POPLA Decisions

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.

I believe this one was our loyal and faithful PE as he posted on original thread too. Another PSDSU. Getting a lot of these from PE at POPLA lately it seems.

Just for completeness, there was a non compliant signage point made to POPLA but the assessor for unknown reason did not pick up on this point. Furthermore CEL did not send their evidence pack to the Appellant, although after a request to POPLA they now have a copy.
Also in the evidence pack CEL state that they did send - lost in post I guess. So due to this, various complaints to various organisations. The Appellant is not holding their breath though

My recent decision v UKCPS:



(Appellant)

-v-
UKCPS Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at XXXXXX, on XXXXX 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX.

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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXX arising out of the presence at XXXXX, on XXXXX 2014, of a vehicle with
registration mark XXXXX. The Operator recorded that the vehicle was parked outside of a marked parking bay which is not authorised.

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 caused by her breach.

The Operator has responded by stating that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator has provided a table showing the losses they have incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. I find that the table does reflect losses incurred in relation to the appeal process. I note that the Operator states their initial loss to be the cost of the warden and associated vehicle costs.

Whilst I appreciate that in some cases e.g. where the car park is a pay and display one, the issuing of the parking charge notice may be held to be an initial loss, however, in this circumstance the car park is free and therefore I find that there is no initial loss caused here. The Operator has not shown that by parking outside of a marked bay, the Appellant at that point caused a loss to themselves or the landowner. The Operator has only shown that they incurred the loss as a result of the appeals process after issuing the parking charge notice. In order for a charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the Operator has to show that they at first have incurred an initial loss by the Appellants’ breach directly.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the Operator has not shown that they have incurred an initial loss as a result of the Appellant’s breach, the charge sought is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Marina Kapour

Assessor