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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
POPLA Decisions
Options
Comments
-
Athena throw in the towel:-
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?417080-Help-with-POPLA-Apeal-Please&p=4507186#post4507186
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.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0 -
Computersaysno wrote: »POPLA is very quiet wrt gpeol losses at the moment.......wonder what the BPA is going to do to 'sort this out'.
Is there anything that they can do? Their losses can add up to the amount they want.
They have two choices, reduce the amount they demand or accept the status quo. The sheeple will keep them in business.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Is there anything that they can do? Their losses can add up to the amount they want.
They have two choices, reduce the amount they demand or accept the status quo. The sheeple will keep them in business.
PPCs have based their whole business model on a perversion of contract law so they are stuck with it. When the whole farrago unravels with a landmark court case they will be forced to change their business model. Instead of unlawfully charging motorists penalties for infringing their rules the PPCs will be forced to charge a fair price to their employers for managing car parks.0 -
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4890460
04 April 2014
Reference Xxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Xxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park &
Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number Xxxxxxx arising
out of the presence at Xxxxxx car park, on 28 January 2014,
of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.
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 the parking charge notice was issued for exceeding the maximum parking allowance permitted. 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 the parking charge is not a genuine preestimate of loss and so is unenforceable.
The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages; rather it is a ‘Contractual Obligation’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. Then the Operator goes on to submit a calculation of genuine pre-estimate of loss for if the charge if found
to be for damages.
I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park beyond the maximum permitted stay. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay, provided he
or she pay the charge. In this case, the wording of the sign states,
“To deter abuse there is a charge for breaching the conditions of £100”.
Clearly, permission to park ‘in breach’ is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine preestimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.
I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge, and so it cannot be consideration.
The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum does, in any case, represent a genuine pre-estimate of its costs. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not shown to be losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable, as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
I need not decide on other issues.
Marina Kapour
Assessor0 -
Hi,
I successfully appealed to POPLA against Parking Eye for going over time by 9 minutes.
Here is the wording of the reply I received.
Thanks
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxxxx
arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration
mark XXXXXXX.
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 28 March 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
Assessor0 -
Ha Ha Ha...
(Appellant)
-v-
G24 Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number
arising out of the presence at Wickes, New Cut, Chatham on
February 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark
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.
04 April 2014
The operator recorded that the
vehicle overstayed the maximum permitted time at the site.
The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.
It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge notice does
not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator has responded by stating that the amount of the parking
charge is due as the appellant entered into a contract with them. The
operator has also made reference to a case where the amount of the
charge was held to be reasonable. However each case is different on its
facts and it is not possible for me to refuse an appeal based on this.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the appellant
states that the amount of the parking charge is not a genuine pre- estimate
of loss, the burden shifts to the operator to prove otherwise, I find that the
operator has not discharged this burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Amber Ahmed
AssessorMissing Tesco R&R since Feb '07 :A & now a "Tesco veteran" apparently!
0 -
0
-
I just received a message from POPLA saying that UKCPS have decided not to proceed with the parking charge.
Grounds for appeal were based on punitive charges, not a genuine estimate of loss, improper signage, no right to levy charges etc.
Thanks for all the help from the guys at Moneysavingexpert!!!0 -
Win against VCS at Liverpool John Lennon Airport today, on not a GPEOL. My thanks to the regulars who put a lot of time into these forums; just follow the stickies, do some searching and it's easy.
Two comments that may help others:
1) I admitted I was the driver in my original appeal (before finding this forum). Whilst not recommended, it didn't prevent me winning.
2) VCS submitted evidence only 1 day before the hearing date. I was granted an adjournment when I claimed I didn't have time to respond to their 'evidence'. It seems like it was worth commenting on the evidence because these comments have been noted by the assessor.
Thanks again for your help.
XXX (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising
out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, Liverpool, on 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 a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for stopping on a
roadway where stopping was prohibited. The Operator submits that a
parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly advertised terms of
parking which stated “no stopping at any time”. The Operator’s employee
recorded the vehicle on CCTV stopping in a no-stopping area. The Operator
has produced a Pre-Estimate of Loss Statement in support of its case.
The Appellant disputes liability for the parking charge. Amongst other
grounds, it is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge does not
represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
The Appellant submits that he caused no loss whatsoever. Furthermore, the
Appellant submits that some heads of loss listed by the Operator were not, will
not or are unlikely to be incurred as a result of the alleged breach.
The Operator accepts that its parking charge represents damages for breach
of the parking contract. It submits that the amount of the charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss as “we incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to
the stated terms & conditions”. The Statement specifies various heads of loss.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breach of
the contract in order to be enforceable. 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.
The Appellant submitted that there was no loss. 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 stopping on the roadway did
not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not
consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any 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 must allow the appeal on this ground.
Matthew Shaw
Assessor0 -
Hi guys and girls,
here's another victory to add to the ever growing list.The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX arising
out of the presence at Humberside International Airport, on 27 October 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark *******. 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: ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
displayed, or that the vehicle stopped.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to the land in question.
c) There was not sufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the Appellant.
d) The land in question is not relevant land for the purposes on the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
e) The Operator has not demonstrated that its Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology complies with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss which may be 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. Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in thesame position had the parking charge notice not been issued.
The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge notice, but there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been caused initially by the driver of the vehicle stopping. Whilst I appreciate the Operator’s submission that there are sensitive security issues at an airport, I am not minded to accept that this is sufficient to explain an initial loss on which the charge may be based.
Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
Assessor
Chris Adamson
Full thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=48129160
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards