GPEoL & Operational Costs! POPLA REFUSED

Well this is a weird one... just got the decision back from POPLA and apparently Nap*r including the Mr Yao case, along with a few sentences about how much time each appeal costs them in wages, was sufficient evidence to suggest the £90 "fine" is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Genuinely confused about this one.

I worded the appeal extraordinarily well, referenced all relevant case laws (which seem to have been overlooked completely), made about 5 points with GPEoL being the main bullet but apparently, weirdly, they decided no. At no point did I even MENTION signage. I explicitly stated that operational costs cannot be included as part of a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have seen countless other POPLA decisions where completely the opposite has been stated regarding GPEoL and in fact I believe even by the same assessor?

Any further advice? Ignore?

- - - - - -

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx car park, on xxxxxx 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £90 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xxxxxxx 2013 at xxxxxx car park, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid parking ticket despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so. There is photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also photographic evidence to support that at the time that the parking charge notice was issued the appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket.

It is the appellant’s case that the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has also questioned the operator’s contract with the landowner.

In consideration of all of the evidence before me, I find that there is clear evidence to support that at the time that the parking charge notice was issued, the appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket. The appellant was therefore in breach of the parking terms and conditions. There was clear and adequate signage at the parking site informing motorists of the parking terms and conditions. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they comply with all terms and conditions of parking.

The operator has submitted a witness statement to rebut the appellant’s submission that the operator has no contract with the landowner. This shows that the operator does hold the authority to issue the parking charge notice. I accept this evidence.

In response to the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has made several submissions which show the consequential losses arising from the appellant’s breach. The operator has submitted that the parking charge notice represents costs including the DVLA fee, approximately 3 hours of staff time spent on the case file, costs incurred in processing the case and the costs of legal advice. I find that the operator on this occasion has shown that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal is refused.

Farah Ahmad

Assessor