POPLA Decisions

Crafty_Col

My wife has today been advised of the outcome of her appeal against a ticket issued by Parking Eye for an Aldi car park:

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 everyone on MSE - another success :T

powerglue

Another to add to the list of victories thanks to information from these fantastic forums.

I won on the lack of standing/authority point!

thanks to everyone


(Appellant)
-v-
JAS Parking Solutions (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.
2 24 June 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by leaving the vehicle in the car park before or after using either
premises.
The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised
by him was that the Operator has a lack of standing/authority from the
landowner.
Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking
company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the
landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement.
This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the
point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator
should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a
submission that it has no authority.
The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the
land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking
charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the
Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the
effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to
issue a parking charge notice.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sakib Chowdhury

Hurkle

Thanks to the solid advice in the sticky threads on this forum, I've had my first ever PCN cancelled following the POPLA appeal.

Details:
24 June 2014
Reference xxxxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Dear Sir or Madam
Mr Xxxxxxxxx(Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number Xxxxxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark .
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

peptic

(Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx arising out of the presence at Newcastle Airport, on April 25 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.

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 02:17 p.m. on April 25 2014, the Appellant’s vehicle was observed at Newcastle Airport.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by dropping off/picking up in a restricted area.

The Appellant made representations stating their case. One of the points raised by the Appellant was the Operator’s contract with the landowner.
The Appellant states amongst other points that, they believe the Operator do not have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Dee140157

Well done on successful appeal.

Two from Sakib Chowdhury in the same day on authority of land owner. He must have been bored with GPEOL and gone for a different appeal point this week.

Umkomaas

Dee140157 wrote: »

Well done on successful appeal.

Two from Sakib Chowdhury in the same day on authority of land owner. He must have been bored with GPEOL and gone for a different appeal point this week.

Interesting observation, and one that can be quoted alongside GPEOL (a la Chris Adamson) to make POPLA appeals even more watertight.

Sakib Chowdhury - a name to remember. Take a bow SC, your name could well feature writ large in future

Coupon-mad

A pepipoo case won at POPLA v CPMS (Car Park Management Services):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90362

''CPMS did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that it had the authority to issue charge notices at this site.''

Redx

a winner against JAS for B&M Stockport , not a gpeol

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4965532

not sure why they bother going to popla when people appeal , nor any of the others that continually fail like Highview etc either

Redx

win against vcs here at doncaster airport (robin hood)

not a gpeol

farah ahmad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4973183

yet another "why do they bother ?"

surfboy1

I assisted a family member with a POPLA appeal from the Heritage Retail Park Crewe.


Another win on gpeol!


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]On x May 201x, 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 there was a maximum stay of 3 hours at the parking site, which the appellant overstayed. 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, registration number xxxxx, entered the site at 12:20 and exited at x, a total stay of x hours and x minutes.
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. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. However, the operator has not provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim. I am unable to see how the parking charge amount has been calculated. In addition, the operator has included "membership costs" and "IT systems". I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct result of the appellant’s breach. As the operator has not produced a breakdown of costs, I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in relation to other heads of claim listed by the operator. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.
In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
[/FONT][/FONT]Farah Ahmad