POPLA Decisions

curlydiamond

Another POPLA win vs VCS @ Liverpool John Lennon Airport!

Thank you everyone on this forum who has contributed advice for those who wish to challenge so called 'parking charge notice' invoices. Here's my adjudicator's response, reiterating what many have already said - always challenge the GPEOL where the notice has been issued for breaking the 'parking contract' as they are required to show it is a genuine peol:

It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for 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. The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The signage produced by the Operator seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, as the Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some evidence of that to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator has produced a calculation of their genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is acceptable to charge the Appellant for a final reminder process and a debt recovery process, a considerably high proportion of the total amount, when the case is at appeal stage and these costs have not and may not be incurred.

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. I need not decide on other issues.

:j:T:j

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Version 2.0 of Loss statement now coming up from the pen of SRS

Stroma

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Version 2.0 of Loss statement now coming up from the pen of SRS

Dear Popla,

We are need of some more guidance on how to do a proper GPEOL that you will accept, we are getting fed up at losing all a time.

Regards and kisses,
SRS

Sakura-chan

Just won my POPLA appeal against UKPC. Thanks to the forum for all the help.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for failure to display a valid permit in a permit-only area. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking which required motorists to display a valid permit.

The Operator produced photos of site signage and the Appellant’s vehicle in support of its case. Amongst other grounds, the Appellant disputes that the Operator has authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land and required it to prove otherwise. Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, to enforce parking restrictions. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. The Operator stated that it had attached a contract. However, no such contract appeared in the evidence. The Operator has therefore not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner or any evidence showing that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

I must allow the appeal on this ground alone.
It does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.

Dee140157

Wow, well done. It is good to see a win at POPLA for a different reason other than GPEOL and PSDSU.

The Operator has therefore not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner or any evidence showing that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.

badgerms

Win at POPLA against Vehicle Control Services. Berkeley Centre in Sheffield. VCS submitted very comprehensive amount of documentation.

Won on GPEOL. Simply because VCS included debt recovery costs in their breakdown of costs.

Thanks to all those who provide advice on here, template letters, etc.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

badgerms wrote: »

Win at POPLA against Vehicle Control Services. Berkeley Centre in Sheffield. VCS submitted very comprehensive amount of documentation.

Won on GPEOL. Simply because VCS included debt recovery costs in their breakdown of costs.

Thanks to all those who provide advice on here, template letters, etc.

Good to hear,

One wonders how VCS are going to get round the debt recovery costs in their loss statement, i really cant wait to see their new attempt.
Inflate the other costs perhaps?

14wrence

MoneySaver (Appellant)
-v-
Park Direct UK Limited (Operator)




The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of
the presence at A Place, on XX/XX/2014, of a vehicle with
registration mark XXXXZZZ.


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.








XX ZZZ 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At 0000 on the XX ZZZ 2014, a parking charge notice was issued to a
vehicle with registration mark XXXZZZZ for stopping or
waiting where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force.

The operator’s case is that the terms and conditions at the site prohibit
stopping or waiting in the area. The signage is displayed at various locations
throughout the site and a reasonable grace period is permitted in order for
the motorist to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. As the
vehicle remained at the site in excess of a reasonable grace period, the
appellant had contravened the parking terms and conditions.

The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the signage at the site is not compliant
with the BPA requirements. The appellant additionally states that the charge is
not a genuine pre estimate of loss and the charge amounts to an unlawful
penalty charge. The appellant also notes that the operator has failed to show
that there is a contract in place and a grace period was observed.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated
that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. The charge represents
liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means
that the amount sought should represent the losses incurred as a result of the
breach. The operator has sought to justify the charge and has provided a
breakdown of the losses incurred. A number of items on the breakdown
appear to represent general operating costs; such as the appeals
department office rent, parking attendant equipment costs, membership fees
and public liability insurance. On a balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied
that the items listed are substantially linked to the losses that would have
been incurred as a result of a breach of the parking terms and conditions. As
a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

14wrence

BIG, BIG THANKS to everyone on this forum... Especially Coupon Mad....

I am now going to complain to the DVLA that this PPC is in breach of the "KADOE contract"...

Also do you think it is childish of me if I send them a scan of a certain hand gesture in the post..??? or maybe a claim for the time wasted and stress it has caused me...

212

Thanks for everyone's help, looks like parking eye haven't bothered to send any evidence in, something I've read a lot on here!

Do they get charged for wasting the POPLA's time? They should do, bunch of clowns.