POPLA Decisions

bazster

Computersaysno wrote: »

What are you on about??

I think that Dee is saying it's good to see an appeal granted on something other than no GPEOL or PSDSU.

Dee140157

That made me laugh!
But I will be kind and explain
The two main reasons for success are:
1) it was not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) Parking S... Didn't Show Up

This appeal was granted for a different reason, I.e. The parking operator did not produce a copy of the contract between them and the landowner to show that they have the authority to issue PCNs.

HTH

Guys_Dad

Post #1200 on this thread

Computersaysno wrote: »

1 GPEOL and 1 PSDSU...nice result.

Short term memory problems, maybe??

smiffy88

25 July 2014

......(Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number.........
arising out of a presence on private land, 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.

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

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

Many thanks Peeps for your help!!

Umkomaas

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

Here we go again - the evidence of both parties considered, when PSDSU. How does that work? :cool:

ModelTenant

Another victory with Popla, once again it was not a genuine pre estimate of loss. These cowboys really have some nerve.

GrubbyGirl_2

Got my email today to say the appeal has been allowed against UK Parking Patrol Office. This is what I got

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at Pitney Bowes, on 15 May 2014, 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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at Pitney Bowes, on 15 May 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXX for parking without clearly displaying a valid permit.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid permit and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

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 not addressed the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

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.

jamie9090

Success vs ParkingEye...

Decision:Allowed

Assessor:Christopher Adamson

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.

Computersaysno

Dee140157 wrote: »

That made me laugh!
But I will be kind and explain
The two main reasons for success are:
1) it was not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) Parking S... Didn't Show Up

This appeal was granted for a different reason, I.e. The parking operator did not produce a copy of the contract between them and the landowner to show that they have the authority to issue PCNs.

HTH

Confusion reigns!!!


I knew what they meant, I was trying to point out that 'The parking operator did not produce a copy of the contract' was actually PSDSU ie they didn't respond to the appeal.


Sorry about that.

Computersaysno

I've been away for a while and it's interesting to see that there's nothing new in the world of PPC's.