POPLA Decisions

xxdaix

Win!!!
even after PPS submited more evidence regarding GEOPL..

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
Two appeals made by the appellant are presently before me. Since the same issues arise in respect of both, similar decisions have been issued for both appeals. This is the second in time.
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and that a parking charge notice was issued to it for failing to display a valid ticket or permit as required.
The appellant has made a number of representations, but it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing this appeal, which is that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected these representations, stating in regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, that the charge does represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
Considering all the evidence before me, I note that the operator has provided additional submissions intended to clarify the meaning of their previous statements regarding their pre-estimate of loss. In these additional submissions the operator states that; “before the completed evidence pack is then sent to POPLA and the complainant, a Company Director then reviews the appeal and the evidence pack.” This means that the Director is engaging in quality control or management functions, which are not activities which can properly be included in a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the charge. As it is not possible to ascertain how much of the sum is derived from the improperly included activities, the entire £71.65 claimed under this head must be disallowed. This leaves a sum of £27.68, which is insufficient for a charge of £100 to be representative of it. This means that the charge cannot be found to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and cannot therefore be found to be enforceable.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor


And Case number 2 same appeal.


xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Didcot Station Car Park, on xx April 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx.
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
Two appeals made by the appellant are presently before me. Since the same issues arise in respect of both, similar decisions have been issued for both appeals. This is the first in time.
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and that a parking charge notice was issued to it for failing to display a valid ticket or permit as required.
The appellant has made a number of representations, but it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing this appeal, which is that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected these representations, stating in regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue that the charge does represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
Considering all the evidence before me, I note that the operator has provided additional submissions intended to clarify the meaning of their previous statements regarding their pre-estimate of loss. In these additional submissions the operator states that; “before the completed evidence pack is then sent to POPLA and the complainant, a Company Director then reviews the appeal and the evidence pack.” This means that the Director is engaging in quality control or management functions, which are not activities which can properly be included in a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the charge. As it is not possible to ascertain how much of the sum is derived from the improperly included activities, the entire £71.65 claimed under this head must be disallowed. This leaves a sum of £27.68, which is insufficient for a charge of £100 to be representative of it. This means that the charge cannot be found to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and cannot therefore be found to be enforceable.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor



Thanks to everyone on MSE for giving me the confidence to fight this.

chrome436

Another notification email with a winning popla appeal against parking eye. Very pleased and once again many thanks to coupon mad and others on this forum.

Pencisely

thanks for all the help from the forum, my POPLA appeal against Parking Eye has been upheld -

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 371211/482745 arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark CF13RUV.

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.
6062264104 2 16 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.

wigannwuk

Ive posted in my thread but ill put here ..long story short - i have 5 PCN,s from VCS - i got my popla pack which contained someone elses personal details - ive reported VCS to all relevant bodies for breach 1998 Data protection act.
POPLA'a decision below :-

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.

If that isnt massively embarrassing to VCS then i dont know what will be!!!

ampersand

Fantastic news and just the sort of encouragement newbies need.
Well done WWUK.

modesty46

Popla appeal won v Excel parking.
many thanks for all the help.
. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket/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 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The implication of this submission is that the parking charge is in fact punitive.
Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator submitted a breakdown of the losses they incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which cannot be taken into account as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure for dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the appellant can re-appeal to the operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because it appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

modesty46

I did have two tickets and Excel only appeal the above one, they didn't even bother with the other one.

115vaw

It took me 4 hours to pluck up the courage to open the email

Another WIN against Parking Eye :j:j:j:beer::beer::beer::beer:

Many thanks to everyone who helped my through the process and gave spot-on advice. :T:T:T

Feel like the world has been lifted off my shoulders :A

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

16 October 2014
Reference XXXXXXXXXX
always quote in any communication with POPLA

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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX/XXXXXX 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.

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.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

~~~~~
Think that's a PSDSU!!

wigannwuk

115vaw wrote: »

It took me 4 hours to pluck up the courage to open the email

Another WIN against Parking Eye :j:j:j:beer::beer::beer::beer:

Many thanks to everyone who helped my through the process and gave spot-on advice. :T:T:T

Feel like the world has been lifted off my shoulders :A

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

16 October 2014
Reference XXXXXXXXXX
always quote in any communication with POPLA

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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX/XXXXXX 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.

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.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

~~~~~
Think that's a PSDSU!!

I didnt realise what a scourge these companies are till i recieved my 5 PCN's ( see my thread) Its outrageous the stress they are causing people. Im really going to go after VCS over the Code of Conduct breach

nursejj

Received my email from popla today and I've won my appeal against VCS.
Thankyou so much to everyone for all the support and advice. Thankyou to couponmad for looking over my appeal before I sent it.
This forum is amazing & I've been telling everyone about it.