POPLA Decisions

bye_bye_band_G · 5 August 2014 at 11:14AM

Today we received our decision for our POPLA appeal against Parking Eye. Yet another PSDSU (lovely acronym!) ie Parking Eye didn't send in any evidence. So we won. :dance: It does seem as if Parking Eye aren't contesting correctly worded appeals at the mo.

Ours was the one where a 12 hour paid ticket in a city centre YHA car park ran out at 5am, and the young and vulnerable driver sensibly didn't go back at that time to remove the car, anything could have happened to her, but removed it at the earliest safe opportunity at 8am. No loss to the YHA, plenty of spaces.

Original thread here. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4982583&highlight=

Now we've won at POPLA I intend to kick up a real fuss with the YHA saying they shouldn't be issuing tickets that expire in the middle of the night, they are supposed to be concerned about the safety of young people. There's nothing to stop them saying, for example, if you arrive after 12 noon so your ticket expires after midnight, you get up till 9am the next day included. There would be no loss of revenue for them to do that. We asked management there at the start to cancel the ticket but they wouldn't, but will contact them again to let them know POPLA allowed our appeal. I'm also going to contact YHA Head Office, their reputation would be in tatters if someone was attacked in one of their car parks in the middle of the night, and it came out they knew about the issue but had refused to address it.

Many thanks to all who assisted with our appeal and to everyone who gives their time so freely on this forum to help. The depth of knowledge is incredible and if only every targeted motorist found their way here you truly would achieve your aim of sending the parking cowboy firms out of business. :T :T

Good luck!! BBBG.

youseeme · 6 August 2014 at 11:23AM

Thanks to this forum another win at Popla, detailed below...
My original thread is here...
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5022279

My Popla appeal template was taken from here...
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4957775&highlight=highview+popla

Assessor statement:
At 11:41, on June 3 2014, an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering Riverside Retail Park A.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by exceeding the maximum duration of stay permitted at the site.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised
by him was that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
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 the
same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.
The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge
notice. Whilst these heads of loss do not seem to include general operational
costs, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The
Operator has not indicated how they have calculated or reached a figure of
£24.50, which they state is the average spend per customer at Riverside Retail
Park A. I am not minded to accept that this figure relates to the Appellant’s
case on this occasion.
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.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Gemlou · 6 August 2014 at 7:50PM

Appeal allowed against CPM today PSDSU. Many thanks again for the support of this forum.

raldred · 8 August 2014 at 9:14PM

Hey All,
Just a quick message to let you all know, I received the Assessor's decision with regards to my appeal against a PCN issued by Excel at the Peal Centre Stockport.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX arising
out of the presence at Peel Centre - Stockport, on XXXXXXXXXX, 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.

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

Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXX arising out of
the presence at Peel Centre - Stockport, on XXXXXXXXX, of a vehicle with
registration mark XXXXXXX. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked
without displaying a valid ticket/ permit.

The appellant has made a number of submissions; 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 does not
represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. 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.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

I read though the evidence that Excel presented. They made absolutely no effort to provide a breakdown of costs. A lot of rubbish to waste everyones time.

The success of my appeal is almost entirely due to me spending the time to read the Newbie post and follow the excellent information it provides. A huge thank you to all the wonderful knowledgeable people here.

Thank you for all the good work you do.
All the best.

Diamond5_2 · 9 August 2014 at 5:20PM

Hi All,

Just a quick message to let you know that I have received the Assessor's decision with regards to my appeal against a PCN issued by Parking Eye at Roaring Meg at Stevenage.

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.

6061694033 2 07 August 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

I would like to reiterate the previous posters comments regarding the invaluable help provided by this forum.

Once again thank you.

iaijosh · 9 August 2014 at 6:13PM

I parked the car at Toys R Us, over 20 minutes.

Me (appleallant)
-v -
G24 Limited(Operator)

I just received the letter from POPLA, I won the appeal, because no pre - estimate of loss.

thanks Coupon - Mad and everyone.

lancs-girl · 10 August 2014 at 10:18AM

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748
London
EC1P 1SN

0845 207 7700
[EMAIL="enquiries@popla.org.uk"]enquiries@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL]
www.popla.org.uk

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the
Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

06 August 2014

Reference 666
always quote in any communication with POPLA

C (Appellant)
-v-
ANPR Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 666 arising out
of the presence at B Centre, on February 2014, of a vehicle
with registration mark 666

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

On February 2014 a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the B Centre.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by parking on a no stopping at all zone.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised by him was that he requires the Operator to produce to POPLA the contract between the landowner and themselves.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

The Operator has submitted a copy of an agreement between themselves and the proprietor; the agreement is dated August 23 2002 and it indicates that the agreement is for an initial period of one year and is subject to termination in accordance with the terms and conditions overleaf. The Operator has not submitted the terms of the agreement overleaf or an updated/amended contract which indicates that the Operator had authorisation to enforce parking restrictions at the site in question.

Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

THANK YOU TO ALL PEOPLE ON THIS SITE FOR YOUR HELP AND PATIENTS WITH ME YOU ARE ALL AMAZING THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH :-)

Computersaysno · 10 August 2014 at 12:23PM

Anyone know if POPLA numbers [appeals made per month] are going up or down???

Umkomaas · 10 August 2014 at 1:32PM

Computersaysno wrote: »

Anyone know if POPLA numbers [appeals made per month] are going up or down???

The Assessors are seemingly falling behind, with estimated adjudication dates being missed by a couple of weeks. Whether that is down to increased volume, or being holiday season, Assessors away at the seaside.

But as more people become increasingly aware of the appeals' procedures I wouldn't imagine volume decreasing any.

Dee140157 · 10 August 2014 at 1:38PM

You may find this of interest

http://www.itfleet.co.uk/2014/08/surge-in-parking-ticket-appeals/

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

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