Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 1
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #2
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    Grounds of Appeal

    Not Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL)

    Allowed
    18, 34, 48, 68, 77, 81, 90, 93, 118, 121, 138, 144, 166, 181, 182, 187, 193, 194, 198, 199, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 187, 193, 194, 229, 235, 236, 237, 240, 243, 255, 262, 263, 272, 275, 285, 288, 291, 296, 298, 299, 309, 317, 321, 326, 332, 336, 341, 347, 348, 375, 376, 378, 389, 391, 394, 398, 399, 403, 413, 432, 433, 434a, 434b, 438, 441, 443, 474, 475, 483, 484, 485, 486, 490, 499, 514, 515, 519, 522, 523a, 523b, 523c, 525, 529, 532, 534a, 536, 540, 545, 546, 551, 552, 555, 556, 557, 560, 562, 566, 567, 568, 569, 573, 579, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 591, 593, 595, 596, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 607, 608, 609, 611, 613, 616, 626, 632, 635, 636, 641, 642, 644, 645, 646, 647, 651, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 660, 661, 663, 665, 668, 669, 673b, 675, 676, 682, 684, 687, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694a, 695, 696, 697, 699, 700, 701, 702, 706, 707, 708, 711, 714, 716, 720, 721, 723, 725, 726, 728, 730, 731, 732, 736, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 752, 753, 754, 755, 757, 759, 760, 769, 775, 777, 778, 779, 792, 794, 797, 799, 800, 806, 831, 837, 838, 839, 840, 842, 845, 846, 847, 851, 853, 854, 851, 853, 854, 864, 879, 883, 906a, 906b, 909, 913, 917, 919, 923, 924, 925, 927, 929, 932, 935, 936, 937, 938, 942, 951, 953, 959, 961, 962, 966, 968, 969, 971, 972, 974, 996, 1007a, 1007b, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1018a, 1018b, 1021, 1022, 1027, 1028, 1033, 1036, 1040, 1041, 1044, 1063, 1070, 1074, 1075, 1082, 1085, 1087, 1096, 1098, 1099, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1112, 1122, 1124, 1126, 1133, 1138, 1141, 1143, 1145, 1150, 1174, 1175, 1178, 1181a, 1181b, 1189, 1191, 1193, 1197, 1198, 1199a, 1207, 1210, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1227, 1229, 1230, 1232, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1240, 1241, 1243, 1244, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1259, 1261, 1262, 1265, 1271, 1272, 1275, 1289, 1294, 1300, 1304, 1306, 1308, 1313, 1315, 1335, 1341, 1343, 1346, 1348, 1354, 1357, 1363, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1378, 1385, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1392, 1394, 1397, 1401, 1402, 1413, 1420, 1422, 1424, 1427, 1431, 1433, 1437, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1444, 1445, 1447, 1450, 1567, 1458, 1468, 1469, 1473, 1478, 1483, 1488, 1494, 1503, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1514, 1516, 1520, 1526, 1528, 1532, 1536, 1539a, 1540, 1542, 1544, 1549, 1550,
    1554, 1555, 1556, 1561, 1562, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1569, 1572, 1574, 1578, 1585, 1586, 1587, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1594,


    Refused

    4, 5, 94, 562, 673a, 733, 750,

    PSDSU/Cancelled

    Allowed
    662, 664, 667, 674, 694b, 713, 717, 722, 771,773, 774, 793, 796, 801, 803a, 803b, 804, 807, 808, 809, 811, 812, 826, 828, 829, 832, 836, 843,844, 848, 849, 850, 852, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 863, 865, 866, 867, 872, 874, 878, 880, 881, 884, 885, 887, 888, 889, 891, 892, 893, 894a, 894b, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 904, 905, 911, 912, 915, 916, 920, 922, 926, 928, 931, 934, 941a, 941b, 943, 945, 950, 952, 963, 963, 967, 970, 983a, 983b, 985, 986, 995, 997, 1006a, 1006b, 1008, 1014, 1023, 1026, 1034, 1039, 1043, 1047, 1052, 1059, 1061, 1062, 1073, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1095, 1097, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1115, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1140, 1144, 1147, 1149, 1153, 1154, 1159, 1161, 1165, 1172, 1176, 1183, 1195, 1196, 1199b, 1201, 1202, 1204, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1231, 1242, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1249, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1263, 1264, 1267, 1268, 1270, 1273, 1274, 1276, 1278, 1279, 1286, 1290, 1032, 1303, 1305, 1307, 1316, 1317,1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1324, 1330, 1340, 1342, 1347, 1349, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1355, 1366, 1367, 1369, 1370, 1377a, 1377b, 1386, 1391, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1403, 1406, 1407, 1409, 1414, 1417a, 1417b, 1417c, 1425, 1426, 1429, 1430, 1436, 1443, 1449, 1453, 1455, 1456, 1463, 1465, 1475, 1476, 1479, 1480, 1484, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1499, 1502, 1513, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1538, 1543, 1557, 1558, 1560, 1564, 1568a, 1568b, 1571, 1575, 1577, 1595,

    Authority

    Allowed
    618, 627, 671, 689, 727, 763, 776, 802, 819, 841, 930, 933, 940, 949, 930, 933, 940, 949, 1066, 1068, 1078, 1119, 1173, 1214, 1216, 1225, 1228, 1280, 1309, 1384, 1396, 1428, 1446, 1472, 1546, 1547, 1551,

    ANPR

    Allowed
    1088, 1432

    Signage

    Allowed

    630, 649, 734,1539b

    Refused
    577

    Mitigating Circumstance

    Refused
    540, 554, 798, 903,

    Non-Compliance of PoFA/ Owner/Driver

    Allowed
    630, 637, 991, 1322, 1329, 1331, 1333, 1368, 1380, 1405, 1410, 1509, 1533, 1588

    Equality Act

    Refused
    #782

    Relevant Land

    Allowed
    918

    Grace Period

    Allowed
    948
    Last edited by Aaron Aadvark; 01-01-2015 at 9:41 PM.
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:50 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #3
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:50 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:50 PM
    Decision:Refused

    Assessor:Shona Watson

    Date: 21 December 2012

    Reported:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=58511461post #1

    Successful Grounds: None

    PPC: UKCPS



    PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
    PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
    0845 207 7700 enquiries@popla.org.uk
    www.popla.org.uk
    Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport andEnvironment Committee of London Councils
    Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
    21 December 2012
    Reference: 8763052662
    always quote in any communication with POPLA
    BASFORDLAD (Appellant)
    -v-
    UKCPS Ltd (Operator)
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number 845662 arising out of thepresence at Alma Leisure Park on 26 October 2012, of a vehicle with registrationmark XX NN XXX.
    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
    The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that theappeal be refused.
    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
    In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100parking charge should be made within 14 days.
    Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    At 12.07 on 26 October 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge noticebecause the vehicle with registration mark XX NN XXX was parked in a disabledbay but the Operator's employee could not see a valid disabled badge ondisplay. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle. TheAppellant does not appear to dispute this.
    The Operator's case is that the terms and conditions for parking are displayedon the site, and state that vehicles displaying a valid disabled badge may parkin a disabled bay. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also statethat a failure to comply with the restrictions mean that the car park useragrees to a parking charge notice being issued. Photographs have also beenenclosed showing that the terms and conditions are visible in various areas ofthe car park. These are dated 26 November 2012, a month after the parkingcharge notice was issued, however the Appellant does not appear to dispute thatthere were signs on 26 October 2012 or that he did not know the requirement toshow a disabled badge when parking in a disabled bay.
    The Operator submits that the Appellant parked in a disabled bay withoutdisplaying a valid disabled badge. In the case summary the Operator refers tothe copy of the parking charge notice, however it was not submitted with theirevidence. Nevertheless, it does appear to be agreed (or at least not disputed)that the parking charge notice was issued to the vehicle in the car park of theAlma Leisure Park in Chesterfield.
    The Appellant made representations but does not offer any submissions on thefacts of the appeal, and neither party has enclosed the representations sent tothe Operator.
    The Operator states that photographs taken by the employee show that a disabledbadge was not visible. This is accepted, as it appears that the vehicle isclearly parked in a disabled bay without a disabled badge on display.
    Although the Appellant does not make any factual submissions whatsoever, hedoes make various legal submissions. One such submission is that the parkingcharge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that the Operator has notactually suffered any loss on this occasion. The Operator's response to thiswas that there was enclosed a costs sheet to show the calculation of thegenuine pre-estimate of loss, however there was none attached to theirsubmission. For the reasons set out below this is not relevant.

