POPLA Decisions

VorTechS

The result of my own case versus Excel ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4902096 ) :

POPLA wrote:

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

From the wording of the signage on site, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means that the amount sought should 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
breach; which was parking without purchasing a valid pay and display ticket.

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.

Thanks to all that helped!

Redx

another PEEL CENTRE - Stockport , win against Excel

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4911999

I just received the decision from POPLA that the appeal be allowed and the Operator Excel Parking Services cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Won it on GPEOL ground alone!

Redx

another win against PE , no evidence sent in to popla (typical)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4977229

bluecatman9

Decision: Appeal allowed

Assessor: Shehla Pirwany

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of a presence on private land, 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.
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.

Redx

a win against V.C.S. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4976685 at TK MAXX

not a gpeol was the reason

WTNinja

A win against ParkingEye over a 17 minute overstay on a 3 hour free car park. I won't bother typing the full decision since its the standard "they didn't bother to defend it" one as per bluecatman9 above.

I think its still worth people posting these here though so we know what their current strategy is.

phoenixegmh

Another win against ParkingEye after they failed to present any evidence to POPLA!

amronandmonty

Not sure if I should be posting this result on this thread so apologies if I have broken protocol.

Got an e mail today from POPLA following my appeal against a PCN issued by CEL at my local MacDonalds for overstaying the 90 minute limit.


23 May 2014

Reference xxxxxxxx

always quote in any communication with POPLA



Dear Sir or Madam

xxxxx(Appellant)

-v-

Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park &
Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)


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



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



My appeal was based on the advice (GPEOL, insufficient signage, NTK not compliant with POFA etc ) given on this board so many thanks to those who spend their time helping those of us who need it.

I was wondering as CEL withdrew the PCN does that mean they did not have to pay the £27 + vat to POPLA. If so maybe they are deciding to cut their losses.

drspouse

Same result here from CPP:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=65603012&postcount=26

loiner13

Hi everybody jus won my case against CP Plus and thought I would post the assessors comments on the decision, these are aas follows.
The Operator's case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by exceeding the free parking period and not making a payment for parking in excess of the free period.
The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised by him was that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
The Operator has submitted a breakdown of their genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. The Operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses, but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellant's conduct. The list submitted by the Operator does not appear to be directly related to the Appellant's breach on this occasion and as there are no detailed figures, it is difficult to ascertain what costs are incurred by the Operator. Furthermore, I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case.
Consequently, I cannot decide that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues,
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.


Sakib Chowdhury Assessor