POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

APCOA threw in the towel and cancelled at POPLA stage:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4817796

Umkomaas

These 'towel throwing' incidences are more prevalent than sham boxing matches.

Surely POPLA is drawing conclusions from this prevalence?

Computersaysno

Don't be silly....POPLA will never draw conclusions other than 'Is my job safe if I say something?'

mrsmoneybags_3

Very pleased to announce that I have won my appeal with POPLA
below is the redacted copy of the email sent from POPLA.

Parking on Private Land Appeals
PO Box 70748
London E1P 1SN
0845 207 7700

April 2014

Ref xxxxxxxxxx
always quote in communication with POPLA

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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 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 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 that shows a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

The grounds I gave for the PCN being invalid were as follows

1. Inadequate signage/ No contract between driver and the creditor 2. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's

ParkingEye never came back with a response & therefore the assessor was obliged to allow the appeal.

Thank you to all on here who gave their time & support in gaining this decision.

katiepatati

Thanks for all the help on this forum to help me win this appeal! I am very grateful!


Katie *****(Appellant)
-v-
UKCPS Limited (Operator)




The Operator issued parking charge notice number 972283 arising out
of the presence at ******, on 28 November 2013, 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 972283 arising out of the presence at *****, on 28 November 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark ***** for parking without a valid permit or authority.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site without a valid permit or authority 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 responded by stating that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator has provided a table showing the losses they have incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. I note that the operator states their initial loss to be the cost of the warden and associated vehicle costs.

Whilst I appreciate that in some cases e.g. where the car park is a pay and display one, the issuing of the parking charge notice may be held to be an initial loss, in this circumstance the car park is free and therefore there is no initial loss. The Operator has not shown that the Appellant caused a loss to themselves or the landowner by parking without displaying a valid permit.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the Operator has not shown that they have incurred an initial loss as a result of the Appellant not displaying a valid permit and therefore the charge sought is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor

gregny10

Hi guys hope it's ok to post my appeal decision on here,thanks to the detailed knowledge gained from this forum i have successfully appealed against my pcn.Many thanks


16 April 2014

Reference xxxxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA




Anthony xxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)




The Operator issued parking charge notice number VC0xxxxxxA arising
out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, on 23 January
2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.


The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.


The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.


The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.








2 16 April 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’.
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 parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the
loss which could be caused by the alleged breach.

b) The alleged breach did not occur.

c) The Operator has not met the criteria laid out by the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.

d) The Operator does not have the authority to issue parking charge
notices in relation to the land in question.

e) There was not sufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to
the attention of the driver.

f) The Operator has failed to demonstrate that its Automatic Number
Plate Recognition technology meets the requirements of the British
Parking Association Code of Practice.

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the
alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss
which may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of
the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display
ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Provided an initial loss can be
demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss,
such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in
responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any
pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a
failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is
for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate
of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs
incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been
caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in the








3 16 April 2014

same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge
notice. Whilst these heads of loss do not seem to include general operational
costs, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The
Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been
caused initially by the Appellant stopping at this location.

Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the
Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.


Christopher Adamson
Assessor

michelle31

Hi,

I am asking for some help, I got a parking ticket from parking eye back in Feb the vehicle is registered to my mum however i am an insured driver. the parking was at burtonwood service station, I didnt notice any signs however that doesnt mean there wasnt any or not visible enough, the car park was almost empty the ticket says i stayed almost 45mins over the 2 free hours. i never knew you had to pay for parking at a motorway service station and I always thought that you should just ignore these tickets that they would just give up, we have now received a 'letter before county court claim' I dont feel i should pay as the car park was nearly empty i wasnt taking space that was needed.

I have seen that i now need to make an appeal, do i just go through the parkingeye contact page on their website?

im really not sure on what i should say in the appeal, any help is really appreciated or do you think i should just pay

Thanks

AoD

Welcome to the forums. You need to start your own thread so you can be given help. The blue NEW THREAD button is where you need to start, but no you definitely do not need to pay!

bod1467

This thread is for recording POPLA assessment decisions. It is not a discussion or help thread.

michelle31

sorry im new to all this, ill start a new thread

Thanks :-)