    A further point made by the Appellant in relation to whether the parking chargeis a genuine pre-estimate of loss is that the charge is actually a penalty. TheOperator submits that, a penalty has been defined in the courts as a sum thatis in excess of the damage caused by non-performance of an obligation under theterms of a contract.
    The Operator submits that in any case, the charge is not a genuine preestimateof loss because it is an invoice that the Appellant agreed to pay, for the useof a disabled space in which the vehicle was parked without a disabled badge.
    Another statement by the Appellant is that if the parking charge amounts to agenuine pre-estimate of loss, the amount of the loss should not change from £60for the first 14 days and rise to £100 thereafter. The Operator responded thatthe genuine pre-estimate of loss is £100, however that there is a discount ifthe charge is paid within the first 14 days.
    In addition, the Appellant states that if the parking charge is a genuinepreestimate of loss, the amount should vary for different breaches of the termsand conditions, for example parking over a white line or overstaying. TheOperator does not respond to this point.
    The legal submissions of the Appellant set out above are not accepted. TheAppellant parked the vehicle in the car park, thereby agreeing to thecontractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. These included thecondition that vehicles may only park in a disabled bay if a valid disabledbadge was displayed.
    Another term of the contract was that if the vehicle was parked withoutcomplying with the conditions of the contract, the motorist agreed to pay aparking charge of £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days). The submissions Ibelieve the Operator is trying to make is not that the Appellant has breachedthe contract giving rise to damages, as the Appellant appears to believe, butthat the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract. This is because theOperator is seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as aterm of the contract by parking his vehicle at Alma Leisure Park. The contractcannot now in effect be renegotiated.
    The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach,either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach andwould need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was a genuinepre-estimate of loss.

    The Appellant mentions the equitable principle that "one must come toequity with clean hands", and that the Operator is acting dishonestly asthey cannot legally recover the parking charge so therefore does not have"clean hands". However the law of equity is not relevant to theappeal and therefore this has been disregarded.
    Finally, the Appellant quotes Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC [2012] UKUT129 (TCC), stating that Operators cannot create contracts with motorists ifthey do not own or have any proprietary interest in the land. The Operatorsubmits that the authority produced shows that the occupier of the car park hasgiven them the power to manage the car park. In addition, the Operator submitsthat the signs stating that motorists who park are entering into a contractwith the Operator show that a valid contract was created between the Operatorand the Appellant. I am inclined to disagree, and instead following thereasoning applied in VCS v HMRC, that the Operator cannot offer the right topark as it has already been offered by the occupier, in this case as use of thecar park is free. However the Operator acts as an agent for the occupier of theland, and a valid contract was created although it is between the Appellant andthe occupier. Therefore in attempting to recover the parking charge in thiscase, the Operator is acting on behalf of the occupier as permitted by theauthority, and does not need to show a proprietary interest.
    The Appellant further submits that under the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999, parking charges are unfair terms as the contracts are notindividually negotiated and causes significant imbalance in the relations ofthe parties, to the motorist’s detriment. However as the terms and conditionsof the contract are clearly displayed and the Appellant is therefore deemed tohave been aware of the terms, if the Appellant did not agree he would have hadthe option to park elsewhere. Therefore the Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999 are not relevant on this occasion.
    The Appellant not having disputed or referred to the facts in any way, I mustfind as a fact that, at the material time, a valid disabled badge was requiredto be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible. This was a breach of theterms and conditions of parking.
    Accordingly, on this particular occasion, the appeal must be refused.




    ShonaWatson
    Assessor
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:53 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #4
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:53 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:53 PM

    Decision:Refused

    Assessor:Shona Watson

    Date:Unknown

    Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74489 Post #15
    SuccessfulGrounds: None
    PPC: Minster Baywatch



    The Operatorissued parking charge notice number 41390 arising out of the presence at BalticQuay, on 4 November 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark [XX YY XXX]

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

    The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that theappeal be refused .

    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

    In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £85parking charge should be made within 14 days.

    Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    At 23.04 on 4 November 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge noticebecause the Operator’s employee could not see a valid permit on display in the vehiclewith registration mark [XX YY XXX]. The employee then took a number ofphotographs of the vehicle, one of which shows the parking charge notice on thewindscreen.

