POPLA Decisions

trisontana

This "prove it's not a GPEOL" statement to motorists is yet another pathetic attempt by this bunch of cowboys to try and win the un-winnable. As the assessor ruled it's not up to the motorist, it's up to VCS/Excel and all their so-called clever experts to prove it. And they can't . Pathetic!

Supertaz81

I just won my appeal vs Liverpool JLA. Here is the response I got.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 9 July 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark *******. The operator recorded that the appellant stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.
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. 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

spider123456

appeal won against parking eye...



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

my original thread is below incase anybody wants to use it,
thanks again

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5026285&highlight=[/url]

katepower

Another appeal won thanks to the advice I have received here...


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.

Dustykitten

Won my Appeal against JAS at a Staples on the grounds that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I can't copy the extract from the pdf but it doesn't say much more other than the usual burden is on the operator to show an initial loss.

Many thanks to those who helped me prepare my appeal

Link to my thread for reference

Coupon-mad

JAS Parking Solutions at Staples again - this time they over-redacted the 'landowner contract' rendering it useless for POPLA evidence:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86969&st=100&gopid=1006521&#entry1006521

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 XXXXXX, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXX for not using car park providers premises at all.

The Operators’s case is that the car park in question is only for customers whilst using the premises. The Operator says that the driver was seen parking their vehicle, using the store and headed towards the town. They enclosed a copy of a redacted contract with the land owners agent with all the persons names, addresses and site names being covered due to the information being confidential.

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 Operator does not have a contract with the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice of rejection they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by not using car park providers premises at all.

The onus is on the Operator to sufficiently address the Appellant’s points and to prove its case on balance of probabilities. The Operator has provided a copy of the agreement they have with the landowners agent to show that they monitor and patrol the area and issue parking charge notices, however, the agreement appears to be redacted. I note the Operator states that certain information has been redacted due to confidentiality, nevertheless, I am unable to consider this agreement a valid one.

bobfleming

Hi everyone,

Just received our Popla result against a Parking Eye ticket and can happily say that the decision was upheld. I would like to thank all the people on here who helped along the way, especially those that took the time to read my appeal and offered their advice.


Reason for decision below for anyone interested.

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

Coupon-mad

And the same with Athena:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92093&st=0&p=1006734&#entry1006734

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.

HouseQuest

(Appellant) -v- Highview Parking Limited (Operator) 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 Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit that these clearly state that drivers are permitted to park for a maximum of 90 minutes. They submit that the Appellant parked for two hours and 18 minutes and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued. The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one of those grounds. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator submits that the charge does in fact represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Alternatively, the Operator submits that if the charge is not found to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it is nevertheless enforceable as it is commercially justified. Firstly, I reject the Operator’s submission that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A detailed breakdown of each head of loss will not always be required but the Operator must provide some explanation as to how it calculated the charge amount. I am not satisfied that the pre-estimate of loss supplied by the Operator reflects the charge issued. This is for the following reasons: a) The Operator has included in its pre-estimate costs for ‘overheads’. There is no further description given to explain what is meant by this phrase. However, in its ordinary usage, it would seem to indicate an ongoing business expense. This is not properly included in a pre-estimate of loss because the Operator can only recover losses which would flow directly from the Appellant’s alleged contravention. ‘Overheads’ are costs that would be incurred by the Operator even without the Appellant’s breach of the Terms. Therefore, I must disregard the amounts claimed for ‘overheads’; b) The costs for ‘overheads’ cannot be separated from the other costs in the heads of loss for both ‘Responding to Appeal’ and ‘Responding to POPLA Appeal’. This is because each cost has not been itemised and so cannot be individually identified. Therefore, I cannot subtract the costs for ‘overheads’ from the total losses and must disregard the entire amount claimed for these heads of loss. I now find the total of the pre-estimate to amount to £12.82. Consequently, I cannot find that the genuine pre-estimate of loss substantially reflects the parking charge issued. Secondly, I do not accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. There have been contradictory decisions from the County Court presented to POPLA, but in each case in the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, which is approved at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty: “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”. This supports the fundamental principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory: the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. The courts have been unwilling to uphold clauses designed to deter breach. The courts have departed from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss and recognised that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible. However, it remains the case that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case, it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter breaches of the terms of parking. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified. Given that the charge is not commercially justified, nor has it been shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I must find that it is not enforceable. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

modern_monkey

I made a appeal against Parking Eye ticket in Manchester that 'double dipped' my car. I couldn't produce visual evidence of my car being elsewhere during the ticket time, but I knew I had visited Tesco for a large shop (over £50) and the distance between home and Tesco was too long to carry items. I screen grabbed both of these. Appeal upheld.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the vehicle was detected by the operator’s ANPR
system entering the car park at 11:16 and exiting at 17:49. As the difference
between the times was larger than the 2 hour permitted free stay, a parking
charge notice was issued.
The appellant made representations, stating that he left the car park and
returned and that this was not detected by the operator’s ANPR system.
The operator state that this was not possible, and rejected the
representations.
Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant has
provided evidence, by producing an extract from his bank statement, that he
was at a Tesco store during part of the time the operator claims his vehicle
was parked in the car park. As the appellant has shown that the stores are
nearly 1.8 miles away from each other, I find on the balance of probabilities
that the appellant travelled to and from Tesco in the vehicle, meaning that
the vehicle cannot have been in the car park for the duration of the period
to operator alleges. As there is no way of knowing how long the appellant
was parked in the car park for each of the two times, I cannot find that it was
over 2 hours, so cannot find that a parking charge notice was validly incurred
by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.