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
-
Location was the McDonalds/Starbucks near Stansted Airport.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 -
Greetings all. I haven't posted re this matter previously but am pleased to announce that my appeal to POPLA regarding a PCN has been successful on the grounds of GPEOL.... or lack thereof!
I would like to thank all those responsible for the advice, information and templates on this site.
The PPC is UK Parking Ltd. with all admin handled on their behalf by PCN Parking Services, a trading style of ROXBURGHE (UK) Ltd.
In short, ticket purchased at 1958hrs, due to expire at 2158hrs. Returned to car at 2203hrs to find ticket had been issued at 2205hrs!! (Yes, you read that correctly!) Initial appeal rejected to my great surprise and subsequent appeal to POPLA on loads of grounds.
I received the result from POPLA this afternoon which states:
"The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Castle Car Park, Windsor, on 1 July 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 its Terms and Conditions of parking were displayed in signage placed throughout the above named site. It submits that the Terms stated that drivers must pay for and display a valid ticket covering the duration of their stay at the site. They submit that the Appellant remained at the site beyond the time their ticket expired and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued.
The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Where the Appellant makes the submission that an outstanding charge pursued by an Operator does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of their loss, there is a burden on the Operator to provide a pre-estimate which details how they calculated the parking charge amount.
This burden is placed upon an Operator and not the driver. It does not need to be particularly detailed or amount to exactly the charge amount because it is simply an estimate. However, evidence of a pre-estimate must be provided.
On the evidence before me, I can see that the Operator has not addressed the matter of their pre-estimate of loss. Therefore, I cannot find the charge to be justified in this case.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell, Assessor"
I still have a complaint going through BPA regarding the actions of the two companies including, I opine, three breaches of the BPA CoP, but honestly don't expect anything to come of that. My experience of the BPA suggests that they are an apologist club for cowboy companies.
Thanks again guys.0 -
(Appellant)
-v-
Defence Systems Limited (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number 6567567, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark ???????.
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.0 -
Woohoo. They gave up and cancelled it!Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0
-
Another successful win against Excel Parking at the Subway in Ashton Under Lyne :beer:
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
A parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark XXXX for parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a valid pay and display voucher/permit.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking state that the site is pay on entry pay and display car park. The Operator says that their photographic images (enclosed) show that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked for a period of 46 minutes without displaying a valid pay and display voucher. They have produced a genuine pre-estimate of loss report to support their case.
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 charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice of rejection they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without displaying a valid pay and display voucher/permit. They state that they have calculated this sum a genuine pre-estimate of loss as they incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these identified and these costs must be read as a predicted charge or estimate prior to the breach. They submit that some of these costs include parking charge creation and issue, POPLA case management, costs of maintenance and the full costs incurred can be estimated in advance of any actual loss to be a total of £166.01.
The Operator also cited recent case law to support their case. They state that their liquidated damages clause is based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss which include losses that could conceivably follow a breach, not necessarily losses which are ‘actual’ or even likely to follow a breach. I find that the Operator has not adequately shown how they have come to these costs and they have not included figures for each head of loss representing such cots.
The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice. Although the Operator has sought to justify the parking charge notice as being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I am not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the parking charge notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Aurela Qerimi Assessor
0 -
I like this wording:
"Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice."
However, I'm not convinced it's entirely accurate. It should state:
"...any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the alleged contract was entered into."Je suis Charlie.0 -
Excel have revised their GPEOL figures several times and it's still losing appeals for them. Why don't they just give up?What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
Trouble is, they've all noted a couple of perverse PoPLA decisions resulting from the duff GPEOL figures pioneered by the West Country cowboys and they're now all trying the same thing. Even APCOA is at it now.
However, the wording we see above suggests that the PoPLA assessors have had a spot of remedial training about what pre-estimate actually means.Je suis Charlie.0 -
Because they haven't yet realised that no matter how many different shades of lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig.trisontana wrote: »Excel have revised their GPEOL figures several times and it's still losing appeals for them. Why don't they just give up?
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Cpm seen off again with an appeal that I've used twice. They didn't bother to submit any evidence either time. Many thanks to all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards