Here is The Prankster's appeal
The vehicle visited the site twice on the day in question and was therefore not parked for the duration the operator states. This is a first in-last out error.
The operator does not include a copy of the original parking charge notice (or a true copy of it)Here is the adjudicator's decision.
The included extract from the POPLA May newsletter notes that this information is required in every case:
Extract from POPLA May newsletter:
Evidence
Just like every court, tribunal, ombudsman and arbitration service, in order to consider appeals effectively, POPLA requires certain basic information to be provided in every case.
This is what we require:
A copy of any notice issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be produced.
The original parking charge notice (or a true copy of it)
· The appellant’s representations to the operator
· The operator’s rejection of those representations
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 10 April 2013 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark CST U327. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time of 2 ½ hours.
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time. The operator has also submitted the Automated Number Plate recognition images to prove this. The operator submits that the signage at the site clearly displays the terms and conditions of parking.
The appellant’s case is that they were not parked for longer than the permitted time. The appellant submits that they left the car park and then re-visited the site later in the day. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to prove this
Upon considering all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time. I also find that the appellant was in breach of the terms and conditions of using the site.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Amber AhmedThe Assessor seems to have missed the Prankster's main appeal point, which was that the operator did not include a Parking Charge Notice with their evidence pack.
Assessor
The Prankster has of course been spurred into immediate action. He raised a complaint with POPLA that the assessor did not consider all his points. He will wait until this is heard before publishing the full case. He wonders whether the Lead Adjudicator will reverse his requirement, published in the May newsletter, that the Parking Charge Notice must always be submitted with the evidence so that the operator will win the appeal. It seems POPLA's procedures are fairly fluid, depending mainly on the whims of the parking companies. Perhaps The Prankster underestimates the Lead Adjudicator's courage and will be pleasantly surprised.
Still, on the bright side, if Smart Parking choose to continue to court presumably The Prankster will finally get to know if they actually have a contract with Asda.
Meanwhile, here is a picture of a squirrel.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Oh well never mind. Doubt u will loose any sleep over It. Better luck nxt time.
ReplyDeleteAt least you are spurred
"The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time. The operator has also submitted the Automated Number Plate recognition images to prove this."
ReplyDeleteIt, of course, 'proves' nothing of the sort.
Yes, it proves that at some point the vehicle was at the location claimed. It does not prove the whole history of the cars in and out on that day though and how accurate the maintenance of the equipment is either.
DeleteOne suspects that if this ever did go to Court that the PPC evidence would be ripped to shreds.
Ha, Smart Parking not such a silly name.
ReplyDeleteFor now!
For now ;-)
Delete"The appellant’s case is that they were not parked for longer than the permitted time. The appellant submits that they left the car park and then re-visited the site later in the day. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to prove this"
ReplyDeleteIt's not the appellants case to prove, surely ?
The Prankster thinks so too. Perhaps he should schedule a meeting with the Lead Adjudicator to ask what forms of evidence are suitable in this case, and what should the appellant do in cases where they have not had the foresight to take photographs of their car in some other place between the double dipping.
DeleteI know you already know the answer, but surely the PPC provides their file of all activity for that day. Who keeps receipts for all their transactions throughout the day, or takes pictures in other locations, or even makes purchases!
DeleteI have to say, this was a schoolboy error by the Prankster with an inevitable result. The Prankster should have submitted a 'witness statement' stating that his car was parked 'elsewhere' and signed by his son, neighbour or milkman on his behalf. Such a document submitted in the correct 'Lester' format is to be treated by POPLA as the word of God and the Prankster would have won hands down
ReplyDeleteWas bound to happen sooner rather than later. PoPLA via their masters, The PPC are obviously under pressure for a "victory" over you, regardless of how inaccurate the decision.
ReplyDeleteOne suspects that they will wriggle and squirm to get out of a reversal, but somehow I doubt that they will take it to Court.
Try another little venture. A shopping trolley with a reg plate on it through an ANPR system.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for my ticket to arrive.