POPLA Decisions

trisontana

So Excel's latest GPEOL statement is still found to be useless.

GHA

Thanks for everyone's help!

'The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number FCCXXXXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark X000XXX.

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.'

Full thread at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4969366.

Stampycat

Many thanks to those on this site who have provided advice; I have now received the decision notice and my appeal has been allowed.

The story:

My car was parked at the free and fantastically named Roaring Meg retail park in Stevenage a few months ago, and overstayed. The car park (I now know) has variable stay lengths depending on whether Stevenage FC are playing a home fixture or not. They were, although quite how you could tell is another matter (with due apologies to any Stevenage fans, I'm sure you are well supported for some games).

Usual procedure; correct letter etc from Parking Eye in correct timescales. £100 charge, reduced to £60 if done in 2 weeks. I almost paid up, but forgot in the two weeks, so did a quick google and found you guys...

First appeal to Parking Eye unsuccessful, their reply was accompanied by a thick envelope with lots of case law, presumably to put the frighteners on. Reading here, I saw that as standard procedure.

POPLA appeal duly submitted. I only cited GPEOL and inadequate signage in a one page letter which I shan't trouble you with.

Appeal Allowed:

"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."

Assessor: Shehla Pirwany


I take it from this that either ParkingEye are not sufficiently resourced (or possibly competent) to get their paperwork submitted in time, or, realised they were on to a loser and didn't bother.

Either way, great news for me, and a good indication that anyone can win (I never win anything!)

Thanks again everyone.

obitoo

Disappointingly they didn't put up a fight

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


I can't post a link to my original thread, but one unique point of my appeal was that 'Waiting is not Parking' - search for Radisson Blu

Dublindel

Just had email from POPLA stating that my appeal against APCOA at Luton Airport for stopping on road has been dismissed, in other words APCOA have cancelled. That's a hollow victory as I wanted it assessed.

Obj

Letter received yesterday letting my partner know that her appeal had been allowed. Many thanks to all who have helped.

Full thread here


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

Spring_Heeled_Jack

Thanks again, couldn't have done it without you! :beer:

Original thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4902219

(Appellant)

-v-

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number [PCN no.] arising out of the presence at SA1, Swansea, on [date], of a vehicle with registration mark [vehicle reg].

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 14:36 on the 10th January 2014, the operative observed a [car] with registration mark [vehicle reg] parked at SA1, Swansea. A parking charge notice was issued for parking without clearly displaying a valid ticket or permit.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions at the site clearly state that the car park is a pay and display car park. Although a pay and display ticket was displayed, it was upside down and partially obscured and was therefore not clearly displayed in accordance with the terms and conditions.

The Appellant’s case is that:

a) The Operator has not shown that they have the authority to issue parking charge notices.

b) There was no contract between the driver and the Operator, in light of the inadequate signage.

c) The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

d) The charge amounts to an unlawful penalty charge.

e) The Notice to Keeper failed to identify the creditor.

It is noted in this case that although the Operator has marked the documents referred to as confidential; these are the same documents that have been supplied by the Operator to the Appellant.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Operator has stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred and in the event that it is not a genuine pre estimate of loss, the charge is commercially justified.

The Operator has provided evidence to show that they incur costs of £166.69 but in order to meet with the requirements of the British Parking Association, the maximum charge that can be imposed is £100. Although the Operator has stated the final charge, they have failed to indicate how this charge was calculated. Although the Operator has explained costs that may be incurred, a number of the items referred to amount to general operating costs and would not appear to be substantially linked to the cost incurred as a result of the breach. In the absence of an explanation as to how the amount of the charge was reached, I am not satisfied that the Operator has provided sufficient evidence to show that the charge represents a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred.

If the charge is not found to amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss, the Operator has stated that the charge is commercially justified. The Operator has provided a number of cases in support of this submission. In cases I have seen from the higher courts and indeed the cases submitted by the Operator, it is clear that the charge cannot be commercially justified if the primary purpose of the charge is to deter a breach.

Where the charge represents damages, the amount of the charge is required to be compensatory rather than punitive; with the goal of placing the parties in the position they would have been in, had the contract been performed. In this case, the primary purpose of the charge is to prevent vehicles from parking without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket. This is to deter a breach of the terms and conditions and I am consequently not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified. The Operator has not demonstrated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss or commercially justified and I therefore have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the charge does not amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

trisontana

Once again, even after several attempts at redrafting their GPEOL statement VCS/Excell still can't seem to grasp the difference between ordinary operating costs and losses caused by a particular parking event.Of course, if they did get it right, they would be out of business.

parkingerror_2

All,


Many thanks for your help.


I won against CEL with the POPLA's assessor reasoning for her decision being exactly that as posted by Coupon-Mad in post 1250. I have not re-typed it here as the decision wording is exactly the same.


Note: I noticed a minor difference the paragraph about the offence ended with the sentence:


The operator recorded that payment was not made in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage.

spiny999

Just received email notification that appeal has been allowed.

Parking in Alberts St Car park in Birmingham. was against VCS although all signs and paperwork relate to excel. will hang onto my evidence and their pack in case anyone needs anything in future.

Thanks for everyones help, especially coupon's .

appeal allowed on no GPEOL redacted below

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.

As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-
estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator
has produced a list of heads that they have to pay for in managing the site,
however, they have not stated how much they have to pay for each head
listed and therefore, they have not justified their parking charge amount.

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

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.