POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

''there's a guy works down the chipshop, swears he's Elvis'' LEGENDARY APPEALS! :T

''apolocalpye''!

''1. The appellant notes that he much prefers the Operator’s spelling of ‘apocalypse’ to his own.'' :rotfl:

bazster

Fabulous stuff Pranky, I am truly LOL! You've given us a bit of a headache because Highview is bending over backwards not to give out POPLA codes now, but hey, it's worth it!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Highview keep getting spurred into action...

Umkomaas

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Highview keep getting spurred into action...

........ after being spanked ......... again.

Well done Prankster (Elvis, Radioactive Spiderman, Zombie Zealot, Apolocalpye Warrior).

One of the first bookmarks I open each day to look at the latest PP blog - essential reading, keep it up. :T

Aaron_Aadvark

PPC: Parking Eye

Result: Allowed

Reported: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81312 #3

Reason: Pre-estimate of loss/Signage ("failure to comply" in conditions.

Assessor: Amber Ahmed

"


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]On 27 March 2013 the Operator issued a parking charge notice to a with vehicle registration mark . The Operator recorded that the vehicle was parked at Welcome Break Charnock Richard (South) car park for 2 hours and 47 minutes on 21 March 2013. This exceeding the free parking time of 2 hours. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued because the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked for longer than permitted. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly advertised terms of parking which stated that the site is private land and those parking may park for 2 hours, and thereafter must pay the applicable parking tariffs. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Appellant does not dispute the Operator’s case that they were parked for longer than permitted. It is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge far exceeds the cost to the land owner for the period over which their vehicle was parked at the site. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a parking charge notice would be issued for "failure to comply" with the parking conditions. This wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator submitted that they believe that the charge is "fair and reasonable and in accordance to the British Parking Association’s guidelines". This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]I must allow the appeal on this ground. [/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Accordingly, it does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues. [/FONT]


[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]Amber Ahmed


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Assessor[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT]
"

trisontana

Exactly, how can a charge of a £100 for overstaying by 47 minutes ever be justified. Please get real Parking Eye! Of course that stupid BPA £100 "guideline" is half the trouble.

Umkomaas

Another 'unenforceable parking charge' is found against you PE. So how many of these have you collected money on? Sooner or later this is going to end up like the PPI misselling scandal.

And, quite frankly, I doubt the PCN ambulance chasers will be going after the PPCs; there's much more mileage (and cash) available from the Principal, the likes of Aldi (worth mentioning on their FB page anyone?), Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury, etc. And they won't be able to wind their businesses up like the PPCs have done previously to avoid CCJs.

At least Somerfield saw the light early and will largely be immune from much of this inevitable action.

Aaron_Aadvark

The index in post #2 has been updated to post #138.

The lack of a contract issue is a solid winner (apart from 2 disputed results from one time posters).

Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss is now an established winner after a couple of early losses.

Signage and unclear payment requirements have also produced a few wins.

However cases based upon, "fallen permits" have been unsuccessful.

Similarly, appeals based upon "mitigating circumstances" have been generally unsuccessful.

Computersaysno

And of course, ignore everything [except genuine court papers] is still at 100% successful.

Wonder why we don't suggest it more often.

Stroma

Computersaysno wrote: »

And of course, ignore everything [except genuine court papers] is still at 100% successful.

Wonder why we don't suggest it more often.

To be fair that is still valid advice in Scotland and NI , but it does depend on the parking company for elsewhere. I still say ignore is a valid course of action providing the OP is given the pros and cons of each option

1) pay them
2) ignore them
3) challenge them