POPLA Decisions

Shagger

It took a while (was supposed to be decided on 22nd September) but was worth the wait :j

******* (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******** arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark *******.
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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

harni2013

Redx wrote: »

#1450 was APCOA , Birmingham

and yet another win here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5017415

Harlesden Plaza 'LCP' = London Car Parks' - Burger King

More on this one

LCP Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of the presence at Harlesden Plaza Car Park, Brent, on xx/2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xx
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.
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At xxxx on the xxx 2014, a vehicle with registration mark xxxx was recorded exiting the Harlesden Plaza Car Park, Brent after a stay of 24 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued for failing to purchase parking time.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions applicable to the site state that the car park is a paid car park. The terms and conditions are displayed on several signs throughout the parking area and as the Appellant had failed to purchase parking time, he was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.
The Appellant’s case is that:
a) The Notice to Keeper was not given in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
b) The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
c) Therevenuesharingbusinessmodelsuggestsprofitsratherthanlosses.
d) The ANPR at the site is inaccurate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Operator does not dispute that the charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means that the charge should represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions. The Appellant has stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and the onus is then on the Operator to show that the charge is representative of the losses incurred as a result of the breach. In this case, although the Operator has stated that the charge has been endorsed as a ‘reasonable upper level of charging across the industry;;’ the Operator has failed to provide a breakdown of the losses incurred by the breach and on balance, I am not satisfied that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre estimate of loss.
The Operator has additionally stated that the charge is commercially justified. In cases I have seen from the higher courts, it is clear that the charge cannot be commercially justified if the primary purpose of the charge is to deter a breach.


Where the charge represents damages, the amount of the charge is required to be compensatory rather than punitive; with the goal of placing the parties in the position they would have been in, had the contract been performed. In this case, the primary purpose of the charge is to prevent vehicles from parking without purchasing parking time. This is to deter a breach of the terms and conditions and I am consequently not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified. The Operator has not demonstrated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss or commercially justified and I therefore have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the charge does not amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

docnumbers

MET didn't even bother putting forward a defence. Thanks to everyone on this forum -
The operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach occurred , nor any evidence that shows what the parking conditions were. I have no option but to allow the appeal.

It's a carbon copy of shaggers above, and was even meant to be decided on the same day, but late.

Kayne

Exactly as the above from docnumbers.

Due to be heard on 23rd Sept and got my decision today.

09 October 2014
(Appellant)
-v-
MET Parking Services Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXX arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

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.

09 October 2014

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

---

Massive thank you to Coupon-Mad and all the others that put effort into the guides and answered any of my posts to get this cancelled. You guys and girls are complete stars and I am greatful for everything you do to help all motorists fight the PPC's

Link to my original thread on the whole thing

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5012887

PNE_CHA

Me v Liverpool John Lennon Airport

Thanks to this and a couple of other forums for all their help!!

Here's the steps I took:

1: Reply to VCS using the template in the newbies section of this website. You will then receive a response from VCS which includes a code which then enables you to take the next step which is an appeal to POPLA. Remember you do not need to name the driver. They will probably send you a letter to say that in order to proceed then they need the name of the driver. This seems to be an automatic email. Don't respond to this as they will still process your appeal.

2: Send your appeal to POPLA using another template in the newbies section (maybe tweak a little to suit your specific case).

3: You will then receive an email full of evidence including a breakdown of costs, images, cctv footage, images of signs and arial shots of airport etc. Don't let this worry you.

4: Once I received this email I sent a reply to POPLA using some of the wording that I found on recent successful appeals. Basically every appeal that seems to win is about the 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Here's the wording I used:

I have looked through all the evidence provided by VCS.

Please could you take the following into consideration before making your final judgment, as this is in direct response to the evidence they have provided:

In regards to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, the operator has stated that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.

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.

The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.

Once such a loss is shown, actual 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, an 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 I feel the charge notice is invalid.

5: I won the case and this was the reply from POPLA:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xx xxxxxx the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant used their vehicle for stopping or waiting in an area where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force. There is photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also photographic evidence which shows the appellant’s vehicle in an area
where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force. 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. Whilst I appreciate that the operator’s breakdown of costs does reflect losses incurred in relation to the appeal process, there is no reflection of any initial losses incurred. I find that the operator has not shown that by stopping or waiting in an area where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force, the
appellant at that point caused a loss to the operator or the landowner. The operator has only shown that they incurred the loss as a result of the appeals process after issuing the parking charge notice. In order for a charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has to show that they at first have incurred an initial loss. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Don't give up and good luck.

freddie2

Just received email from POPLA , appeal has been successful....thanks for your help all!

Decision as follows;

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in an area that was not a designated parking area and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on 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 decided to allow 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

Westie123

Hi,
My husband received a parking ticket from Excel (Peel Centre - Stockport) yesterday. He came to pick me up with no intention to park. I was held up at the tills in store so he drove round and round and round again waiting for me to appear. When I did come out it then took us over 10 minutes to get out of the place (Saturday afternoon.) The parking ticket shows photos of our car entering and leaving and states that a ticket was not purchased for our registration. Does this mean there is a maximum number of minutes allowed to enter, pick me up and leave.
I have been reading this thread but am completely confused as to where I start.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks.

Computersaysno

Have you read the sticky at the top of this forum???


read it, and if you're still confused [unlikely as it's a brilliant walkthrough] then start your own thread.


HANWE

Westie123

Hi Computersaysno
Sorry to be really thick but what is a "sticky".
Thanks:o

Coupon-mad

Wow you have made 45 posts and not sussed yet, about a sticky thread at the top (permanently 'stuck-to-the-top' info thread on every forum)? The ones with 'STICKY' next to the title - same as on any forum - not just MSE.

Use the Forum Jump to get to page one of the forum and off this thread which is just about final decisions (you won't need this thread until you win at POPLA!). Please don't ask what/where the 'Forum Jump' is because it's here on this page at least twice! Get to page one and read the NEWBIES FAQs thread first.