POPLA Decisions

bazster

One also suspects that had the BPA CoP stated that "losses will normally vary between £0.00 and about £5.00" then the BPA would have been finished!

trisontana

The assessor was Chris Adamson

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

Of course this is all down to the BPA and their stupid £100 suggestion. The only reason they chose that figure was that it matched that asked for by councils. One thing they forgot is that the council figure is nothing to do with loss, it's a figure laid down in the statutory parking order. On the other hand a private parking ticket is all to do with loss. It's like trying to compare apples to oranges.

The council figure is designed as a penalty to deter people from e.g. parking on double yellow lines. Aligning private parking charges with council penalty charges highlights that these are indeed penalties & thus unenforceable under contract law.

Custard_Pie

nigelbb wrote: »

The council figure is designed as a penalty to deter people from e.g. parking on double yellow lines. Aligning private parking charges with council penalty charges highlights that these are indeed penalties & thus unenforceable under contract law.

PPC must be genuinely running scared of going to POPLA. Then again if 70% of people pay up anyway I wouldn't even bother chasing at POPLA if it was me until the 70% dropped to an unacceptable level.

trisontana

bazster wrote: »

One also suspects that had the BPA CoP stated that "losses will normally vary between £0.00 and about £5.00" then the BPA would have been finished!

Technically it should be losses suffered by the landowner and not the PPC. The whole PPC "business model" is founded on this lie.

bazster

Another defeat for PE at POPLA is being reported on PePiPoo. Will monitor to see if details are forthcoming.

Keep it up PE, you are riding for a very, very heavy fall.

nigelbb

Custard_Pie wrote: »

PPC must be genuinely running scared of going to POPLA. Then again if 70% of people pay up anyway I wouldn't even bother chasing at POPLA if it was me until the 70% dropped to an unacceptable level.

About 50% pay up without any chasing at all so some small PPCs don't even bother with debt collectors & solicitors letters they just stick tickets on cars & sit back while the cash rolls in.

Large operations like ParkingEye are running a protection racket so need to keep up a general level of fear & intimidation so frightening people with debt collectors, solicitors letters & court is all part of the modus operandi.

Fergie76

trisontana wrote: »

Technically it should be losses suffered by the landowner and not the PPC. The whole PPC "business model" is founded on this lie.

Does this then mean that if PPC's then charged the Landowner £100 per ticket, then Landowner could justifiably count that as a loss?

trisontana

That's been tried by a company called ANPR who claim that each time a motorist breaks their rules then ANPR are "in breech" of the contract with the landowner and ANPR have to pay the landowner £100, which they then try to claim from the motorist. Complete hogwash of course. Anyway what the landowner agrees to pay the PPC has nothing to do with the motorist. And they can't be held responsible for those payments.

Parking-Prankster

Another win on Operator submission bearing no resemblance to a serious evidence pack (signage)

This appeal was submitted April 6th, acknowledged April 10th, scheduled for 14 May and actually completed today, 16 July. I consider a two month day unacceptable, so have raised a formal complaint with POPLA and London Councils.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 12 March 2013, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 28 February 2013 the vehicle with registration mark CST U£27 was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Main Car Park for 7 hours 49 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 4 hours.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions are displayed at the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced and state that there is a 4 hour maximum stay. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued.
The Appellant made various representations, stating that he does not believe he has entered into a contract with the Operator, whether actual or implied, written or verbally, or by notice in the form of signs. The Appellant submits that the map produced by the Operator does not include a key or labels, and does not show the position of any signs apart from one titled “Main Sign”. The Appellant submits that there are 2 other entrances, but that according to the map there are no other signs situated at these locations. The Appellant adds that there is a large parking area shaded blue, but that there are no markings to indicate that there are any signs in this area. The Appellant further submits that the photographs of signs produced do not include any information as to where they are situated, and therefore do not add anything to the case.

The Operator rejected the representations, as stated in the notice of rejection they sent, because the parking charge notice was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme. The Operator produced images that appear to show the vehicle entering the site at 07.49 on 28 February 2013 and exiting at 14.32 the same day. The Operator produced photographs of some of the signs in the area, which state that the maximum stay is 4 hours. A map of the site has also been enclosed. However, as the Appellant has stated, there is no key, although it appears that the green circles indicate trees and the orange circles indicate the location of signs. The blue shaded area mentioned by the Appellant is an area marked “parking spaces”, however there are no orange circles or other indication that any signs are displayed in this area.

Having carefully considered the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that the terms and conditions were clearly displayed throughout the site. As the Appellant submits that there was no contract between the parties, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Shona Watson

Full details here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/elvis-walks-free-map-department-fails.html