POPLA Decisions

JamersPad

I won my appeal against Corporate Services Parking Management Hereford.

POPLA's Decision:

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 20:04 on 29 May 2014, the operator’s employee observed the vehicle, registration mark *******, parked on The Black Lion property and not displaying a permit. The employee issued a parking charge notice and gathered photographic evidence. This is not disputed by the appellant.
The appellant made representations, stating that: the charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the signage was inadequate to create a contract, the operator had no right to enter into contracts in its own name in respect of the site, and required planning consent had not been shown.
The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine pre- estimate of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided a breakdown of figures.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, and initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the charge notice is invalid. Having found this, I am not required to consider any further issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor

Dee140157

Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, and initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

This phrase about the initial loss seems to be occurring more and more often for the GPEOL cases. I think should be used every time in appeals for eg residential permit cases as well as free car parks.

Coupon-mad

I have noticed Christopher Monk is a new assessor and he's the one that seems to seize upon 'no initial loss' so it's worth including in POPLA appeals in case your Assessor is him! Only relates to a free car park though or if a person has paid the P&D fee.

A paragraph to add about 'no initial loss' is in the 'How to win at POPLA' linked thread in the Newbies thread post #3 already.

widaja

15 August 2014

Reasons for the Assessor's Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at XXX, on 21 May 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX 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 the 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 allowed 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.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor

EverestRM

POPLA appeal allowed vs ParkingEye

"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.

Accodingly i have no option but to allow the appeal.

Shehla Pirwany

Assessor"

Thanks everyone!

CIMad

Appeal allowed vs Civil Enforcement Ltd


The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at Sportspace, on nn May 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark AB12ABC.

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 Sportspace, on , of a vehicle with registration mark . The operator recorded that the vehicle was not authorised to remain at the site for longer than 20 minutes.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator has responded by stating that the amount of the parking charge is a term of the contract and not an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. The operator has also provided a breakdown of the losses incurred by them if the amount of the parking charge notice is held to be an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. I find that it is not permissible for the operator to do this. This is because when a contract is formed the intention of the parties is fundamental. It is clear that the operator has intended the amount of the parking charge notice to be consideration and not damages.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, after objectively assessing the signage displayed at the site, I find that the signage does not mean that motorists may remain at the site for longer than 20 minutes when not authorised to do so provided that they pay £100, which would make the amount of the parking charge consideration. However, I do find that the signage means that remaining at the site for longer than 20 minutes when not authorised to do so is not permitted and that a parking charge of £100 will be issued to vehicles. Therefore, I find that the amount of the parking charge does represent damages for a breach of contract.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed

Assessor

grant_uk

Appeal allowed vs ParkingEye - August 26th 2014

Looks like Shehla's getting all ParkingEye's no shows to deal with.

"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"

Cheers Shehla

peteh1uk

Winner over Northamptonshire Parking Management :beer:


Appealed to NPM and they rejected it straight away, so when to 2nd stage appeal to POPLA using one of the templates and the ticket got cancelled within 2 days!


Appeal reasons:
1) The notice to keeper was sent outside the allotted 56 day time frame screen ticket issued 28.05.14 NTK issued 31.7.14 POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued and as registered keeper I cannot be held liable. 2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. In my appeal and for this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Northampton Parking Management has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100.00. 3) Proprietary Interest The driver does not believe that Northampton Parking Management has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Northampton Parking Management any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Northampton Parking Management lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge The driver believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Northampton Parking Management. The driver expects Northampton Parking Management to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code. 4) POPLA verification code Northampton Parking Management included the POPLA verification code within their rejection letter which has not allowed me the full 28 days to appeal in line with British Parking Associations code of practice. This code was generated 18.08.14 and my rejection letter was received 19.08.14.


We can confirm that we have cancelled parking notice 90XX18. No further action is required.

Warmest Regards


For and on Behalf of:



NPM


Thanks to all that helped :T

ktm1974

Appeal allowed vs UK Car Park Management Limited

Waterfront Business Park, Fleet

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

see <http://>forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4908276&highlight=waterfront for more info.

A big thank you to all who helped!
:beer:

Miss_Maggoo

Appeal allowed. parking eye at aldi free 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.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

Thanks to all on the forum who give such great advice.
On the plus side I no longer buy any of the crap that aldi sell.
Win allround.