POPLA Decisions

Popla appeal finally heard nearly two months after appeal scheduled.

The full thread is here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78197

Here's a copy of the judgement.

---

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxx arising out
of the presence at xxxxxxxxx, on xxxxxxx, of a
vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx for not purchasing the appropriate
parking time and remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer
than permitted or did not purchase the appropriate parking time and this was
a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the
site.
The Appellant has made various submissions but I only propose to deal with
the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on which is the genuine preestimate
of loss. The Appellant submits that no loss was suffered by the
Operator and the parking charge fails to reflect the actual loss suffered as a
result of the breach.
The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with
the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £85 being issued. This
wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach
of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine preestimate
of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine preestimate
of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator
has stated that the parking charge is fair and reasonable according to BPA
guidelines but has made no attempt to address what loss was suffered by the
Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal
on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge
amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Just to say thanks to all who helped me in fighting this PCN injustice. I attach a copy of the adjudication and hope that it helps others. Great result!

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’)for failure to display a valid permit. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking. The Operator has produced photos of the Appellant’s vehicle and site signage in support of its case.

The Appellant disputes that he was parked improperly. Amongst other grounds of appeal, it is the Appellant’s case that the Operator does not have authority from the landowner to enforce parking restrictions at the site, and certainly not to usurp his own property rights to park where he did under his tenancy agreement. The Appellant challenged the Operator to produce evidence of a contract between the Operator and the landowner.

It was for the Operator to show that the Appellant parked in breach of the parking contract. The Appellant disputed the very basis of the Operator’s case; that it was not entitled to enforce parking restrictions unless it could prove it had authority to do so on behalf of the landowner (unless, of course, the Operator itself was the landowner). The Operator did not respond directly to this issue. The Operator only refers briefly that it is “authorised to manage the Site by way of an operating contract between ourselves and the landowners.” No evidence of that contract and the terms under which it was entitled to enforce parking restrictions was produced.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable for want of authority.
The appeal is allowed.