POPLA Decisions

motto_74

Sorry am bit late in posting it as was busy during Easter break, since I got all help from this Website, thought should post the outcome as well. Many thanks for the the people on the website.I am not sure if the copy paste will work right, anyhow posting it.

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
enquiries@popla.org.uk
https://www.popla.org.uk
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
April 2014
Reference
always quote in any communication with P
.......................... (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ............arising out of the presence at Humberside Airport, on ..........., 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 that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
2 15 April 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 23 January 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark ............ for stopping on a roadway where stopping is
prohibited.
The Operators’s case is that the parking restrictions are displayed on
numerous signs situated throughout the site. The signage says: “Restricted
Zone. No stopping at any time.” The Operator says that the Appellant
stopped on a rooadway. They have provided photographic images to
ilustrate this point and they have enclosed a pre-estimate of loss statement.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely
that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations because they state
that by stopping on a road way, the Appellant has breached the terms and
conditions of the parking contract.
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. They submit that
some of these costs include costs of maintenance, issue of the parking
charge and costs relating to elements of debt recovery. The Operator also
cited some case law in support of their case. I find that these costs were not
incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been
incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the terms and
conditions of the parking. Every case rests on its own facts and not all the
cases go to the debt recovery process and if that is the case, such costs
would not be incurred. Although the Operator has sought to justify the
amount of the parking charge notice as being a genuine pre-estimate of loss,
I am not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the amount of the
parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
..............
Assessor

webmasterz

Two tickets appealed using help and templates from here same outcome both cases
THANKS AGAIN EVERYONE

(Appellant)
-v-
Liberty Printers (AR & RF Reddin) Ltd also T/A Liberty Services Ltd and Car Parking Partnership Ltd (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xcfv#~ , issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark ~@08 .
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.

Umkomaas

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.

Interesting! Could you give us the name of the adjudicator, as this could be citable in future cases!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

Interesting! Could you give us the name of the adjudicator, as this could be citable in future cases!

Not really its just standard wording

Umkomaas

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Not really its just standard wording

Must have missed the 'refund' paragraphs in previous cases.

Specsavers' appointment to be scheduled :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Car Parking Partership cancelled two PCNs when they saw the usual POPLA winning wording:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4879312

AoD

Umkomaas wrote: »

Must have missed the 'refund' paragraphs in previous cases.

Specsavers' appointment to be scheduled :rotfl:

It is standard wording where the PPC cancels the ticket after seeing the POPLA appeal (cos they know they're gonna lose!)

I've personally not seen it on POPLA rulings where the PPC has fought the appeal and lost.

Umkomaas

AoD wrote: »

It is standard wording where the PPC cancels the ticket after seeing the POPLA appeal (cos they know they're gonna lose!)

I've personally not seen it on POPLA rulings where the PPC has fought the appeal and lost.

As I said above I'd never previously seen it. Probably as I tend to skim read adjudications now, especially those with just short summaries.

If it's a standard para in a cancelled ticket case, then why not in a normal upheld appeal - in both cases someone could have already paid (although, again, I've not seen many cases of payment made prior to POPLA appeal)?

motto_74

Another popla appeal allowed, thought i would share it as i got all the advise on this website, I tried to post it earlier but not sure where it disappeared. anyhow re posting it, hope it works. Thanks to you all for the help.

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
enquiries@popla.org.uk
https://www.popla.org.uk
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
.....April 2014
Reference .................................
always quote in any communication with POPLA
............................................. (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ................ arising out of the presence at Humberside Airport, on 23 January 2014, 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 that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
2 15 April 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 23 January 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark ...........for stopping on a roadway where stopping is
prohibited.
The Operators’s case is that the parking restrictions are displayed on
numerous signs situated throughout the site. The signage says: “Restricted
Zone. No stopping at any time.” The Operator says that the Appellant
stopped on a rooadway. They have provided photographic images to
ilustrate this point and they have enclosed a pre-estimate of loss statement.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely
that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations because they state
that by stopping on a road way, the Appellant has breached the terms and
conditions of the parking contract.
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. They submit that
some of these costs include costs of maintenance, issue of the parking
charge and costs relating to elements of debt recovery. The Operator also
cited some case law in support of their case. I find that these costs were not
incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been
incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the terms and
conditions of the parking. Every case rests on its own facts and not all the
cases go to the debt recovery process and if that is the case, such costs
would not be incurred. Although the Operator has sought to justify the
amount of the parking charge notice as being a genuine pre-estimate of loss,
I am not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the amount of the
parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

Redx

Popla win against MET at McDonalds - Gatwick https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4954222

not GPEOL