POPLA Decisions

LM9

Highlighting is mine as I really liked that bit in their "evidence" pack, along with the photo of the car park "at night" which clearly showed white fluffy clouds and brilliant blue skies.

(Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at <place>, on <date>, of a vehicle with registration mark <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
On <DATE> a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark <REG>. It was recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket or permit.

The appellant made many representations; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The implication of this submission is that the parking charge is in fact punitive.

The operator rejected the representations made by the appellant. With regard to the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator argued that the parking charge was liquidated damages. However, the operator stated that the onus was on the appellant to produce evidence as to why it did not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Further, the operator stated that if the evidence provided by them was insufficient they should be contacted before the appeal was decided. No break down of how they quantified the pre-estimate of loss was provided.

In order to show that the parking charge is not punitive, the parking charge should be shown to reflect a pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the operator as a result of that breach. The onus is on the operator to show this, in particular by providing a cost break down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Contrary to the assertion of the operator, it is unnecessary for the appellant to explain why they believe the charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. All the appellant needs to do is raise the issue and it is then for the operator to prove that the charge reflects the loss. The operator must demonstrate this with reference to an itemised cost break down of the loss. Moreover, it is for the operator to provide all the relevant evidence to POPLA for this appeal to be decided, rather than for POPLA to contact the operator if their evidence is believed to be insufficient.

Consequently, I must decide this appeal on the evidence provided to me. The onus is on the operator to provide a break down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss. As they have failed to do so the appeal must be decided in favour of the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Nadesh Karunairetnam

Assessor

cpr1986

I did this appeal for my boss having successfully appealed against Parking Eye myself recently, with assistance from the forum.

Appeal allowed

"Reasons:-

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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor"



This was an appeal based on:-

Punitive charge, not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
No contractual authority
ANPR accuracy and compliance
No contract between parking eye and driver
Unfair terms of contract
(Mitigating circumstances - please see post 1416)

The ticket for £100.00 was issued following an overstay of 31 minutes.

At least I should be in the boss's good books now!

ampersand

Good news for boss[worth a rise:-)]and well done on both successes.

-but inclusion of 'Mitigating circumstances' may ring alarm bells, unless some Disability legislation, for example, was invoked.

Can you expand a little on that please? As sure as God made little apples, some later poster will plead they saw 'Mitigating circumstances' accepted by POPLA 'on the Forum'.

cpr1986

Thanks!

Mitigating circumstances - a pay and display ticket was purchased which was simply advertised as 'all day,' it later transpired that this expired at 5pm regardless of what time it was purchased. I said the term 'all day' would seem to suggest a full 12 hour period, or at least until 6pm because in reality most people don't finish work at 5pm these days.

I think I had already mentioned this under one of the other headings but wanted to go in to a bit more detail and have a general moan about it.

Coupon-mad

Three updates from pepipoo:


Athena didn't bother to turn up for the POPLA party:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92264&st=20&start=20


Nor did MET, the party poopers!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91202&st=60&start=60


and ParkingEye always avoid responding to our appeals, another one:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92153&st=20&start=20

PSDSU

ampersand

All good cpr86 - any chance of editing, to bracket '[mitigating circumstances]' after 'unfair terms of contract'and 'see #1416' .

People, esp. panicky people, do not read, take things in properly at first blush.

We're glad they even find the Forum!

That would help nail those circs in successful Appeal terms.

cpr1986

ampersand wrote: »

All good cpr86 - any chance of editing to bracket'mitigating circumstances]' after 'unfair terms of contract'and 'see #1416' .

People, esp. panicky people, do not read, take things in properly at first blush.

We're glad they even find the Forum!

That would help nail those circs in successful Appeal terms.

All done, hope that's ok I don't want to mislead people!

morltepaworl

APPEAL ALLOWED Against Excel Parking


GROUNDS Non genuine pre estimate of loss


ASSESSOR Aurela Qermi


The driver had put the full amount required into the ticket machine. The ticket machine supplied a ticket 50p short of the requirement. A short note to that effect was left in the windscreen alongside the ticket. The attendant, nevertheless, went ahead and issued a charge notice.


INFURIATED, a short web search led me to this site and the rest is history. A BIG THANK YOU to all the team, Cheers

trisontana

I wonder if the "attendant" was on commission?

Grayth

Hi folks,


My first post on here but I have spent a frankly sad amount of time on here reading since I got done by Excel Parking at the Peel Centre in Stockport. I gather I'm not the first! I even paid and got a ticket, must have been a problem with their ANPR.


My POPLA result arrived today and was upheld so I'd like to thank the countless people on here who helped, especially those that took the time to construct the draft appeal letters. You're making life so much easier for so many people.


Decision below for anyone interested.


Cheers all,


G


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


At 12:20 on 26 June 2014, a vehicle with registration mark ##@@### was recorded by an ANPR system entering the car park at Peel Centre (Stockport). The car was recorded leaving at 13:07, without having displayed a valid pay and display ticket/permit. A parking charge notice was issued.
The appellant made many representations; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that the parking charge is in fact punitive.


The operator rejected the representations made by the appellant. With regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator argued that the parking charge was liquidated damages. However, the operator stated that the onus was on the appellant to produce evidence as to why it did not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Further, the operator stated that if the evidence provided by them was insufficient they should be contacted. No break down of how they quantified the pre-estimate of loss was provided.


In order to show that the parking charge is not punitive, the parking charge should be shown to reflect a pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the operator as a result of that breach. The onus is on the operator to show this, in particular by providing a cost break down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Contrary to the assertion of the operator, it is unnecessary for the appellant to explain why they believe the charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. All the appellant needs to do is raise the issue and it is then for the operator to prove that the charge reflects the loss. The operator must demonstrate this with reference to an itemised cost break down of the loss.
Moreover, it is for the operator to provide all the relevant evidence to POPLA for this appeal to be decided, rather than for POPLA to contact the operator if their evidence is believed to be insufficient.


Consequently, I must decide this appeal on the evidence provided to me. As stated, the onus is on the operator to provide a break down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss. As they have failed to do so, on this occasion the appeal must be decided in favour of the appellant.


Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.


Nadesh Karunairetnam


Assessor