POPLA Decisions

jimmy102

Another POPLA win, against UK CPM.

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.


Many thanks indeed to this site, hugely appreciate it. Edit - just to add POPLA are running two weeks behind, this was due to be heard a fortnight ago.

Jimin

Thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4890536

The operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX arising out of the presence at XX,XX,XX on XX,XX,2013, 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 forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor's Determination

The Operator issued a parking charge notice ('PCN') for failure to display a valid permit. 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 has produced photos of the Appellant's vehicle and site signage in support of its case.

The Appellant disputes liability for the parking charge. It is the Appellant's case that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss incurred as a result of the alleged breach of the parking contract. The Appellant submits that there was no loss as the car park was free to use.

There is no dispute that the parking charge was issued for a breach of the advertised terms and conditions. The amount of the parking charge must therefore represent compensation for a loss suffered as a result of an alleged breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based on an initial loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue in a Pay and Display car park.

The Operator did not address this issue. Specifically, the Operator did not produce any evidence to justify the charge as having been a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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

I must allow the appeal on this ground.

Accordingly, it does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

APCOA

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On *********** a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
registration mark ****** failing to park in a designated parking area.

The Operators’s case is that the parking restrictions are clearly displayed on
numerous signs situated throughout the site. The parking rules say: “vehicles
must be parked in a valid car park or bay.” The Operator’s photographic
evidence shows that Appellant’s vehicle was captured by ANPR camera
failing to park in a designated parking area. They have provided ANPR
images to illustrate their point and they have supplied a copy of the terms
and conditions, layout of airport ground showing signage location and
restricted areas, images and plans and warning signage.

The Appellant’s case is that the parking charge is punitive and it is not a
genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations because they state
that by failing to park in a designated parking area, they breached the terms
and conditions of parking. They advise that they are not liable to justify the
charge of £100 as section 19.5 of BPA guideline state that if the charge is for a
breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the
genuine pre-estimate of loss that the motorist suffer. They say that if the
charge is more than £100, they must be able to justify the amount in
advance.

I note the Operator’s submissions in this present case and I appreciate them,
nevertheless, the Operator has not sought to justify the amount of parking
charge being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The burden of proof is on the
Operator to support the enforcement of the parking charge notice and to
sufficiently address the point raised by the Appellant and I find that on this
occasion, the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge notice is
a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore, they have not discharged the
burden of proof.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

Umkomaas

They advise that they are not liable to justify the charge of £100 as section 19.5 of BPA guideline state that if the charge is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that the motorist suffer. They say that if the charge is more than £100, they must be able to justify the amount in advance.

KIFL - is this copied and pasted from the original POPLA result, or a typo? GPEOL 'that the motorist suffer'.

Also, somewhat bemusingly, is APCOA's position that they don't have to justify the charge because of a BPA CoP clause, rather overlooks the fact that contract law requires otherwise of them!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No its copied and pasted ,

Hot_Bring

A case I was assisting with off forum against Athena ANPR - another POPLA win

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 123456 arising out of the presence at Lidl Brighton, on March xxxxx, of a vehicle with registration mark WE W0N.
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
At xx:xx, on March xxxxx, a CCTV automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering Lidl Brighton.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by exceeding the free parking duration at the site.
The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised by him was that the Operator lacks the legal capacity to enforce/issue PCN’s.

The Operator has submitted that they have attached a letter from the
landowner which states that they are authorised to issue parking charges with the evidence pack. However, there appears to be no such letter attached with the pack.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement.

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 it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

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 need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Dee140157

Thank you everybody. Another forum win against Parking Eye.
Reason: PSDSU. I would have fought it, but you all made it so much easier and so much less stressful.

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

Keefley

I haven't posted before, but have used the excellent advice on here to appeal my Parking Eye invoice. As my appeal was successful I thought I'd add to the list of wins:


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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor


The main point of my appeal was on GPEOL, looks like PE didn't even try to defend.

ColliesCarer

Another PSDSU against Parking Eye for a friend I helped off forum

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.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

james915

Decision: Allowed

Assessor: Unknown

Date: May 2014

Reported: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4904502

Successful Grounds: Unclear Signage & not a genuine pre estimate of loss

PPC: Excel Parking Services LTD

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.

The operator’s case is that the terms and conditions at the site clearly state ‘anyone parking in a blue bay and leaving/walking off site will result in the immediate issue of a parking charge notice.’ The driver of the vehicle parked and left the site and was therefore parked in contravention of the terms and conditions.

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that they have the authority to enforce parking charge notices and the charge is disproportionate and is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. The appellant has additionally stated that the signage is unclear and does therefore not form a contract between the driver and the operator.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the charge is disproportionate and is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. From the wording of the signage, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance and the charge should therefore represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions.

The operator has sought to justify the charge and stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss as the operator ‘incurs significant costs in ensuring compliance with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified.’

Although the operator has provided a breakdown of the losses incurred, a substantial proportion of the charge appears to relate to debt recovery. As cases may not necessarily proceed to debt recovery stage, the individual amounts listed are not substantially linked to the loss incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach, which was parking and leaving the site. I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.