    The Operator’s case is that it is a requirement for parking at the site thatpermits are clearly displayed on the windscreen at all times. Copies of theconditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply withthe restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued.

    The Appellant made representations, stating that at the time the parking chargenotice was issued his vehicle had broken down and he was using a hire vehiclewhich had no permit in it. The Appellant also states that he does not have acontract with the Operator as he was parked in his own bay and his lease doesnot require him to display a permit or consent to any signs. In addition, theOperator states that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the losscaused to the Operator.

    The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the noticeof rejection they sent, because no valid permit was displayed. The Operatorproduced photographs taken by the employee that appear to show that a permitwas not displayed. In addition, the Operator states that they have been grantedauthority to issue parking charge notices at the site, and produced a contractbetween the Operator and the managing agent of the site to show this.

    The Appellant does not dispute that the signs were clearly displayed. ThereforeI must find that by parking the vehicle at the site, regardless of whether thebay was his allocated bay, the Appellant agreed to the contractual terms andconditions displayed on the signs. If the Appellant did not agree, he couldhave parked elsewhere.

    The Operator does not respond to the Appellant’s submission that the charge wasdisproportionate. However, I must find as a fact that a term of the contractwas that if the vehicle parked without complying with the conditions of thecontract, the Appellant agreed to pay a parking charge of £85. The Operator isseeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which theAppellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at BalticQuay. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.

    The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach,either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach, andwould need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was proportionate, andamounted to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge is a contractualterm.

    I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a valid permit was notdisplayed. This was a breach of the terms and conditions. The Appellant agreedto comply with the terms and conditions of the site by parking his hire vehicleat the site, and therefore agreed to pay the parking charge if he did notcomply with the restrictions.

    Accordingly, the appeal must be refused.

    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:54 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #5
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:54 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:54 PM
    Decision:Refused

    Assessor:Shona Watson

    Date: 21 December 2012

    Reported:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4239901 post #25

    Successful Grounds: None

    PPC: Premier Park



    The Operator issued parking charge notice number xx arising out of the presenceat xx, on 17 October 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

    The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that theappeal be refused.

    The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

    In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100parking charge should be made within 14 days.

    Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.21 December 2012

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    At 13.33 on 17 October2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice becauseOperator’s employee could not see a valid permit on display in the vehicle withregistration mark xx. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle. The Appellant does not appear to dispute this.

    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are displayedon the site, and state that only valid permit holders may park in allocated bays, and that permits must be fully displayed in the windscreen. Copies of theconditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply withthe restrictions mean that a parking charge notice may be issued.

    The Appellant made representations but does not offer any submissions on the facts of the appeal. The Operator has, however, enclosed a copy of the Appellant’s representations, where the Appellant submitted that it was anoversight that the permit had been removed and not replaced into the vehicle.The Appellant therefore appears to admit that there was not a valid permit on displayin the vehicle at the time the parking charge notice was issued.

    The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection they sent, because no valid permit was displayed on thewindscreen. The Operator submits that the photographs taken by the employee show that the permit was not visible.

    Although the Appellant does not make any factual submissions whatsoever, hedoes make various legal submissions. One such submission is that the parkingcharge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that the Operator has not actually suffered any loss on this occasion.

    A further point made by the Appellant in relation to whether the parking chargeis a genuine pre-estimate of loss is that the charge is actually a penalty.

    Another statement by the Appellant is that if the parking charge amounts to agenuine pre-estimate of loss, the amount of the loss should not change from £60 for the first 14days and rise to £100 thereafter.

    In addition, the Appellant states that if the parking charge is a genuine pre estimateof loss, the amount should vary for different breaches of the terms andconditions, for example parking over a white line or overstaying.

    The legal submissions of the Appellant set out above are not accepted. The Appellant parked the vehicle in the car park, thereby agreeing to thecontractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. These included the conditionthat only permit holders may park in an allocated area, and that permits mustbe fully displayed.

    Another term of the contract was that if the vehicle was parked withoutcomplying with the conditions of the contract, the motorist agreed to pay aparking charge of £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days). The Appellant appearsto believe that the charge has been issued for breaching the contract, but inactual fact, the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract. This is byseeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of thecontract by parking his vehicle at The Crescent. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.

