POPLA Decisions

Jessietodd

Thanks to all for help on this - Newcastle Airport appeal success!!
Reply from POPLA below.


The Appellantappealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessorhas considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appealbe allowed.

The Assessor’sreasons are as set out.

The Operatorshould now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.





Reasons forthe Assessor’s Determination

The Operatorissued parking charge notice number ****** arising out of the presence atNewcastle Airport, of a vehicle with registration mark ******* for parking in ano stopping zone.

It is theOperator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no stopping zoneand this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out onsignage at the site.

The Appellanthas made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the onesubmission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking chargeamount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

As theAppellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimateof loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator hasproduced a list of heads that they have to pay for in relation to managing thecar park, however, they have not provided a breakdown of how much they have topay for each head listed.

I have lookedat all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis thatthe Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount is a genuinepre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly,this appeal must be allowed.

Custard_Pie

Umkomaas wrote: »

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.

Totally agree. PPC's have been for Months now attacking BPA over GPEOL. They will no doubt use the Cambridge test case as a levy to try about get GPEOL judgments ruled in their favour. We need to be forarmed with a response to this inevitably.
Don't say you haven't been warned when there is a sudden refusal of PoPLA cases based on GPEOL alone. I for one went in with the full deck of every point known to man.

fviajero

This Forum wins again. THANKS ALL.
:T

My threat: http : // forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4937410


29 May 2014
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx
arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration
mark xxxx.

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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

bod1467

Another Parking Eye PSDSU.

jeanie49

Popla appeal won ljl airport
I have just received email I won the appeal against PCN issued at John Lennon Airport.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a PCN. However, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that stopping on the roadway did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any 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.

HUGE THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!!

jeanie49

APPEAL WON. MANY MANY THANKS TO ALL HELP!


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for stopping in a no- stopping area. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in compliance with the advertised terms which stated “Restricted Zone, No Stopping at Any Time, Strictly no parking, stopping or waiting on ... roadways at any time”. The Operator’s employee recorded the vehicle on CCTV stopping in a no-stopping area. The Operator produced a Pre-Estimate of Loss Statement in support of its case.
The Appellant disputes that the PCN was properly issued. Amongst other grounds, it is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the economic loss caused by the alleged breach. The Appellant submits that the amount is unjustified.
The Operator accepts that its parking charge represents damages for breach of the parking contract. It submits that the amount of the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as “we incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated Terms & Conditions”. The Statement specifies various heads of loss.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breach of the contract in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Any consequential loss incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the PCN and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be recovered.
The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a PCN. However, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that stopping on the roadway did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any 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.
Matthew Shaw
Assessor

trisontana

"It appears that stopping on the roadway did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss"

That sums up very neatly why the whole PPC business model is based on a lie.

ramenkid

Won appeal vs Parking eye

Letter from POPLA as below：

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx/xxxxxx 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.



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.

XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Assessor

stevew48

I won at POPLA:j Many thanks to all who provided help and guidance.
The decision of POPLA is provided below :

29 May 2014
Reference *********
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Stevew48 (Appellant)
-v-
UKCPS Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******* arising out of the presence at Winwick Street Warrington, of a vehicle with registration mark *********.
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 ***** on the ********, the operative observed a **** with registration mark ******** parked at Winwick Street, Warrington. A parking charge notice was issued for parking without a valid permit or authority.
The operator’s case is that the terms and conditions at the site require a permit to be displayed. The signage is placed unambiguously throughout the car park and therefore as a permit was not displayed in the appellant’s vehicle, she had parked in contravention of the terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that there is a lack of BPA compliant signage at the site and the charge amounts to a penalty as it is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. The appellant additionally states that one of the signs on site refers to the charge as a ‘penalty,’ the notice to keeper was not properly issued and the operator has failed to show that they have a contract in place with the landowner that grants them the authority to issue parking charge notices.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the operator has provided photographs of a number of different signs at the site. One of the signs states permit holders only and the other sign states pay and display. The breach referred to in the operator’s evidence and the parking charge notice is parking without displaying a valid permit. Although the signage appears to indicate that an area of the car park has a pay and display requirement, it is for the operator to show that the appellant breached the condition referred to on the parking charge notice.
The charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means that the amount of the charge should represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions.
In order for consequential losses to arise from the breach, there has to be an initial loss incurred. Although the operator states that the initial loss is the cost of the traffic warden; I am not satisfied that this represents an initial loss, as the operator would have been in the same position had they not issued the parking charge notice. On a balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that they incurred an initial loss as a result of the appellant’s failure to display a valid permit and consequential losses can therefore not flow from the breach. As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the appellant.


3 29 May 2014
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.



Thanks once again especially to Coupon Mad et al for templates etc keep up the excellent work

trisontana

So, according to UKCPS's twisted logic, if nobody breaks their rules then the "warden" doesn't get paid any wage.