POPLA Decisions

Computersaysno

I'm amazed that the assessor bothered once they say GPEOL as an appeal point.


Obviously they are well over-staffed at POPLA of they can afford to let the assessors wander off on a nice little theoretical mull over when its obvious they are wasting time!

Umkomaas

Computersaysno wrote: »

I'm amazed that the assessor bothered once they say GPEOL as an appeal point.


Obviously they are well over-staffed at POPLA of they can afford to let the assessors wander off on a nice little theoretical mull over when its obvious they are wasting time!

Don't knock it. The more that are removed, the sooner the house of cards falls.

More 'precedented' appeal options now open to appellants.

AoD

Parking Control Management (PCM) throw in the towel and cancel ticket after initially winning at POPLA, but evidence pack not received, so case re-opened by POPLA.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4948769

One_Step_at_a_Time_2

Just popping in to log another POPLA appeal allowed thanks to the good folk on here. To be honest if it hadn’t been for this forum we’d have paid up like good little law abiding people (mugs).

Operator was UKPC

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Crystal Peaks shopping mall, on xxxxxxxxx, 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
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Crystal Peaks shopping mall, on xxxxxxxx, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxxx for not parking correctly within the markings of a bay or space.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage 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.
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 produced a list of things that they have to pay for in relation to each parking charge notice, however, they have not provided a breakdown of their costs and therefore they have not justified that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has not justified that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor

Winehouse

Another win at POPLA here. I have to thank Coupon-mad especially for their invaluable help with this!

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxxxx arising out of a presence on private land, 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 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.

Christopher Adamson

Assessor

Take that ParkingEye!

:beer:

HOOPYHOOP

Just a quick thanks to the Board and its members. POPLA ruled in my favour v APCOA. Grounds were no GPEOL. Several other grounds for appeal not even considered as they fell at this first hurdle. APCOA didn't submit any evidence other than stating the BPA guidelines allow them to charge £100

On bugbear though. Right throughout the APCOA and POPLA appeal processes I've been in receipt of communications from Debt Recovery Plus threatening court action. I contacted them to tell them the debt was disputed and under appeal and they couldn't have been less interested. To be fair APCOA were apologetic and said they would inform DRP, but the letters keep coming, the most recent after the POPLA decision. I was tempted to ignore and see if they would embarrass themselves in taking further action, but in the end I sent a 'cease and desist harassment' / pre-action protocol letter of my own. Lets see if that stops them. Will also send to APCOA but is it worth pursuing this with anyone else? BPA? Have the DVLA got anything to answer for in passing my details to a company who have given them to people who are harassing me for a non-debt which has no legal basis?

Anyway, thanks again all....

trisontana

That old "BPA guidelines" excuse. In one breath the BPA says that it must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss", inthe next they come out with this "£100" nonsense. The only reason that the bPA choose that figure was because it mimics the amount charged by councils in there penalty tickets.

waamo

Right throughout the APCOA and POPLA appeal processes I've been in receipt of communications from Debt Recovery Plus threatening court action.

Complain to the DVLA, they will pass it on to the BPA who will squirm and do nothing. If the DVLA gets enough complaints they do eventually act but they have to get complaints.

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

That old "BPA guidelines" excuse. In one breath the BPA says that it must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss", inthe next they come out with this "£100" nonsense. The only reason that the bPA choose that figure was because it mimics the amount charged by councils in there penalty tickets.

£100 doesn't mimic council charges outside London. Most councils have decriminalised parking charges similar to those here in Norwich i.e. £70 for a serious offence & £35 for a minor one

nigelbb

HOOPYHOOP wrote: »

Just a quick thanks to the Board and its members. POPLA ruled in my favour v APCOA. Grounds were no GPEOL. Several other grounds for appeal not even considered as they fell at this first hurdle. APCOA didn't submit any evidence other than stating the BPA guidelines allow them to charge £100

On bugbear though. Right throughout the APCOA and POPLA appeal processes I've been in receipt of communications from Debt Recovery Plus threatening court action. I contacted them to tell them the debt was disputed and under appeal and they couldn't have been less interested. To be fair APCOA were apologetic and said they would inform DRP, but the letters keep coming, the most recent after the POPLA decision. I was tempted to ignore and see if they would embarrass themselves in taking further action, but in the end I sent a 'cease and desist harassment' / pre-action protocol letter of my own. Lets see if that stops them. Will also send to APCOA but is it worth pursuing this with anyone else? BPA? Have the DVLA got anything to answer for in passing my details to a company who have given them to people who are harassing me for a non-debt which has no legal basis?

Anyway, thanks again all....

APCOA (originally the Airport Parking Company Of America) are a vast multinational corporation with turnover approaching €700 million. They should be able to come up with something more convincing than £100 is fair because our Club says it is. Perhaps their legal department acknowledge that their claims for money have no basis in law so don't even try & pretend that there is a GPEOL.

BTW A complaint should be made to the DVLA as APCOA are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA but employing debt collectors who do not adhere to OFT guidelines. If the DVLA had the balls they would suspend access for a few months for a persistent & repeated breach like this.