    The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach,either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach andwould need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The Appellant not having disputed the facts, I must find as a fact that, at thematerial time, a valid permit was required to be displayed on the vehicle butwas not visible. This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

    Accordingly, on this particular occasion, the appeal must be refused.
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:57 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #6
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:57 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:57 PM
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor:Shona Watson

    Date: 13 February 2013

    Reported: http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2427.90.html post #99

    SuccessfulGrounds: The Operator has notdemonstrated that it has authority the issue parking charge notices.

    PPC: Parking Eye



    The Operator issued parking charge notice number 210732/470240 arising out ofthe presence at ALDI XXXXXXXX on 31 October 2012, of a vehicle withregistration mark XXXXXXXXX.
    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determinedthat 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 6 November 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because thevehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXXXXXXX was recorded on 31 October 2012via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the ALDI XXXXXXXXXCar Park for 1 hour 43 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 1hour 30 minutes.
    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearlydisplayed throughout the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced.They state that there is a 1 ½ hour maximum stay and that a failure to complywith the restrictions means that a parking charge notice will be issued.
    The Appellant made representations, submitting that the amount of the charge isdisproportionate to the loss incurred by the Operator, and is punitive,contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The Appellant also states thatthe Operator has no proprietary interest in the land and therefore has noauthority to issue parking charge notices. In addition the Appellant submitsthat the Operator has breached the BPA Code by not stating on their signs thatautomatic number plate recognition is being used at the site.
    The Operator rejected the representations, because the terms and conditions areclearly displayed, and therefore the Appellant is deemed to have agreed to themby parking his vehicle at the site. The Operator also states that simplybecause parking contracts are not individually negotiated does not make themautomatically unfair, as the Operator offers motorists a grace period in orderto enter the car park, consider the terms and conditions, and leave if theychoose not to agree to those terms and conditions.
    The Operator does not respond to the Appellant’s submission that they do nothave authority to issue parking charge notices. Membership of the ApprovedOperator Scheme does require the Operator to have clear authorisation from thelandowner (if the Operator is not the landowner), to manage and enforceparking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator islikely to have authority to issue parking charge notices.
    However, as the point was raised by the Appellant, then the Operator shouldaddress it by producing such evidence as they believe shows that they do haveauthority. No evidence has been produced to address this issue.

    Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a factthat, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they haveauthority to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that theOperator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator toprove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged the burden.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    Last edited by Aaron Aadvark; 09-03-2013 at 6:01 PM.
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:58 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #7
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:58 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:58 PM
    Decision Allowed

    Assessor:Shona Watson

    Date: 7 February 2013

    Reported:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74865&st=60&start=60

    post #65

    Successful Grounds: The Operator has not demonstrated that theyhave authority to issue parking charge notices.



    PPC: Athena ANPR Limited





    The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******* arising out of thepresence at *******, on 16 November 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark******.

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined thatthe 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 andEnvironment Committee of London Councils

    Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    On 21 November 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because the vehiclewith registration mark ****** was recorded on 16 November 2012 via automaticnumber plate recognition as having stayed in the ********* Car Park for 1 hour45 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 1 hour 30 minutes.

    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayedthroughout the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They state “if your vehicle remains in thiscar park for longer than 1 ½ hours you agree to pay a £90 parking charge”. TheAppellant does not dispute this.

    The Appellant made representations, submitting that the case of VCS v HMRC heldthat the Operator needs rights of occupation or possession in order to haveauthority to issue parking charge notices. The Appellant submits that theOperator does not have this authority. In addition the Appellant submits that theparking charge is punitive and therefore is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The Operator rejected the representations, because there is photographic evidencethat the Appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions at the site. Itis noted that this is a standard letter that fails to address the Appellant’ssubmissions. The Operator submits that the charge does not form damages forbreach of contract, in which case the amount of the charge would have to amountto a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator submits that in fact they areattempting to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which theAppellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at**********.

    The Operator also submits that they have a contract with the landowner that authorisesthem to issue parking charge notices.

    In Paragraph 46 of the decision in VCS v HMRC it states: VCS is permitted underthe contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and chargesfrom parking enforcement action


    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the Operator to haveclear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner),to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice.Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking chargenotices.

