We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA Decisions
Options
Comments
-
PP often appeals on single issues to test the water with POPLA - to see what wins and what doesn't. I'm not aware that any of PP's appeals have been forum-guided ... it is the forum-assisted appeals where we have 100% success rate (so far).
Edit: SNAP!
0 -
We have 100% success rate on here - the Prankster has tried a few 'off piste' appeal points as a test in the past when we were trying out appeals, to learn what would win and what didn't - over a year ago. We don't risk newbies using such tactics so no worries for you!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
My wife and I have both received notice from POPLA of successful appeals against UKCPM - they just did not respond to our appeals.
The following is from the POPLA letter:
"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]Christopher Adamson
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Assessor"
Very many thanks to Coupon Mad for taking the time to review my appeal.
[/FONT][/FONT]0 -
I found out yesterday that our appeal against CEL was allowed as follows:
Appellant
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park &
Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Holiday Inn, on xxx 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Holiday Inn, on xx 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxx for unauthorised parking.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant was not authorised to park their vehicle where they did and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a list of heads that they have to pay for in managing the car park, however, they have not given a breakdown of how much they spend on each head listed.
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 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nozir Uddin
Assessor
Big thanks to 4consumerrights and kirbyinfurnesslad for dealing with this headache for me.0 -
09 May 2014
Reference XXXX
always quote in any communication with POPLA
XXXX XXXX (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXX arising
out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark
XXXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
2 09 May 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor
--
Full Thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65035881#Comment_650358810 -
Another success posted today - win against UKPC - Not a GPEOLHi - Just thought I'd let you know that I received a win from POPLA last week. Amazing. Thanks for all your help.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for parking outside the markings of a parking bay. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking which prohibited parking outside of marked bays. The Operator produced a document to show how the amount of the PCN was calculated.
It is the Appellant’s case, amongst other grounds, that the £100 parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and was tantamount to a penalty. The Appellant submits that the amount of the parking charge bares no relationship to any alleged loss caused by her having parked at the site outside of a marked bay.
The Operator also submitted that the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank maintained that the burden was on the Appellant to show that the amount of the charge was a penalty and not liquidated damages.
Having carefully examined the submissions of both parties, I find that:
1. The onus is on an operator to demonstrate that an appellant is liable for a parking charge. However, it is for an appellant to challenge the basis of the charge if he or she disputes that it amounts to damages. The Appellant submitted that the charge did not represent damages and was in fact a penalty. Accordingly, the Appellant has challenged whether the amount was genuine and it was for the
Operator to respond to that issue;
2. The Operator accepts that the amount of the parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breach of the contract. Where there is an initial loss caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Any consequential loss incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the PCN and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be recovered;
3. The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a
PCN. However, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that parking in this free car park outside of a marked bay did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any
3 06 May 2014
estimate of loss.
Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
I allow the appeal on this ground.
It does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.
Matthew Shaw
Assessor0 -
Appellant
-v-
Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited t/as Corporate Services (Parking Management) (Operator)
Grounds: No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (PSDSU)
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At (time), on (date), a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the Halo Leisure Centre in Hereford.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by parking without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.
The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised by the Appellant was that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.
The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence in order to tip the balance in its favour.
In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Full details of appeal here
:beer:0 -
Another PSDSU it seems. :T0
-
ME (Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Snow Hill, on x, of a vehicle with registration mark x.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Parked without displaying a valid ticket/ permit’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could have been caused by the alleged breach.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.
c) The Operator has not demonstrated that its Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology was correctly calibrated.
d) There was insufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of motorists.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.
The Operator does not dispute that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour.
The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. This is ‘reasonable’ in the usual contractual sense of the word, and so the calculation of any pre-estimate of loss must follow the principles used to calculate damages. Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.
In this case the Operator has produced a break-down of how it submits it arrives at its pre-estimate of loss. A number of the heads include general operational costs, and costs which do not relate to the breach in question, such as write-offs for other parking charge notices. Furthermore, I find that a substantial cost referred to by the Operator – that incurred during debt recovery – is not a reasonable loss to include in the estimate. Only a minority of parking charges issued will result in costs associated with debt recovery and there is no evidence before me to show otherwise. Whilst any motorist who causes an initial loss by parking in breach of the terms of parking must accept that an Operator will incur costs in pursuing this loss, I am not satisfied that it would be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties that costs related to debt recovery by a third party would be incurred, and so I am not satisfied that such charges may be included within the parking charge itself.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Christopher Adamson
Assessor
A big thank you to you all for all your help.0 -
I received notification on 21/5/2014 that my appeal against VCS was upheld today. Assessor Shehla Pirwany
The text was
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]At xxxxxxxxxxxx[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic], a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX was recorded exiting the xxxxxxxxx after a stay of 190 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued for parking for longer than the maximum period permitted. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
The operator’s case is that the signage at the signage at the site clearly states that the car park is a customer only car park and the maximum stay is 2 hours. There are a number of highly prominent signs throughout the parking area and therefore as the appellant had parked in excess of the maximum permitted stay, he had contravened the parking terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that the amount demanded is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and the operator has failed to show that there is a contract in place which grants them the authority to charge drivers. The appellant additionally notes that the claimed contract start time is before the driver is able to look at the conditions and the signage at the site is unclear.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. From the wording of the signage on site, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means that the amount sought should represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions.
The operator has sought to justify the charge and stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss as the operator ‘incurs significant costs in ensuring compliance with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified.’
Although the operator has provided a breakdown of the losses incurred, a substantial proportion of the charge appears to relate to debt recovery. As cases may not necessarily proceed to debt recovery stage, the individual amounts listed are not substantially linked to the loss incurred as a result of the breach; which was parking in excess of the maximum permitted stay. I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide other issues raised by the appellant.
[/FONT]
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
[/FONT]0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards