POPLA Decisions

tonyflarity

Appeal Won YEY

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.

Huge big thanks to everyone on this forum who gives up their own time to help people like me beat these parasitic companies who try to extort ridiculous amounts of money from hard working people!

Thanks again everyone, you're all awesome!

Culceth

Hi Everyone,

My first post here though this one of a number of sites I visited after getting my PCN. Below is the result of my Popla appeal.

My appeal was allowed but I feel frustrated, to use a football analogy, I have won 1-0, but feel as if I have had at least one perfectly good goal disallowed by the referee.

17 October 2014
Reference 0412204834
always quote in any communication with POPLA
(Appellant)
-vANPR Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number F1841SG arising out of the presence at The Precinct Lodge Drive, Culcheth

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 a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘leaving site without entering premises’. The operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The appellant has made a number of submissions. However, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I will be allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The onus is on the operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the onus is on the operator to produce some explanation or evidence that tips the balance in its favour.

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial losswhich may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the preestimate of loss.

In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where there is no obvious initial loss, it is for the operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing the pre-estimate of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the appellant’s breach. The operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.

The operator has submitted a break down of its likely losses following the issue of the parking charge notice. There is nothing in this break down to show that there was any initial loss. The operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been caused initially by the appellant leaving the parking site without entering the premises.

Therefore, having carefully considered all of the evidence before me, I cannot find that the operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Amy Riley
Assessor

Umkomaas

Therefore, having carefully considered all of the evidence before me, I cannot find that the operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Amy Riley
Assessor

Amy's got one right!

Maybe she's been relegated to dealing with Trev's BS GPEOL breakdown. Perhaps Henry won't let her loose again on anything slightly more complicated.

PS - well done OP, thanks for posting your result.

Ryan_Bryan

Umkomaas wrote: »

Amy's got one right!

Maybe she's been relegated to dealing with Trev's BS GPEOL breakdown. Perhaps Henry won't let her loose again on anything slightly more complicated.

PS - well done OP, thanks for posting your result.

Quick question to all those wiser than me. Saw Amy Riley's name mentioned in a few recent threads as having turned down an appeal. If, as I guess, she failed to allow it on GPEOL can it be challenged?

Coupon-mad

The case v PPS, has been challenged with POPLA's Service Manager based on procedural errors by POPLA. Amy missed a fair number of appeal points and appeared to transcribe the specifically written 'PPS version' of a 'tariff or GPEOL, which ever it was has been re-written so they cannot change it to suit' point made by the appellant, into different/simpler words, thus missing the actual appeal point.

torturerforfun

:T:j:T:j:T:T:j:T:j:T:j:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T::j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j:T:j

SUCCESS STORY

I have now received confirmation from both Popla and parking eye that i will not need to pay either of the two PCN's i received on the same day, so its another success story, thank you soooooo much to all the money saving experts, really appreciate all of your help!!

Nick


:rotfl::beer::rotfl::beer::rotfl::beer::rotfl::beer::rotfl::beer::rotfl::beer::rotfl::beer::rotfl:

D1074

The result of my POPLA appeal against Parking Eye arrived today....


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

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.
Amber Ahmed Assessor


So massive thanks to this forum! I just followed the appeal templates, then the POPLA template and bingo!


So to anyone worrying what to do, follow the advice within the forum, use the templates and look forward to a positive result!

trisontana

PE chicken out once again. You would have thought that Rachel, with all her legal training, would have produced a robust case for her company. It just shows that they are just flying kites hoping the motorist will cave in. When they don't , like most bullies when you stand up to them, PE run away.

cyberbird

Culceth wrote: »

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial losswhich may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the preestimate of loss.

I'm not sure that many people understand what a pre-estimate of loss is. The Assessor seems to have a strange view of things.

The PEOL has to be calculated in advance of printing out the signs. Her idea that there has to be an initial loss before the other amounts can be taken into account is wrong. The PEOL just needs to be a calculation made which is a reasonable estimate of losses if the contract is breached.

crazy_gino

xx October 2014
Reference xxxxxxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxx arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxxxxx
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.
xx 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