POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

BDEye wrote: »

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!

Well done!! Which PPC please? Can you link/copy the decision words please?

ColliesCarer

Win against Athena/Lidl - not a GPEOL

Shepss wrote: »

In spite of my telling Athena in good time to forget POPLA as they'd already quashed the charge as above , it still went through. I won the appeal , this is set out below :-

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
[EMAIL="enquiries@popla.org.uk"]enquiries@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL]
www.popla.org.uk
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded


27 May 2014

Reference xxxxxxx

always quote in any communication with POPLA

xxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Athena ANPR Limited (Operator)




The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx arising out
of the presence at Lidl Ashford, on March 11 2014, of a vehicle with
registration mark xxxxxxxx

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.

2

27 May 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At 10:21, on March 11 2014, an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering Lidl Ashford.

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 charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

It appears from the signage produced by the Operator that the parking
charge represents a sum for specified damages, in other words
compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a
genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.

The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages,
and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s
submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

BDEye

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well done!! Which PPC please? Can you link/copy the decision words please?

Excel Parking at the Peel Centre!

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.


At 16:10 on the 15th February 2014, a vehicle with registration mark XXXX was recorded exiting the Peel Centre- Stockport after a stay of 37 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued for parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit.

The operator’s case is that the car park is a pay and display car park as stated on signage placed throughout the car park. Motorists are required to purchase a valid pay and display ticket within 15 minutes and the full registration mark must be entered when purchasing parking time. As the appellant had failed to purchase a valid pay and display ticket, he had contravened the parking terms and conditions.

The appellant’s case is that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss as it is punitive, excessive and unreasonable and does not represent the loss caused by the alleged breach of the parking contract.

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, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. The onus is then on the operator to show that the charge represents a genuine pre estimate of 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 without displaying a valid ticket. I am
consequently 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.

The very end mentions 'other issues'. There were no other issues raised, it seems that this is a stock response.

And thanks again for taking your time to create all the various help threads!

gamer375

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]On ** Month 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant stopped their vehicle in a no stopping area despite signage erected at the site to prohibit this. There is photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also evidence from the operator’s automatic number plate recognition system which shows the appellant’s vehicle stopped in a no stopping area.
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.
The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge amount reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process costs, which do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. 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. 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. Considering carefully all of the evidence before me, I find that, on this occasion the operator has not discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
[/FONT][/FONT]Farah Ahmad
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Assessor
[/FONT][/FONT]

Dee140157

Excellent news. It s good that we are seeing more and more assessors names to the Not GPEOL decisions.
I wonder how many assessors there are?

bod1467

Wasn't this one of the assessors who at first used to allow GPEoL rubbish from PPCs?

Computersaysno

bod1467 wrote: »

Wasn't this one of the assessors who at first used to allow GPEoL rubbish from PPCs?

You mean like here....


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4834407&highlight=farah+ahmad

bod1467

That's one of them - was there not at least one other?

Umkomaas

While POPLA Assessors are currently jumping at GPEOL submissions and (seemingly) ignoring any other, often relevant, points of appeal, sooner or later (especially in light of the PE Cambridge case), they may be pressurised by the BPA / PPCs / Kirk QC that GPEOL might be overcome with the right form of words.

It may be time to consider the various strata of PCNs and consider whether it might be prudent to examine focusing on other appeal points, and, with that in mind, whether we should add extra emphasis on Airport stop PCNs more in the context of 'not relevant land' and 'byelaws' than GPEOL. It might take a 'brave' motorist to take this on, but I do believe we need more strings to our bow than GPEOL, which has, of course, been a very good friend to us.

Computersaysno

'ANPR is inherently unreliable' was successful recently as a single point of appeal at GPEOL.


It also won at small claims recently.