POPLA Decisions

robrymond

Another win. They bottled it before the appeal. Thanks to all the advice and help on here:

02 May 2014


Reference xxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA


Dear Sir or Madam



Mr Robert J xxxxxx(Appellant)
-v-
Highview Parking Limited (Operator)



The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking
charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle
with the registration mark xxxxxx .

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.


Yours sincerely,

Richard Reeve
Service Manager

trisontana

This time it's CP Plus who lose on no GPEOL:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90056&hl=

Hi Guys,

Thanks to all the regulars that give so much of their time, here and on MSE, providing the help and resources that allow anyone to stand up to the bullies that operate in this nasty 'industry'.

I've used the information given to see off CP Plus and thought it only right to let you know of another success.

Over the past few years I have been the intended victim of CP Plus on a number of occasions. These were all prior to POFA and so I stuck to the ignore route and laughed as the increasingly desperate attempts to get money from me came through the letter box.

Earlier this year CP Plus sent me a PCN demanding £100 or else. According to them one of my vehicles had overstayed by nearly an hour in an empty car park in the wee small hours. Obviously I couldn't just ignore them any more and so used the excellent advice here and appealed to CP Plus and then POPLA.

CP Plus sent me a copy of their 'Evidence Pack' that they were submitting to POPLA. I assume it was to try and intimidate me with the strength of their case. It did just the opposite. It contained so many errors and mistakes it made me laugh at them. They can't even cut and paste properly from one case to the next. Pathetic.

My POPLA appeal contained all the usual points as per the stickies. I challenged them on signage, lack of proprietary interest, ANPR accuracy and no GPEOL.

CP Plus tried to argue they had a loss as they have to invest in equipment because not all drivers follow their rules. The POPLA assessor saw straight through this guff and ruled against them.

It's such a shame that innocent people have to defend themselves against attacks by these companies. The sooner they are driven out of existence the better.

Computersaysno

Coupon-mad wrote: »

VCS failed on no GPEOL (why do they bother?!):


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


:T

That indeed is the question that no-one seems able to answer.


AIUI...


As soon as GPEOL is mentioned the PPC is going to lose at POPLA, and it's going to cost them £27.




If they cancel before POPLA assessment, there is no £27 loss.


So why don't they cancel and save themselves £27??


It's madness............. or more likely incompetence.

Stroma

I think it costs them even if they no show or cancel once the motorist sends in their appeal

trisontana

UKPC bottle it again:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88080&hl=

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

Computersaysno

PSDSU is fast overtaking GPEOL.

torontoboy45

isn't it £27 plus vat? = to £32.40? if I'm right, can we all use the true figure?

Stroma

But they can reclaim the vat element back, so it doesn't cost them that. The only time vat can't be reclaimed is if they are not registered for vat

Computersaysno

Yeah, VAT is irrelevant.

NorthernSoul89

Just won an appeal against ParkingEye on no GPEOL and ParkingEye failed to produce a copy of the charge and any evidence.

02 May 2014

Reference xxxxxxxxx



xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx (Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx/xxxxxxxx

arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration

mark XXXX 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

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

Thanks to everyone who helped, I'll be sure to spread the word about not paying these so called fines.