POPLA Decisions

2spicy · 21 July 2014 at 10:29AM

Parking at Town Quays, Southampton
ParkingEye - POPLA appeal successful

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.
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

RatherBeKnitting_2 · 22 July 2014 at 5:30PM

Received confirmation today that one of the appeals has been allowed.

The letter I received says:

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor's reasons are set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
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, 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

We are still waiting to hear about the other one received, at the same time by my Mum in law, which I appealed exactly the same.

original post is
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4989693&highlight=
Thanks Again to you all !

Ryan_Bryan · 22 July 2014 at 9:49PM

I beat Premier Park at POPLA three weeks ago. It happened during a very stressful family crisis and I'll post more tomorrow because Premier proved to be pretty shabby over this.
Appeal Upheld: GPEOL
Assessor: Amber Ahmed

Umkomaas · 22 July 2014 at 10:52PM

Well done RB, nice to see you back. Will be interested to learn of the PPS dealings you've had.

jps1610 · 23 July 2014 at 10:33AM

Appeal against Parking Eye allowed. As seems to be the norm, no evidence was submitted.

Thanks for all the help :T

nathorpe · 23 July 2014 at 10:36AM

A couple of months after winning my first appeal against Norwich Traffic Control, entirely thanks to all the great advice on here, I received another charge notice at the same car park. Rather than bothering you lot again, I thought I'd use what I'd learnt the first time around and go it alone. Today I got my decision from POPLA through, which is as follows:

Appellant
-v-
Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX 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.

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.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

Interestingly, when I was making my first appeal to NTC, their refusal letter included the sentence “should you lose at POPLA we will be issuing a court summons shortly” – which is a bit rich given the outcome.

Anyway, I just wanted to post here to keep you updated of another win, and thank you all again for arming me with the knowledge to successfully beat these guys!

Umkomaas · 23 July 2014 at 1:14PM

nathorpe wrote: »

A couple of months after winning my first appeal against Norwich Traffic Control, entirely thanks to all the great advice on here, I received another charge notice at the same car park. Rather than bothering you lot again, I thought I'd use what I'd learnt the first time around and go it alone. Today I got my decision from POPLA through, which is as follows:

Interestingly, when I was making my first appeal to NTC, their refusal letter included the sentence “should you lose at POPLA we will be issuing a court summons shortly” – which is a bit rich given the outcome.

Anyway, I just wanted to post here to keep you updated of another win, and thank you all again for arming me with the knowledge to successfully beat these guys!

You now could, of course, issue them with your own invoice (followed if necessary with a MCOL) for costs incurred in fighting both these PCNs - after all POPLA have proved that they were not entitled to anything, yet you had to go to considerable lengths and some expense to prevent them extorting money from you.

You could even end your letter 'Should you fail to settle this invoice by (date) we will be issuing a court summons shortly'. What goes around, comes around!

Do a search on Biker Paul and Derek Donovan on PePiPoo who have both counter-claimed against PPCs.

Food for thought.

Tulip19 · 23 July 2014 at 7:53PM

Just got my reply, had to email POPLA to chase but this is the response to the standard letter used in this forum

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking
charge notice number BIAxxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with
the registration mark xxxxxxx .
Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead
Adjudicator.
You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any
amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be
refunded by the Operator.

Seemed they knew they were on to a loser and just cancelled

trisontana · 25 July 2014 at 7:11PM

Here is an unusual one. Parking Eye actually got round to submitting an evidence pack but they still lost on GPEOL:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92204&hl=

Firstly, I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the Appellant. It seems that the courts have accepted a third category of liquidated damages, a sum which is commercially justified – in cases where the sum is neither a penalty nor is it strictly a genuine pre-estimate of loss – where the Operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably be incurred, by the breach. However, I do not accept the Operator’s submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification.

trisontana · 25 July 2014 at 7:30PM

And another one. This was VCS at Humberside Airport:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90692&st=20

Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach.

However, the operator has not provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim. I am unable to see how the parking charge amount has been calculated.

In addition, the operator has included “Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect Overheads”. I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct result of the appellant’s breach. As the operator has not produced a breakdown of costs, I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in relation to other heads of claim listed by the operator. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free