Yesterday, 02:45 PM
POPLA outcome: Successful
The appellant appeals on several grounds and has provided supporting evidence. I won’t summarise all of the grounds raised, or the evidence provided, because I’m allowing the appeal based on the single appeal ground summarised below: • The charge notice didn’t comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) because it didn’t clearly identify the creditor. Having seen the parking operator’s response to their appeal, the appellant expands on their original appeal grounds.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
I’m allowing this appeal for the following reasons. The appellant raised specific appeal grounds, but I won’t necessarily address them because the appeal’s been allowed. My role is to assess, based on the evidence put forward, whether the charge was correctly issued. It’s for the parking operator to provide evidence both to support its case and to answer any relevant appeal grounds raised. Parking operators can pursue payment of charges either from the drivers of vehicles or from vehicles’ keepers or hirers using a law called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The driver hasn’t been identified in this case, and there’s no suggestion the vehicle was on hire, so the operator can only possibly pursue the vehicle’s keeper for the charge. POFA lets operators transfer liability to keepers if certain rules are followed. The rules include having to send a notice containing specific information to the keeper. POFA makes clear such a notice must “identify the creditor”, with the creditor being “a person who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle”. The appellant appeals, in part, on the basis the charge notice in this case didn’t clearly identify the driver. Specifically, they say the charge notice was branded as having been issued by Group Nexus and signed off by CP Plus Limited trading as Group Nexus. They claim that Group Nexus Limited exists as a company in its own right, separate from CP Plus Limited, and therefore that the information on the notice wasn’t clear about who “the creditor” was. I’m not satisfied the information or evidence put forward by the parking operator is sufficient to answer the appeal grounds raised. The operator makes no reference at all in its evidence to the appellant’s claim the notice didn’t clearly identify the creditor, nor to the appellant’s claim that Group Nexus Limited exists as its own entity rather than simply a trading name of CP Plus Limited. Based on the evidence, the parking operator may not have any basis to pursue the keeper for this charge, so I’m allowing this appeal.
The appellant appeals on several grounds and has provided supporting evidence. I won’t summarise all of the grounds raised, or the evidence provided, because I’m allowing the appeal based on the single appeal ground summarised below: • The charge notice didn’t comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) because it didn’t clearly identify the creditor. Having seen the parking operator’s response to their appeal, the appellant expands on their original appeal grounds.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
I’m allowing this appeal for the following reasons. The appellant raised specific appeal grounds, but I won’t necessarily address them because the appeal’s been allowed. My role is to assess, based on the evidence put forward, whether the charge was correctly issued. It’s for the parking operator to provide evidence both to support its case and to answer any relevant appeal grounds raised. Parking operators can pursue payment of charges either from the drivers of vehicles or from vehicles’ keepers or hirers using a law called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The driver hasn’t been identified in this case, and there’s no suggestion the vehicle was on hire, so the operator can only possibly pursue the vehicle’s keeper for the charge. POFA lets operators transfer liability to keepers if certain rules are followed. The rules include having to send a notice containing specific information to the keeper. POFA makes clear such a notice must “identify the creditor”, with the creditor being “a person who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle”. The appellant appeals, in part, on the basis the charge notice in this case didn’t clearly identify the driver. Specifically, they say the charge notice was branded as having been issued by Group Nexus and signed off by CP Plus Limited trading as Group Nexus. They claim that Group Nexus Limited exists as a company in its own right, separate from CP Plus Limited, and therefore that the information on the notice wasn’t clear about who “the creditor” was. I’m not satisfied the information or evidence put forward by the parking operator is sufficient to answer the appeal grounds raised. The operator makes no reference at all in its evidence to the appellant’s claim the notice didn’t clearly identify the creditor, nor to the appellant’s claim that Group Nexus Limited exists as its own entity rather than simply a trading name of CP Plus Limited. Based on the evidence, the parking operator may not have any basis to pursue the keeper for this charge, so I’m allowing this appeal.
