IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

POPLA Decisions

Options
1101102104106107481

Comments

  • Thanks to all the invaluable information found on this site, my POPLA appeal was successful as can be seen below. :beer:

    25 April 2014

    Reference **********

    Mr **** (Appellant)
    -v-
    Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number VC******** arising out of the presence at Doncaster Robin Hood Airport, on ** August 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

    On ** August 2013, 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 red route where stopping is prohibited. They have provided photographic images to illustrate 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 roadway, the Appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the parking contract. The Operator has enclosed a pre-estimate of loss statement. They advise that they have calculated a genuine pre-estimate of losses as £103.21 as they incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these identified.

    The burden is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred in managing the parking site, this is a general list of costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

    The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. Hence, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.

    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 advise 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.

    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 and included with the parking charge and I am not satisfied that it would be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. Although the Operator has sought to justify the parking charge amount as being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I am not satisfied that the Operator has proved that this appears to be the case.

    Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

    Aurela Qerimi
    Assessor
  • Annie1960
    Annie1960 Posts: 3,009 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 30 April 2014 at 12:43PM
    POPLA is running a week late with cases, as they have notified me today, and their acknowledgement of my appeal stated they would make a decision last Tuesday.



    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

    Edit to show PPC: UKPC at Aldi car park, Hatifleld. The car park is not owned by Aldi so in spite of support from the manager, they were not able to cancel it.
  • Annie1960 wrote: »
    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

    Which PPC was this?
    Je suis Charlie
  • 'Not Scammed' (Appellant)
    -v-
    CP Plus Limited (Operator)




    The Operator issued parking charge notice number #########
    arising out of the presence at Moto Services Lancaster Northbound, on
    ## February 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.



    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for staying for longer
    than the free time permitted without payment. The Operator’s automatic
    number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the vehicle enter the site
    at #### and exit at ####, a stay of ######. The Operator
    submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised
    terms of parking which stated that parking was free for 2 hours with a tariff
    due for parking thereafter.

    The Operator accepts that the amount of the parking charge is a genuine
    pre-estimate of the liquidated damages due for breach of the parking
    contract. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the
    parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue.

    The Appellant, amongst other grounds, appealed against the PCN on the
    basis that the £100 parking charge did not amount to a genuine pre-estimate
    of the losses incurred as a result of the alleged breach. The Appellant
    submitted there was no loss and challenged the Operator to show otherwise.

    The Operator submitted that the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of losses
    resulting from the alleged breach. This resulted in an initial loss of parking
    revenue due after 2 hours parking and consequential losses incurred in
    recovering that revenue. The Operator gave examples of those losses,
    including costs associated with the installation, maintenance and
    depreciation of its ANPR equipment.

    The charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses following breach of the
    contract in order to be enforceable. However, I find that a substantial cost
    referred to by the Operator – that of installing and maintaining ANPR cameras
    – is not a loss flowing from a breach of the parking contract. In other words,
    had there been no breach of the parking contract then the cost of installing
    and maintaining the ANPR equipment would have been the same.

    Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the
    Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

    I allow the appeal on this ground alone.

    Matthew Shaw
    Assessor
    :j
  • bod1467
    bod1467 Posts: 15,214 Forumite
    Which PPC was this?

    UKPC (I guess, based on Annie's previous posts).
  • Annie1960
    Annie1960 Posts: 3,009 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    bod1467 wrote: »
    UKPC (I guess, based on Annie's previous posts).

    Correct, I have edited to show this.
  • Another PSDSU

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4957658

    "xxxxx

    -v-

    UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX
    arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration
    mark 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.

    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..."
    Je suis Charlie
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,785 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    And here's one where UKPC tried but failed anyway on no GPEOL of course:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88485&st=0&gopid=956509&#entry956509


    But Amber Ahmed (I assume, as the OP says the Assessor was 'AA') does have some strange reasoning in her decisions:

    UK Parking Control Limited

    ''The operator has provided a list of expenses which they have incurred as a result of the breach.

    The operator has also provided case law to show that the amount of the parking charge is fair and reasonable. However, each case is different on its facts and it is not possible for me to refuse an appeal based on this.

    The operator has sought to justify the charge however while the individual items listed may amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss, the operator has failed to provide an estimate of the amount lost under the specific items referred to in the breakdown. On a balance of probabilities, I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred as a result of the breach.''


    She's dangerously close to coaching them on GPEOL there.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 151,785 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    VCS failed on no GPEOL (why do they bother?!):


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88777


    :T
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Annie1960
    Annie1960 Posts: 3,009 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    And here's one where UKPC tried but failed anyway on no GPEOL of course:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88485&st=0&gopid=956509&#entry956509


    But Amber Ahmed (I assume, as the OP says the Assessor was 'AA') does have some strange reasoning in her decisions:

    UK Parking Control Limited

    ''The operator has provided a list of expenses which they have incurred as a result of the breach.

    The operator has also provided case law to show that the amount of the parking charge is fair and reasonable. However, each case is different on its facts and it is not possible for me to refuse an appeal based on this.

    The operator has sought to justify the charge however while the individual items listed may amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss, the operator has failed to provide an estimate of the amount lost under the specific items referred to in the breakdown. On a balance of probabilities, I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred as a result of the breach.''


    She's dangerously close to coaching them on GPEOL there.


    I don't see how attaching a figure to each item on the list will help them.

    Their business model is:

    PPC rents land from landowners (supermarkets etc). Sometimes this is free, and sometimes the PPC pays up to £1000 per week per car park.

    PPC employs staff, pays for recruitment, training, payroll function, technology such as cameras, machines for issuing tickets, office staff and management to run the company, uniforms, signs and all other operating costs and overheads.

    PPCs' only source of income is the money that people are terrorised into paying, up to £100 per pop (the same level as council tickets, which are fines).

    PPC pays rent to landowners, all operating costs and overheads and makes a profit, around 30% of turnover.

    If their charges are GPEOL, where does the money come from to pay for operating costs, overheads and profit?

    Am I missing something?
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.