Received a response from POPLA for the complaint that we submitted:
Dear Hashim Oomerjee,
Your complaint about POPLA decision 2410086112
Thank you for your contact outlining the reasons why you’re unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I’m responsible for investigating complaints.
It’s worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.
Having reviewed your correspondence, I’ve noted the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal. I’ve noted your two complaints and will address them separately:
You’re unhappy with the assessor’s determination that the car park is private land as you believe it’s council owned and therefore not relevant land for purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Within their rationale, the assessor stated:
“In this case, a copy of the agreement between Visio-Redbridge Culture & Leisure Agreement has been provided dated 17 January 2022 confirming that the landowner has given authority for Euro Car Parks LTD to carry out parking enforcement for breaches of the advertised terms and conditions. This document does not have an expiry date, and I have received no further evidence that would suggest the above contract has been terminated and therefore is still valid. A copy of this document can be located in the case file provided by the parking operator and if the appellant wishes to obtain any additional details, they may wish to contact the landowner directly. I am satisfied that the land is private land and not council owned.”
Though you have claimed that it’s not private land, I must advise that POPLA can only base decisions on the evidence provided. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the assessor was satisfied that the site is private land and therefore relevant land.
You’re unhappy with the assessor’s claim that the notice to keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Within their response, the appellant explained:
“I am aware the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper due to the drivers details not being provided. Section 9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can see that PCN was issued within the relevant period and requested driver details to be provided.”
Having reviewed the notice to keeper, I'm satisfied that it is in fact compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Overall, having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I’m satisfied the decision reached is correct based on the evidence presented.
In closing, I’m sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may wish to contact Citizens Advice at:
www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
Yours sincerely,
Alex Roby
POPLA Complaints Team
