POPLA Decisions

ithitthefan

Hi,

Just to let you know that my appeal was allowed based on insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Thanks to everyone for the excellent advice and help.

janesr1

Yesterday I received some good news, POPLA allowed my appeal.

Kernow Parking Solutions (KPS) (Operator)
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.
Christopher Adamson
Assessor

Thanks to all on MSE forum for their advice very much appreciated.
:T:T:T:T:T:T

PoolieFritz

I learned on Friday that my appeal was upheld by POPLA, what a result! A huge thanks to all concerned in helping me to reach this conclusion, namely: Coupon-mad, Umkomaas, Stroma, da-rule, Redx & bod1467 - your help has been invaluable. :beer: :j

The appeal letter is as follows:

PoolieFritz (Appellant)
-v-
Park Direct UK Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number # arising out of the presence at Cross Court, High Wycombe, 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

The operator issued parking charge notice number # arising out of the presence at Cross Court, High Wycombe, of a vehicle with registration mark #.
The operator recorded that the vehicle was stopping/ waiting where it was prohibited to do so.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal for the reason set out below.

The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent 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 by themselves as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as office rent, parking attendant equipment costs and membership fees which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss, as this is not a loss resulting from 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.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the burden shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. I find that the operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Up yours, Park Direct UK!

Umkomaas

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 office rent, parking attendant equipment costs and membership fees which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss, as this is not a loss resulting from 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.

Which, in other words means, they don't have a frickin' clue what they are talking about, have no understanding of contract law, are chancers and are hoping (with no idea of what this stuff is all about) that a naive law student will somehow fall for their BS.

How embarrassing that a 'professional' organisation has absolutely no idea what they are doing in the context of PoFA, contract law, UTCCR, BPA CoP et al, yet are pursuing cases all set in the context of the above.

Oh dear .....

Three cheers for POPLA

WrathMage

Thanks to everyone here (especially Coupon Mad), I found out today i won my appeal at POPLA against Parking Eye (despite their bluster about winning a vast majority of cases etc etc). Here is what the assessor said (made me chuckle):

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.
Christopher Adamson
Assessor

So, if I read that right, PE couldn't even be bothered to contest the appeal, and just let it time out. Good one guys.

bod1467

That's PE's current modus operandi ... what we call PSDSU. (Parking Scüm Didn't Show Up).

RealLancashire

My POPLA appeal has been upheld.

It was Parking Eye of Chorley for overstaying at a Morrisons.

Basically hit them with GPEOL etc.

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 Assesor.

Another Parking Eye no show.

markmas

Thanks for the information about POPLA appeals. I appealed on a number of grounds, I won my case on GPEOL grounds alone too:

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
is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. However, the operator has not produced a
breakdown of costs incurred directly as a result of the appellant’s alleged
breach. Therefore, in consideration of all the evidence before me, I am not
satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden and proved that the
parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Custard_Pie

Umkomaas wrote: »

Which, in other words means, they don't have a frickin' clue what they are talking about, have no understanding of contract law, are chancers and are hoping (with no idea of what this stuff is all about) that a naive law student will somehow fall for their BS.

How embarrassing that a 'professional' organisation has absolutely no idea what they are doing in the context of PoFA, contract law, UTCCR, BPA CoP et al, yet are pursuing cases all set in the context of the above.

Oh dear .....

Three cheers for POPLA

Not long now though until the fall-out of the Cambridge test case filters through to PoPLA and we start to see refusals based upon it. All the above were accepted as penalty remedy to enable the poor ickle PPC to continue to operate.

Fergie76

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Not long now though until the fall-out of the Cambridge test case filters through to PoPLA and we start to see refusals based upon it. All the above were accepted as penalty remedy to enable the poor ickle PPC to continue to operate.

Surely, that's just mitigation as to why the charge is so high and we all know POPLA don't accept mitigation... :rotfl: