POPLA Decisions

Computersaysno

james915 wrote: »

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

Strictly speaking it was only GPEOL; the assessor ignored your signage issue [as per their operating instructions].

james915

james915 wrote: »

The appellant has additionally stated that the signage is unclear and does therefore not form a contract between the driver and the operator.

True, but this shows that the assessor took it into consideration.
Either way a win is a win

kidstaxi

It seems Excel hasn't quite got it right in the 'Genuine Pre-Estimate Of LOSS'

[FONT=&quot]Reference xxxxxxxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]always quote in any communication with POPLA [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kidstaxi (Appellant) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-v- [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Operator issued parking charge notice number XLxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Smyth Street - Wakefield, on 99 January 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XX9999999ABC.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Assessor’s reasons are as set out. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator issued parking charge notice number XLxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Smyth Street - Wakefield, on 99 January 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid ticket/ permit. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signage displayed at the site and the case summary provided as evidence by the operator show that the amount of the parking charge notice is a charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] debt recovery process costs[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the operator [/FONT][FONT=&quot]has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because It appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate of loss. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Amber Ahmed [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Assessor[/FONT]


For the full story, go to:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4916007

Many thanks forum, I couldn't have done it without you!

Cheers,
kidstaxi

Computersaysno

james915 wrote: »

True, but this shows that the assessor took it into consideration.

er...exactly how??

meater

Mr xx (Appellant)

-v-

Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park &

Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxx, on xx February 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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxx, on xx February 2014, of a vehicle with
registration mark xxxxxxx for not making payment in accordance with the terms on the signage.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site without having made payment in accordance with the terms on the signage and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

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 produced a list of heads that they have to pay for in managing the car park, however, they have not given a breakdown of how much they have to pay for each head listed.

I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal
on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge
amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Nozir Uddin

Assessor

Computersaysno

Here's the first WINNER that I am aware of that relates to ANPR technology being unreliable......






Reference: xxxxxxx







xxxxxxxx (Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxx, on xxxxxx, 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator’s Case
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for parking without paying to. The Operator submits that a parking charge is due in accordance with the advertised terms which required motorists to pay to park. The Operator submits that it’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at XX:XX and exit at XX:XX a stay of x hours and xx minutes. The Operator submits that it undertook a check to locate the vehicle on the paid parking system and that no payment was found.

The Appellant’s Case

The Appellant disputed parking improperly. It is the Appellant’s case that the breach never occurred because he entered and exited the site twice on the day in question. The Appellant submits that he entered, as recorded by the ANPR system, at XX:XX and exited around 10 minutes later. He then returned at approximately XX:XX, leaving 10 minutes later as recorded.

The Appellant submitted a document detailing various issues with ANPR technology which might have resulted in the parking charge being issued.

The Decision

I appreciate that ANPR technology is not infallible, and susceptible to the errors highlighted by the Appellant. These include misreading registration mark characters and being obscured by the presence of other objects, such as vehicles. However, the Appellant’s case – that his first exit and subsequent re-entry were both missed whilst his entrance and exit at XX:XX and XX:XX were both recorded – is unlikely. This is because ANPR equipment correctly recognised and recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering and exiting the site at XX:XX and XX:XX which would have had to have failed – for whatever reason – to record the vehicle’s additional movements.

However, the Appellant also submitted that where a registration mark is misread, or not read at all and no photo is recorded by the ANPR camera, then the system is “configured to record the duration of stay as the first and last exit”, and to ignore any isolated entry or exit in between. On that basis, the ANPR need only have missed either the vehicle’s initial exit or re-entry. Because the site was very congested at the times in question, the Appellant submits that the ANPR error is most likely to have been caused by another vehicle obscuring his registration mark.


In any event, the Appellant suggested various pieces of evidence that the Operator ought to reasonably provide to prove its case. This included evidence to show that it had conduct searches of its ANPR database to rule out multiple entries/exits on the day in question.


The Operator did not produce any evidence to address these issues.

On balance, I find that the Operator has not discharged its burden to prove the offence by refuting the Appellant’s submissions.

The appeal is allowed on this ground.

It does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.

Matthew Shaw

Assessor

Computersaysno

On second reading it might well be more akin to PSDSU....




Probs the ppc side-stepping a possible freight train??

Parking-Prankster

This wasn't a PSDSU. You can download the document referred to from my website, if you also had a double visit recorded as one.


http://www.parking-prankster.com/anpr-technology.html


or direct link to the document




http://nebula.wsimg.com/07f5430a8d1c9bafced3dd1585f678f8?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

freaksaver

Hi Parking Prankster

I see from your signiture blurb that you have had some appeals rejected by POPLA - I am just at the stage where I am trying to appeal to them, should I be worried, I thought there was a 100% success rate?

Parking-Prankster

freaksaver wrote: »

Hi Parking Prankster

I see from your signiture blurb that you have had some appeals rejected by POPLA - I am just at the stage where I am trying to appeal to them, should I be worried, I thought there was a 100% success rate?

My appeals were all when POPLA started and were all single point appeals to determine what would and would not win at POPLA for the benefit of other motorists (like the motorist did for the win above).


Now we know which way POPLA will and will not rule on certain points, there is a 100% success rate.


I still have a 100% success rate in not paying any charges. Following the cases at POPLA where I lost, I wrote to the operator explaining all the other reasons why their ticket was not valid. After some snarling and growling and bleating that I was not allowed to appeal again, they retreated back into their cages with the promise that one day they would get me.


So far, that day has not happened. Mostly, I presume, because I sent them timestamped and GPS stamped photographs of my car not in their car park when they said it was. Hard to see how they would win at court against that evidence.


All my tickets have been for double dipping (two visits recorded by the operator as one)