POPLA Decisions

Brokir

Thanks to all the advice on the Forum I have just won my appeal 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.


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Shehla Pirwany


[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Assessor

StEtts75

Gemini Parking Solutions have cancelled our charge before the appeals process completed. Therefore, appeal goes to us anyway.

Anhunedd

Care Parking / Anchor Security didn't bother to defend my appeal - it's taken months to sort this one - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4880703 - but ends with the standard POPLA "no evidence" result, of which there are many copies posted here.

Pity - my appeal letter was chock full of things that I'd like to see them try to defend. Up until the appeal, they were very adamant on all of them that they were right. They even tried to deny my right to a POPLA appeal by arguing I didn't appeal with 28 days (of the ticket... not the demand I received as a keeper) - I had to get the BPA to force them to issue me with an appeal code.

I'm going to take this one further with a claim for time wasted - any good examples to check out?

Thanks to everyone for all the good advice on here so far.

Coupon-mad

Anhunedd wrote: »

I'm going to take this one further with a claim for time wasted - any good examples to check out?

Thanks to everyone for all the good advice on here so far.

Read this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66659212#Comment_66659212

and maybe send a pm to Gertysingh.


HTH

kixxykat

I've just had notification I have won my appeal against parking eye too, thanks Coupon-mad for checking my appeal.

sparkyfrodo

Just had my appeal decision come through. I cannot thank the members of this forum enough for their advice, support and above all genuine grit for enabling all of this information to exist and allow common sense to win for a change.

Details of decision below:
14 October 2014
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
XXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Peel Centre- Stockport, on 16 March 2014, 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.
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
The operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Peel Centre- Stockport, on 16 March 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid ticket/ permit.
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 notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator has not justified that the amount of the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the burden shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. I find that the operator has not discharged this burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Bender000

Thanks to all the people on this forum. !!!!!!!!!!!!!IN YOUR FACE EXCEL PARKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Here is the complete thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5038254

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at Peel Centre, Stockport, on XX June 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXXX.

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 (“the Terms”) are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit that the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to display a valid pay and display ticket and is therefore 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. However, I reject this submission for the following reasons;

i) A pre-estimate of loss should only include losses which the Operator reasonably expects to incur as a result of the particular breach the Appellant is alleged to have committed;

ii) The costs for the ‘2nd Stage Process’ are not properly included in the pre-estimate because appellants are only entitled to make representation to the Operator once and so the Operator cannot submit that they expect to incur costs for responding to ‘further representations’. These costs would not naturally flow from the alleged breach and so I must disregard the total of £32.92 from the total;

iii) The costs for the ‘debt recovery process’ are also not properly included in this case. It is not the case that the Operator can reasonably expect, as a matter of course, the sums due not to be paid by an Appellant. It is by no means certain, or even inherently likely, that the debt recovery action suggested by the Operator in its pre-estimate will be necessary. Therefore, I must disregard the total of £14.94 from the pre-estimate.

iv) The total pre-estimate, after the above deductions, amounts to
£75.96. I do not find that this amount substantially reflects the parking charge amount of £100.

Therefore, I find the charge to be a penalty and unenforceable.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Ricky Powell

Assessor

ampersand

Well done sf.
re:
'for enabling all of this information to exist and allow common sense to win for a change.'
-let's just remember they're being beaten on points of Law. That's what they hope recipients of their unenforceable invoices DON'T learn.

'Common sense' would mean these bounty hunters didn't exist.
#
Well done you, too, bender - interesting to see R.Powell doing sums and finding they don't add up. A good one to include/adapt in future Appeals:-)

sparkyfrodo

@ampersand

Very true! I think it's ridiculous that I had to resort to points of law to not be penalised for buying a P&D ticket in the first place (just wrong reg). A "Common Sense" company would have stopped pursuing as soon as I presented it to them in the first appeal.

@Bender

Very happy to see the Peel Centre beaten twice in one day! I've already started looking more closely at who runs specific car parks I visit and will be very sure to avoid any car park run by Excel in the future. In the height of my anger, I considered building a mobile app that would alert you whenever you were parking in one of their car parks, then automatically suggest nearby alternatives...

greciansecfc

Just wanted to say that I won an appeal back in June against gemini parking solutions. Although my main point was genuine pre estimate of loss, the appeal was allowed on the basis of my appeal to the ppc wheb I alleged that they didn't have a contract with the land owner to issue tickets. They didn't produce the contract so it went no further. Sweet. Will put the letter on here this week.
Thanks for all the help.