that day.
As noted, POPLA will never reverse a decision even when it admits to the assessors being wrong. Luckily, the assessors decision is not binding. The only way you get justice is to let a judge decide whether you owe a debt to PE.
Interestingly, just today, Monday 29th January 2024 (I'm currently 6 hours west of you in the UK so still Monday) I received a successful POPLA appeal decision for a very similar case involving PE!
Before I show you the details of the POPLA decision and how I went about appealing it, you should be aware that if PE think they're on shaky ground pursuing this case, after all the reminders, they will assign it to a debt collector/robo-claim solicitor, usually DCB Legal. This is a clear sign that they have little faith that this would stand up in court and so rely on the scam tactic of trying to scare the victim into paying up with a dodgy claim.
As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum earlier today, if DCB Legal are involved, as long as a robust defence is submitted, there is a 99/9% likelihood that they will discontinue before any hearing.
The OP needs to wait and see if PE make their own claim or whether they pass it on to DCB Legal. Also, recently, PE have begun adding £20 on top of the £100 charge when they file their own claims which is a "bonus" in the sense that it weakens their claim by increasing the original charge beyond what is stated in their terms.
Now, here is the case that I helped a friend overturn a PE PCN (NtK) that did not clearly identify the
relevant land.
The vehicle was parked in a Lidl car park in St Neots whilst the driver and passengers went to a nearby restaurant, not realising that out of store hours, there was only an invitation to park if £100 was paid. The NtK stated the location as "
Lidl, St Neots". Nothing else about the location. No street name. No post code.
Upon doing a Google Maps search for "Lidl, St Neots" two separate Lidl's were shown. One was "
Lidl, Cedar House, Cambridge St, Saint Neots PE19 1JL" and there other was "
Lidl, 29 Great N Rd, Eaton Socon, Saint Neots PE19 8EN". Ambiguous, yes?
This was pointed out in the initial appeal to PE whilst pointing out that this was a breach of PoFA by not clearly identifying the "relevant land" but they refused the appeal without addressing the issue. A POPLA code was issued and the following was the POPLA appeal filed (PDF):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f7kkc340y7p22p7my0vir/POPLAappeal-copy.pdf?rlkey=v7c6aqqevtl4mm34t2jpar937&dl=0It is important to point out that in a POPLA appeal, you should make as many appeal points as possible, even if they seem far fetched. The operator must rebut every point. Failure to rebut a single point will mean that the appellant will be successful with the appeal.
PE submitted their own "operators response", again, failing to address the core issue of the failure to comply with the PoFA "relevant land" issue. The rebuttal again highlighted the operators lack of response to the core issue about "relevant land" which meant that the NtK was not PoFA compliant and so the keeper could not be held liable for the charge.
Here's the successful POPLA response received earlier today:
Operator NameParking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW
Operator Case SummaryOP Case Summary
DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAmy Smith
Assessor summary of operator caseThe operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining at the site for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.
Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:
- They say the operator has failed to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
- They say it has not shown that the individual is in fact the driver.
- They say the site name is listed as Lidl St Neots and there is no postcode listed.
- They say there is 2 Lidl stores in that area, and this leaves ambiguity as to what location it is referring to.
- They say Schedule 4 paragraph 9, 8 (a) has not been met as it does not confirm the relevant land.
- They say they have not named the driver and as such there can be no assumptions as to who was driving.
- They say PoFA 2012 has not been met.
- They say the signs are inadequate which means it has failed to adhere to PoFA 2012 requirements and breached the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requirements.
- They say the signs do not confirm which store it is referring to.
- They say the store at 29 Great N Rd, PE19 8EN confirms that parking is free, yet the signs at Lidl store at Cedar House PE19 1JL do not meet the Code of Practice requirements in section 19.3 and 19.4 as they do not give adequate notice of the charge.
- They say there is no evidence of landowner authority. They ask for strict proof from the operator of a chain of authority confirming the relevant land and states the operator is required to meet all requirements of proof of landowner including what it is entitled to do.
- They say a witness statement is not sound evidence, however they say it can be accepted by POPLA, but is unlikely to confirm the definition of services.
- They say it must meet section 7 of the Code of Practice.
- They say the operator has failed to comply with the Code of Practice principles for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).
- They say the operator must meet section 22.1 of the Code of Practice.
- They say the signs do not confirm this and do not meet section 22.2 and 22.3.
- The operator has failed the Code of Practice principles for failing to display the Approved Operator Scheme logo on the signs.
- They say the BPA AOS scheme logo must be displayed at all times and there is no BPA logo on any signs which fails the Code of Practice requirements.
After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided evidence of the signs at both sites and the PCN as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionI am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN.
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. The operator must meet schedule 4 paragraph 9 (2) (a) which states:
“(2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
In this case the PCN states Lidl St Neots, however the appellant has told us there is 2 Lidls in St Neots and the PCN does not confirm the Post Code.
Whilst the operator has confirmed it has a contract in place for enforcement for Lidl St Neots, there is no evidence of which store this is. Therefore, due to the lack of rebuttal from the operator I cannot categorically advise the appellant which store the PCN was issued at.
POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the PCN does not state the relevant land I am not satisfied that the operator has issued the 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.
