POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Well done for following the forum advice and winning at POPLA easily without needing to start a bleating 'help meeeeeee' thread!

Computersaysno

loiner13 wrote: »

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.

I am reading this as meaning that the PPC has given a list of names of previous winning cases at POPLA in an attempt to prove GPEOL. If that is the case then it's another reason why POPLA should have to publish all results [like PATAS has to].


On second thoughts...have PPCs won any GPEOL cases at POPLA??? So it's either early cases or they maybe county court cases??


Maybe the OP could look up the relevant part of the PPC POPLA pack and post on here??

j4a

09 May 2014

Reference xxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam

---

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (Appelant)
-v-
APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd (Operator)

---

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

Your appeal therefore has 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

loiner13

Maybe the OP could look up the relevant part of the PPC POPLA pack and post on here??[/QUOTE]



Appendix 1




[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Chitty on Contracts, 31st Edition, paragraph 26-171:


"Where the parties to a contract agree that, in the event of a breach, the contract-breaker shall pay to the other a specified sum of money, the sum fixed may be classified by the courts either as a penalty (which is irrecoverable) or as liquidated damages (which are recoverable). The clause is enforceable if it does not exceed a genuine attempt to estimate in advance the loss which the claimant would be likely to suffer from a breach of the obligation in question. Recent decisions suggest that a clause which provides for an additional payment to be made by a party who is breach of the contract may also be enforceable, even if it was not strictly speaking a pre-estimate of the likely loss, if it was "commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach". If the clause is not void as a penalty, it is enforceable irrespective of the loss actually suffered. The purpose of the parties in fixing a sum is to facilitate recovery of damages without the difficulty and expense of proving actual damage."
[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Appendix 2 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Case No: A3/2011/0909 [/FONT][/FONT]


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MANCHESTER MERCANTILE COURT HHJ HEGARTY Q.C. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]17th October 2012 [/FONT][/FONT]




B e f o r e :


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]LORD JUSTICE LAWS LORD JUSTICE TOULSON and SIR ROBIN JACOB [/FONT][/FONT]____________________


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Between: PARKINGEYE LIMITED [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Claimant/ Respondent [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]- and - [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]SOMERFIELD STORES LIMITED [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Defendant/ Appellant [/FONT][/FONT]


Clive FREEDMAN Q.C. and Andrew GRANTHAM (instructed by Pannone LLP) for the Respondents Hearing date: 25 July 2012 [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]____________________ [/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]



[/FONT]

[/FONT]Sir Robin Jacob [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](giving the first judgment at the invitation of Laws LJ): [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]1. This appeal is by Somerfield from one aspect only of the judgment dated 18[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]th [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]March 2011 of HHJ Hegarty QC sitting as a High Court Judge in Manchester. Mr Michael Fealy appeared for the appellants, Somerfield and Mr Clive Freedman QC and Mr Andrew Grantham for the respondents, ParkingEye. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT][/FONT]




The Facts and Background




[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]2. The parties entered into a contract dated 19[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]th [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]August 2005 with a commencement date of 1[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]st [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]September 2005. It was for the provision by ParkingEye of an automated monitoring and control system to some of the car parks owned or operated by Somerfield as adjuncts to its supermarkets. The system read and recorded the vehicle registration numbers and times of entry and departure of vehicles using the car park. The system could thus determine how long a vehicle was parked. [/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

3. As is common with supermarkets, customers are given a certain amount of free parking time. Under the ParkingEye scheme, after that had expired, a charge was imposed. The Judge found that sufficient notice of the charges was given to create a contract between the motorist and Somerfield whereby the motorist was contractually bound to pay Somerfield the charges of which notice was given if he or she overstayed.


4. The ParkingEye system was designed to catch those who overstayed and induce them to pay the charges. The names and addresses of the owners of overstaying vehicles were, using the registration number, obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. ParkingEye would then send a letter of demand for the charge. If no payment or response was received, a second, third and even fourth letter in stronger and stronger terms would be sent.


5. The basic charge was £75, reduced to £37.50 if paid within 14 days of the "Penalty Ticket," i.e. the first letter. This amount the Judge held not to be a penalty and thus enforceable as against the motorist. If payment was not made within a specified time the charge increased to £135 which the Judge held was probably a penalty and thus unenforceable.


[/FONT]

[/FONT]The bit that I have underlined was highlighted, it then went on for a further 20 pages about the case, this was an appendix that CP Plus attached supposedly in support of their case.


If anyone wants a copy PM me
Kind regards,

cheeseballs104

Please please could someone help advise me on what to write to POPLA appealing against a Parking eye charge given to me for wrongfully parking at a Retail Park in Chelmsford in February. I parked there from 8.30pm till 11.20pm and never had a clue that the 2hr parking rule applied after shopping hours and only parked there as it was very dark that time of night, I was alone and wanted to park in a well lit carpark for my own safety (Im female). There was a recent sexual attack near the area and friends advised me to be careful. There is a carpark situation nearby but the lighting there is considerably less efficient.
Have I got any grounds to win this appeal as I do feel that me assuming that parking was free after shopping hours was okay and probably weakens any case. Im furthermore rubbish at writing letters and again Ive a feeling to win these appeals being good with literature very much help. Any advice is gratefully received. Thank you.

bod1467

Own thread has subsequently been created, before anyone adds the comment.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4979941

Coupon-mad

Slightly unusual case won against CEL!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=28846

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=28847

From this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=89220&st=0&gopid=964908&#entry964908

Slightly alarming that the Assessor was prepared to believe it was a contractual fee for allowing parking. He just decided that the witness statement sussed the lie and blew the 'contractual fee' out of the water!

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Slightly unusual case won against CEL!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=28846

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=28847

From this thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=89220&st=0&gopid=964908&#entry964908

Slightly alarming that the Assessor was prepared to believe it was a contractual fee for allowing parking. He just decided that the witness statement sussed the lie and blew the 'contractual fee' out of the water!

I notice there wasn't a 'Signage' appeal point. Now that would have required CEL to provide photos of the signage at that site. Would have been interesting to see whether 'contractual fee' was included on the sign? Or are they just manipulating words in a vain attempt to overcome GPEOL? Maybe some of these 'manipulations' will hoodwink the less experienced Assessor?

Computersaysno

Love it...the assessor uses the PPC's own 'twist' [it's a charge not a breach] to stuff them good and proper.


Karma.

BDEye

Just dropping in to say thanks to everyone who has compiled all the various sources of information and advice on this forum - just had my POPLA appeal results back today. I won

Possibly worth noting that I only appealed on GPEOL grounds (I didn't include any other points) and this was enough to get me a win!