    However, as the point was raised by the Appellant, then the Operator should addressit by producing such evidence as they believe shows that they do haveauthority. A copy of the contract the Operator submits they have with the landownerhas not been produced.

    Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that,on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authorityto issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that the Operatordoes not have authority, the burden of proof shifted to the Operator to provethat they do. The Operator has not discharged the burden.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    Last edited by Aaron Aadvark; 09-03-2013 at 6:02 PM.
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:59 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    • #8
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:59 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:59 PM
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor:Shona Watson

    Date: 5 March 2013

    Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75213&st=100&start=100

    post #1

    SuccessfulGrounds: i) The Operator has not shownthat they have authority to issue parking charge notices. ii) Unclear payment requirements.

    PPC: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd



    TheOperator issued parking charge notice number PM------- arising out of thepresence at Meadowhall Shopping Centre, Red Upper, on 9 December 2012, of avehicle with registration mark ---- ---.
    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
    The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determinedthat 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
    At 14.59 on 9 December 2012, the Operator issued a parking charge noticebecause the vehicle with registration mark ---- --- was parked in a disabledbay but the Operator’s employee could not see a valid disabled badge ondisplay. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle, one ofwhich shows the parking charge notice on the windscreen.
    It is noted that on the copy of parking charge produced, it states that thefull amount of the parking charge is £95, but that the reduced amount of £57will be accepted if paid within 14 days. However on the back of the notice itstates that £75 will be accepted if paid within 7 days. This is confusing formotorists and means that they will know not know how much to pay at what stage.
    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearlydisplayed throughout the disabled parking areas and state that motoristsparking in disabled bays must clearly display a disabled badge. Copies of theconditions have been produced. They also state that a failure to comply withthe restrictions mean that a parking charge notice will be issued. TheAppellant does not dispute this.
    The Appellant made representations, stating that he has a disabled tax disc andhe was with his disabled son. In addition the Appellant states that theOperator has no legal right to enforce parking charge notices issued on thisland, and that the charge bears no relation to genuine loss to the Operator.
    The Operator rejected the representations, as set out in the copy of the noticeof rejection they sent, because no valid disabled badge was displayed on thewindscreen.
    The Operator submits that their authority to issue parking charge notices isnot in question. In Paragraph 46 of the decision in VCS v HMRC it states:
    VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retainall fees and charges from parking enforcement action
    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the Operator to haveclear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner),to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice.Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking chargenotices.

    However, as the point was raised by the Appellant, then the Operator shouldaddress it by producing such evidence as they believe shows that they do haveauthority. The Operator states that they are not obliged to provide a copy ofany authority but that if I wish to see it they will discuss the matter.However I may only make a decision on the basis of the evidence submitted to meand I am not permitted to enter into discussions with the parties. A copy ofthe contract has not been produced.
    Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a factthat, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they haveauthority to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that theOperator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifted to the Operatorto prove that they do. The Operator has not discharged the burden. Further tothis, the Operator has not clearly stated how much the Appellant should pay andwhen, whether £75 within 7 days, £57 within 14 days or £95 within 28 days.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    Last edited by Aaron Aadvark; 09-03-2013 at 6:02 PM.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 10th Mar 13, 7:57 PM
    • 10,203 Posts
    • 9,348 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #9
    • 10th Mar 13, 7:57 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Mar 13, 7:57 PM
    Bump. Don't left this disappear.

    Can someone make it a sticky?
  • BASFORDLAD
    Ive sent a pm to crab and the op to change the title to something more appropriate
    For everthing else there's mastercard.
    For clampers there's Barclaycard.
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 14th Mar 13, 6:05 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    Decision: Refused

    Assessor:Christopher Adamson

    Date: February 2013

    Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77415

    post #4

    Successful Grounds: None

    PPC: Met Parking Services

    For decision see link.

    [Summary: The ticket machine was not working, the ticket office was closed, the appellant did not have change for the other machine and was unaware of pay by phone.]
    Last edited by Aaron Aadvark; 14-03-2013 at 6:12 PM.
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 20th Mar 13, 9:10 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Unknown

    Date: March 2013

    Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77600

    post #1

    Successful Grounds: Grace Period (PPC did not respond in time)

    PPC: CPP
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 20th Mar 13, 9:24 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Shona Watson

    Date: January 2013

    Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t76355.html

    post #5

    Successful Grounds: Validity of permit (PPC did not respond in time)

    PPC: County Parking Enforcement Agency




    "Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination.

    The Appellant submits that he is not liable because he displayed a permit and did not know that it was only valid for Phase 1 Car Park, as none of the signs state that certain permits are only valid for certain areas, and the differing areas are not marked either.
    The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, or put forward any evidence to show that the Appellant did not have a valid permit or even that one is required at the unspecified location.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 25th Mar 13, 6:42 PM
    • 231 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor: Unknown

    Date: March 2013

    Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77217&pid=801006&mode=threaded &start=#entry801006

    post #23

    Successful Grounds: Signs meaning unclear.

    PPC: TSR UK Parking Management

    "I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the meaning of the sign that states “No parking” and “loading & unloading at all times” is unclear. It may mean that no parking or loading is permitted, or that parking is not permitted but loading is. I must find as a fact that on this occasion the sign
    indicated that loading was permitted. In addition, the other signs stating “permit holders only” do not state that numbered bays are designated to tenants of the site, and do not mention loading or unloading or state that vehicles who are loading or unloading must also display a permit.

    Having carefully considered the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the terms and conditions are unclear, and therefore the Operator has not shown that the driver of the vehicle, who was loading, was required to display a permit"
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 6th Apr 13, 12:38 PM
    • 8,945 Posts
    • 13,680 Thanks
    trisontana
    This one is from a railway station car-park:-


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77951&hl=


    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the site and state that a valid ticket must be displayed, and that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. Copies of the conditions have been produced.

    The Appellant made representations, submitting that recent court judgments have held that the operators need to have a sufficient interest in the land in order to have authority to issue parking charge notices. The Appellant states that the Operator has failed to provide evidence of this authority, indicating that he believes the Operator does not have authority to enforce parking at the site.

    The Operator rejected the representations, because no valid ticket or voucher was displayed in the vehicle on the date in question. The Operator submits that they manage the car park on behalf of Southeastern Rail and therefore have authority to enforce parking at the site. The Operator also submits that the terms and conditions clearly state that they are acting as an agent for Southeastern Rail.

    The case of Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC) concerned Value Added Tax but, In Paragraph 46 of the Decision, it states:

    VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action.

    This case has now been considered by the Court of Appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 186) where, in allowing the appeal of VCS, the Court held:

    In the present case the contract between VCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

    The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner) to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking charge notices. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. A copy of the authority the Operator submits they have from the landowner has not been produced.

    Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove that they do. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Shona Watson

    Assessor
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • CKhalvashi
    • By CKhalvashi 6th Apr 13, 1:22 PM
    • 8,771 Posts
    • 24,821 Thanks
    CKhalvashi
    Decision Allowed


    Assessor:Unknown

    Date: 11 March 2013

    Successful Grounds:

    The vehicle XXXX XXX had been moved from the bay by a parked vehicle where the handbrake was not secured. We feel it appropriate that the appeal is allowed on this basis.

    PPC: NCP
    A bit of a strange one, I know, but there we are!

    CK
    Last edited by CKhalvashi; 17-06-2015 at 1:35 AM.
    "I kada sanjamo san, nek bude hiljadu raznih boja" (L. Stamenkovic)

    Call me Remainer or Romaniac, but not Remoaner. It's insulting and I have the right to have my voice heard too.

    I can spell, my iPad can't.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Apr 13, 1:49 AM
    • 51,536 Posts
    • 65,141 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This one from pepipoo:


    Decision: Allowed

    XXXX (Appellant)
    -v-
    ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX/XXX arising out of the presence at Rheidol Retail Park, on XX 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX XXX.

    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

    The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and 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 XX December 2012 the Operator’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed a XXX with the registration mark XXX XXX at Rheidol Retail Park. On XX December 2012 the Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’).

    The Operator submits that it was an adequately advertised condition of parking at the site that parking was free for a maximum of 2 hours, no return within 1 hour. The terms advised that failure to comply may lead to the issuing of a PCN. The Operator’s ANPR system observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at 09:59 and exit at 12:10, a stay of 2 hours and 11 minutes. Accordingly, the vehicle had overstayed by 11 minutes and the Operator issued a PCN for breach of the aforementioned condition. The Operator’s evidence includes copies of site signs and their locations throughout the site.

    The Appellant submits that she is not liable for the parking charge because:

    1. The Operator has failed to adequately identify the creditor to whom the parking charge is due as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act;

    2. The Notice to Keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on XX December 2012 and the Notice to Keeper was received 16 days later on XX January 2013;

    3. The Operator does not have authority to contract with the Appellant at the site in question. The Appellant requires proof of ownership of the land or any contract from the land owner providing such authority;

    4. The Operator did not specify the reasonable period permitted for the Appellant to leave the land after the end of the contract prior to taking enforcement action;

    5. The Appellant’s vehicle was not ‘parked’ in excess of the maximum stay period within the meaning of the terms and conditions;

    6. The parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount.


    Taking into consideration all the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Operator has proven this breach for the following reasons.

    In Paragraph 46 of the Decision in VCS v HMRC it states:

    VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action

    Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, as to their 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 they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

    In response to such a point, the Operator stated that “we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).” The Appellant had requested that a copy of the contract between the land owner and the Operator be provided. The Operator has not provided a copy of this contract or any other proof tantamount to the same. I therefore find that the Operator has failed on this occasion to adequately rebut the Appellant’s submission that it does not have the necessary authority to enforce the parking charge.

    I have allowed the appeal on this ground and therefore do not need to visit the Appellant’s remaining grounds of appeal.

    Taking these matters together the PCN was not properly issued.

    The appeal is allowed.

    Matthew Shaw
    Assessor
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 25-04-2013 at 6:12 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • me,myself and I
    • By me,myself and I 23rd Apr 13, 11:38 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    me,myself and I
    :ro tfl:





    XX April 2013

    Reference: xxxxxxxxxx

    always quote in any communication with POPLA








    XXXXXXXXX (Appellant)

    -v-

    ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)









    The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX
    arising out of the presence at Fleming Way Retail Park, on XX
    December 2012, 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.


    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination





    XXXXXXXX the Operator issued a parking charge notice because
    on XXXXXXXXX the vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX was
    recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the
    Fleming Way Retail Park Car Park for 2 hours 10 minutes, which was longer
    than the maximum stay of 2 hours.



    The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions are displayed at the
    entrance and throughout the site and state that there is a 2 hour maximum
    stay. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They also state that a
    failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will
    be issued.



    The Appellant made various representations, stating that the amount of the
    charge is disproportionate to the loss caused, and also that the Operator has
    no authority to issue parking charge notices on behalf of the landowner.



    The Operator rejected the representations. It is noted that the Operator fails
    to address the Appellant’s submissions or provide any reasons for rejection.
    The Operator produced images that appear to show the vehicle entering the
    site XXXXX December 2012 and exiting at XXXX the same day. The
    Operator submits that they have authority to issue parking charge notices.
    However they have not responded to the Appellant’s submission that the
    charge is disproportionate to the loss caused.



    Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact
    that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that the parking
    charge does not amount to a penalty. As the Appellant submits that the
    amount of the charge is disproportionate, the burden of proof shifts to the
    Operator to prove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged this burden.



    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.





    Shona Watson

    Assessor

    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 24th Apr 13, 8:18 AM
    • 8,945 Posts
    • 13,680 Thanks
    trisontana
    So Shona has actually decided that the charge was a penalty. That's new, she usually goes for the lack of contract angle. Things are looking up.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Sirdan
    So Shona has actually decided that the charge was a penalty. That's new, she usually goes for the lack of contract angle. Things are looking up.
    Originally posted by trisontana
    Well not quite, what she has ruled is that the PPC and/or landowner have failed to provide ANY evidence that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss, which it has to be to be valid in contract law.
    POPLA have quite nicely done the Small Claims Court's job for them here , as that is what a properly minded DJ would rule.

    The reason why they didn't supply any evidence ????

    Simple, there is none, as these charges are most certainly a penalty and moreover a penalty that turns a profit for the PPC.

    Look forward to many many more wins on this basis as PPCs struggle to justify how the alleged breach incurs a loss anywhere near the inflated amount they attempt to extort !
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,966Posts Today

9,603Users online

Martin's Twitter