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
Comments
-
MSE thread "ParkingEye PCN - parking out of store hours"
[Name] (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number [Number]
arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration
mark [Vehicle Reg].
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.
Chris Adamson
Assessor
Unlike Parking Eye to give in at POPLA but well done ! :T"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri0 -
MSE thread "ParkingEye PCN - parking out of store hours"
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=647251620 -
trisontana wrote: »Parking Prankster has just blogged about this growing trend of PPCs just giving up:-
I noticed that too. With apologies for hijacking this thread, remember the discussion a while back about counterclaiming from PPCs? This seems like a prime opportunity to add to the appeal letter:Please note that if you reject my challenge, I will appeal to POPLA. Should you withdraw your invoice between rejecting my challenge and POPLA hearing my appeal, or fail to provide an evidence pack to POPLA, you are hereby informed that I will invoice you for any costs I incur in preparing my appeal.0 -
VCS , no defence , on private estate ?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4808813&page=3 post #46Reasons 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.0 -
Another POPLA appeal allowed - vs UKPC (Mcdonalds car park) Thanks again for the help with my appeal.
Reasons for the Assessor's Determination
It is the Operator's case that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in excess of the maximum permitted stay and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at this site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has stated that the parking charge amount is well within the British Parking Association guidelines, however, they have not addressed the loss that was caused by the Appellant's breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
I have looked at all the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.0 -
Have we seen this one?
Armtrac lose on no GPEOL and their 'evidence' was terrible:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86866
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
PPS - Didcot , another win on not a gpeol
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=48616870 -
No GPEOL APCOA
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4811411&page=2
"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On x August 2013 at xxx the appellant (no...the driver) 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 in a restricted area. There is photographic evidence (of a different station! and POPLA don't mention whether they have forwarded on my complaint to BPA) to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions.
There is also evidence which shows the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site.
The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not 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. However the operator has failed to establish a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."Je suis Charlie0 -
Have we seen this one, Approved Parking Solutions, no landowner authority/contract shown:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84271&st=100&gopid=928100&#entry928100 PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Another POPLA win (my own) against UKPC:Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At xx:xx, on October xx 2013, a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the xxxxxxxx Retail Park.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by parking for longer than the maximum period permitted.
The Appellant made representations stating his case. He raised a number of points and one of the points was that there was no breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate as they incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these.
The Operator has submitted a copy of the redacted version of their genuine pre-estimate of loss. However, it is redacted to the point where the figures are not viewable at all. It is not possible to ascertain how the Operator has calculated the breakdown of their costs and not all of the costs appear to be related to the Appellant’s breach.
Consequently, I cannot decide that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Many thanks to all that have contributed to other posts on this subject on these forums - without this help I would likely have had the appeal rejected.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards