Highview Parking 'spurred into immediate further action' after losing at POPLA

The Parking Prankster often double dips car parks - visits them twice in one day. Just in case the parking company tries it on and pretends The Prankster has been there all day, The Prankster always makes sure to get plenty of photographs of the vehicle in other locations.

Here is The Prankster's latest case.

The Appeal to the Parking Company

The Prankster knows that Parking Companies always reject appeals and so never bothers to try too hard to win these. It's best to keep the power dry for the proper appeal at POPLA.

As my car was not parked at this location between the times stated, I can only assume that you have made a mistake.

Fortunately for the last few years I have begun to suspect that I am cultivating superpowers. I believe this is because I may have been bitten by a radioactive spider when I was a child. The particular superpower I possess is to cancel any parking charge notice issued to me.

In the unlikely event you possess enough kryptonite to overcome my superpowers, and you refuse to cancel this invoice,please issue me with a POPLA appeal code.

Please note that the Prankster is a responsible superhero. The Prankster only uses his powers for good; not evil. The Prankster never uses his powers to cancel a legitimate parking ticket, where the PPC has a proper contract with the landowner, has the correct signage in place, obeys the BPA Ltd code of practice, issues the ticket in accordance with POFA 2012 and charges a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Er, that means he always uses his superpowers then. Oh well.

The PPC initial rejection

We are unable to accept your claim that you have superpowers and your claim bears no relevance to this matter whatsoever.

It's so difficult possessing superpowers. No-one ever believes you.

The PPC case to POPLA

We received an appeal, in the loosest possible sense of the word, from The Parking Prankster on the basis that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and, as such, has superpowers which include cancelling any Parking Charge Notice issued to him.

His appeal was rejected on the grounds that we are unable to accept his claim, which bears no relevance to a serious appeals process.

The Parking Prankster's correspondence made it clear that, in the event that his appeal was not accepted by us, he would appeal to POPLA.

You are therefore essentially being asked to assess and comment on the case of a deliberately evasive and deceitful driver who wishes to make a mockery of the issue of Parking Charge Notices and the appeals process thereafter.

Needless to say, as a company that strives to adhere to the best practice in the industry, we are monitoring the outcome of this case very closely and would be both astonished and spurred into immediate further action if any credence were given to The Parking Prankster's claim.

As a postscript to this summary, we know you will appreciate that we can only summarise what we have received and cannot summarise that which has not been sent to us. We can confirm that we have only been sent one letter by The Parking Prankster and his appeal was rejected on the above grounds. Anything that was subsequently sent to POPLA without being sent to us can obviously not have been considered by us.

Having recently had sight of The Parking Prankster's most recent claim, we would point out our strong belief that our timings are correct and that the PCN was issued correctly. It is extremely interesting indeed that we pointed this out to The Parking Prankster in our response of 21st February 2013 and he did not respond to us at all but rather contacted POPLA, making a claim that he did not make to us at any stage.

Well, a bit of a weak case in The Prankster's opinion. A lot of diatribe, much ranting and raving but no actual substance. Let's see what POPLA has to say.

The POPLA Verdict

On 7 February 2013, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 26 January 2013 the vehicle with registration mark xxx was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Yate Shopping Centre Main Car Park for 5 hours 45 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 4 hours.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed within the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced and state that there is a 4 hour maximum stay. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

The Appellant made representations, submitting that he had visited the site twice on the date in question, but that the automatic number plate recognition system had not registered his vehicle leaving and then returning to the site. The Appellant produced photographs and receipts that he submits show that the vehicle was elsewhere between 10.30 and 15.49. The photographs are not time or date stamped.

The Appellant’s original representations states that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him.

It is noted that the Appellant states that although the Operator’s evidence pack is dated 22 March 2013, it was only sent to him by email on 25 March 2013. However there is no dispute that he received the evidence in good time for this hearing.

It should also be noted that CCTV evidence was sent to us on an unrecognised file format and therefore could not be viewed.

The Operator rejected the representations, as stated in the notice of rejection they sent, because they believe the timings stated on the parking charge notice are correct, and they were unable to accept the Appellant’s claim that he has superpowers. The Operator produced images that appear to show the vehicle entering the site at 10.10 on 26 January 2013 and exiting at 15.55 the same day.

However the Operator has not responded to the Appellant’s submission that although he did enter the site at 10.10, he left the site before returning again later in the day and then leaving for the second time at 15.55. For example, the Operator could have provided a search for all the images of the vehicle with registration mark xxx taken on the date in question. The Operator received a copy of the Appellant’s submissions and therefore has had the opportunity to produce evidence to refute them.

It is noted that the Operator has produced representations made by the Appellant in relation to two other parking charge notices, however I am only considering evidence relating to this parking charge notice, number yyy.

I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not produced any evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that he visited Yate Shopping Centre twice on the date in question and therefore did not overstay the maximum stay. I have therefore not been satisfied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Well, The Prankster is happy with the overall verdict, but will still need to take POPLA to task for a few things. What's all this about 'The photographs are not time or date stamped' for a start? They are all time stamped in three different ways. And POPLA can't read industry standard CCTV data? The Prankster will have to ask POPLA to give their assessors some more technical training, no doubt.

Anyway, now that Highview Parking have lost, no doubt they will be carrying out their promise to be  "spurred into immediate further action". 

Lets have a look at the BPA Ltd code of practice:

22.17 If POPLA decides that you have failed to demonstrate
that a parking charge should be upheld, in whole or in
part, you must follow its decision.

22.18 You may not continue with a claim for debt-recovery
against a driver, keeper or hirer if POPLA has decided
against you and grants the appeal.

No doubt the immediate further action will be to follow POPLA's decision then and not continue with the claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster