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 11
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 22nd Aug 13, 2:07 PM
    • 759 Posts
    • 565 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    PP

    I think it's an excellent strategy to test various 'defences' one by one as opposed to merely defeating the PPCs on the proven and accepted ones [pre-estimate of loss etc].

    It will allow a much bigger selection for users to be able to choose from to defeat the scamsters.

    BTW I think that the adjudicator cocked this recent one up...big style.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
  • TRS705
    Thank you to everyone for posting on this site. I hope this result will give anyone else who is being pursued by Parking Eye some hope that a POPLA appeal can work.

    Reasons for the Assessor's Determination

    It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
    giving the reason as: 'By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time,
    or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with
    the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking Charge is now
    payable'. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in
    accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

    It is the Appellant’s case that:

    a) The Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, but is not liable
    for the parking charge, as he has provided the Operator with the
    name and address of the driver.
    b) The Operator failed to respond to the Appellant’s original
    representations within the 35 day period permitted by the British
    Parking Association Code of Practice.
    c) The parking charge is disproportionate to any loss suffered by the
    Operator.
    d) The Operator does not hove sufficient proprietary interest in the land to
    offer a parking contract.
    e) The notice to keeper sent by the Operator, to the Appellant, does not
    identify who is the creditor, as required by the Protection of Freedoms
    ACT 2012.
    f) The Appellant has also raised a number of alleged breaches of the
    British Parking Association Code of Practice.

    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 not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the
    land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking
    charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by on 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.

    The Operator has also submitted that according to the case of Foirlie v
    Fenfon, the Operator has the right to enforce the contract in its own right. I
    must find that this does not address the Appellant’s submission that the
    Operator does not have the right to offer a contract of all.

    Taking together all of the evidence before me, 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.

    Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

    Chris Adamson
    Assessor
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Aug 13, 4:46 PM
    • 48,867 Posts
    • 62,367 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    LOL! Well done, and that's a new one for POPLA. They even knocked back PE's attempt to blind the POPLA adjudicator law graduate with Fairlie v Fenton!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Aug 13, 6:05 PM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I wonder whether the Lead Adjudicator has received the screech of the Chorley banshee in his ear yet?

    No mind, he'll be able to pop out to see them (as offered) to help them develop more robust approaches to these appeals that stick daggers in PPC hearts....... all, of course, in the pursuit of fairness and independence you understand
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 22-08-2013 at 6:09 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • kirkbyinfurnesslad
    Proves that even cats can win Popla appeals

    A black car with the registration mark ******* was observed at the Staples car park. The car park is for customers only and at the time the parking charge notice was issued the patrol office checked the store but the driver of the car could not be located inside the store. A parking charge notice was issued for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.
    The operator’s case is that terms and conditions for parking in the car park are clearly displayed and expressly state that ‘parking is only for Staples customers on the premises.’ They state that despite carrying out checks, the driver of the car was not in Staples at the time of the parking charge notice being issued.
    The appellant has stated that he requires the operator to prove that they have the necessary authority to recover parking charges from the land owner. He has also called into question whether the amount sought is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In addition he states that no relevant obligation has been created and has cited both case law and recent POPLA decisions in support of the arguments he wishes to advance.
    The operator rejected the representations of the appellant on the basis that he did not have a genuine ground for his appeal as he asserted that his cat had driven the car to Staples.
    Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion the operator has made no reference to whether the amount sought is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and have failed to provide evidence in support of this. As a result of this, I am not required to deal with the additional points raised by the appellant in his appeal.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
    Shehla Pirwany
    Assessor
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 28th Aug 13, 9:48 PM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Not the most detailed of results, but a RESULT nonetheless - and, as you've probably guessed, it's the abject failure by the PPC to justify any losses (other than the usual business running costs, which POPLA are just not going to accept).

    From Pepipoo

    Result!

    Today I received notification from POPLA that I have won my appeal!

    The reason given by the assessor was;

    The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s failure to display a valid parking ticket/voucher/permit. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses caused by the Appellant’s breach.
    Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate

    Very pleased
    This is the full thread for anyone wanting to read the background and context

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79447&st=0&#entry863050
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 28th Aug 13, 10:22 PM
    • 8,921 Posts
    • 13,625 Thanks
    trisontana
    The above concerned APCOA at Luton Airport.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 28th Aug 13, 10:25 PM
    • 1,924 Posts
    • 2,678 Thanks
    nigelbb
    The above concerned APCOA at Luton Airport.
    Originally posted by trisontana
    & wasn't about parking but APCOA trying to enforce their ridiculous 'no stopping or drop off outside designated area' rules.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th Aug 13, 10:19 PM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    And another PE loss (because they ain't got no loss, boss ).

    From Pepipoo (but no transcript as yet).

    I have finally received a POPLA reply.

    My appeal has been upheld and I don't have to pay PE a penny!!!

    The reason POPLA gave is that PE have not evidenced their genuine pre-estimate of losses. The appeal states that PE have produced a list of costs; these however are 'general opeating costs and not losses caused by the Appellant's breach'

    PE appear to be coming unstuck at POPLA stage listing all their operating costs, claiming they are losses.

    Thanks for all your help.
    Full thread for anyone wanting more details of circumstances:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79196&st=20&#entry863871
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Stroma
    • By Stroma 30th Aug 13, 10:23 PM
    • 7,919 Posts
    • 8,408 Thanks
    Stroma
    Yes operating tax deductible costs are not losses, they can never be!
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd Sep 13, 11:19 PM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    So boring now - PE stuffed (again, yawn) on losses.


    Full wording:

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number 210807/782875 arising out of the presence at Holiday Inn XXXXXXXXXXX, on 22 February 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XX00 XXX.
    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
    POPLA
    PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS:
    Reasons for the Assessor's Determination
    The appellant received a parking charge notice after parking in a hotel car park.
    The operator submits that the appellant parked in a site reserved for hotel
    patrons only, who must register their details at the hotel reception, and that by failing to park without a valid permit in accordance with the terms and conditions, the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site. The operator further submits ·that ·there are a number of signs erected throughout the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions of parking.
    The appellant has made a number of submissions, including at paragraph 4.3.1, that the operator must evidence the amount of loss or damage caused by the alleged breach.
    The burden therefore shifts to the operator to prove that they suffered a loss and/or damage as a result of the alleged breach. The operator has not addressed this submission either in the case summary or in any other evidence submitted, and has therefore failed to discharge the evidential burden; on this ground alone I allow the appeal.
    Raivi Shams Rahman
    Assessor
    6061083009
    If I was her boss, I'd certainly be looking very closely at her performance at POPLA when doing her annual appraisal.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd Sep 13, 11:51 PM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    ARMTRAC this time, but no loss once again - now a 'must include' appeal point
    Courtesy of Pepipoo:

    Well it's taken some time but..... POPLA appeal decision was received via email today and they have stated that ARMTRAC have no case. This is good news!
    Shehla Pirwany was the assessor and I have copied and pasted some of her reply if anyone is interested.....

    The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked and the pay and display voucher that was visible was face down which meant that patrol officers were unable to check the ticket in order to determine its validity

    The appellant’s case is that he purchased a valid pay and display ticket but due to the wind, it had blown over and was face down on the dashboard. The appellant raises that the parking charge is disproportionate as the landowner is not out of pocket because a valid pay and display ticket was purchased. Additionally, the appellant challenges the parking company’s lack of title and seeks demonstration of a proprietary interest in the land.

    Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has raised the issue of whether the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance, this means that the breach should represent the loss caused. The operator has not addressed the issue of genuine pre estimate of loss and therefore I have no evidence to dispute the claim that the landowner would not have been out of pocket. Based on this, I am not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.

    KBT / ARMTRAC - if your reading this - I hope you have yourselves a lovely summer.

    This post has been edited by CombatBarney: Today, 14:28
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 4th Sep 13, 8:17 AM
    • 759 Posts
    • 565 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Interesting that once the adjudicator sees 'pre-estimate' they refuse/are not required to adjudicate on the other reasons put forward [in this case, it's lack of title and proprietary interest].

    That's why parking prankster's approach of running a defence using one sole reason in each case is an excellent approach as it will allow each 'defence' to be tested.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 13, 9:05 AM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Interesting that once the adjudicator sees 'pre-estimate' they refuse/are not required to adjudicate on the other reasons put forward [in this case, it's lack of title and proprietary interest].

    That's why parking prankster's approach of running a defence using one sole reason in each case is an excellent approach as it will allow each 'defence' to be tested.
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    I agree with this as a strategic approach, and Parking Prankster is a well versed 'veteran' campaigner of the scene and is willing and able to try the 'one reason' appeal.

    However, for the first-time appellant, it is their one chance of getting rid of this for good and having a number of alternative appeal points, should the first one fail, is the most comfortable (and probably most certain) way of winning.

    I think the more strategic approaches should really be left in the hands of those who really know what they are doing.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 4th Sep 13, 10:01 AM
    • 759 Posts
    • 565 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    umkomass...I agree completely with you on this topic.

    A newbie should throw everything at popla.

    PPrank is deffo in the category of 'really know what they are doing'...lol.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 13, 10:17 AM
    • 14,011 Posts
    • 22,006 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    umkomass...I agree completely with you on this topic.

    A newbie should throw everything at popla.

    PPrank is deffo in the category of 'really know what they are doing'...lol.
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    As any of us would be after being bitten by a radioactive spider
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 4th Sep 13, 10:32 PM
    • 14,797 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    Might be an idea to remove your vehicle reg and any other personal information as PE read these forums.
    Originally posted by Custard Pie
    The poster has done so. May I suggest you edit your post (where you quote it) to do likewise?
    • nbrown26
    • By nbrown26 6th Sep 13, 9:18 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    nbrown26
    POPLA Success
    Decision: Allowed

    Assessor:Amber Ahmed

    Date: 05 September 2013

    Reported:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4645375

    Successful Grounds: None

    PPC: G24 Limited


    xxxxxxxx (Appellant)
    -v-
    G24 Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Maybird Retail park, on 31 May 2013, 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
    The Operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX. The Operator recorded that the vehicle was at Maybird Retail Park for 315 minutes. The Operator states that permitted free parking period for this site is 240 minutes.

    The Operator’s case is that there is clear signage across the site informing drivers that the site allows a maximum parking period of 240 minutes. The Operator submits that the Appellant exceeded the permitted parking time and therefore, breached the terms and conditions of using the site.

    The Appellant does not dispute that they exceeded the permitted parking time.

    The Appellant made various submissions; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing the appeal on the following ground.

    The Appellant made representations, alluding that in the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that without landowner rights of possession, they cannot make a contract with a driver using this facility. The Appellant submits that the Operator does not have this authority.

    The Operator has not dealt with these representations.
    The case of VCS v HMRC 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 British Parking Association 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 written 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 notice. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Amber Ahmed
    Assessor
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 6th Sep 13, 9:30 AM
    • 759 Posts
    • 565 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    So basically it's the usual 'if the PPC doesn't show the contract between them and the landowner they lose'.

    I think the adjudicator must skim through the papers and obviously stops reading as soon as they identify a 'PPC loses' item.

    This approach may well help reduce their current 100+day backlog.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 6th Sep 13, 10:31 AM
    • 1,924 Posts
    • 2,678 Thanks
    nigelbb
    I think the adjudicator must skim through the papers and obviously stops reading as soon as they identify a 'PPC loses' item.
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    To be fair that is all they need to do. It's not a court & not subject to appeal or scrutiny so it would be pointless for them to rule on all the points brought up by the Appellant if one is already good enough to have the charge cancelled.
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

3,761Posts Today

7,518Users online

Martin's Twitter