POPLA Decisions

sd.

Thanks to all those that helped me with my appeal, especially coupon-mad and Dee.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was detected by the operator’s ANPR system staying on the site for longer than the 45 minute maximum stay allowance and that a parking charge notice was issued.
The appellant made a number of representations, but it is only necessary to deal with the submission that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected these representations, stating regarding the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue that that the charge was consideration, so did not need to be such a pre-estimate.
Considering all the evidence before me, I hold that the charge does not represent consideration, as the signage clearly states that the purpose of the charge is to deter abuse of the car park, which implies that permission is not given for staying beyond three hours. The operator’s attempt to provide for this finding by stating that the charge is a pre-estimate of loss in addition cannot succeed, as a genuine pre-estimate of loss can only be arrived at through a deliberate attempt to estimate the loss, an undertaking which is not compatible with the claim that the charge represents consideration. I am therefore required to find that the operator has failed to show that the charge is not an unenforceable penalty. As a result, I do not need to consider the appellant’s other points.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor

ampersand

I'd like to see the wording used by Amy Riley in any upheld Popla Appeal .
Anyone had one yet?

Ralph-y

Another win .... so many thanks to the many helpful board members!

24 October 2014


Reference xxxxxxxxx

always quote in any communication with POPLA


Mr Ralph xxxx (Appellant)

-v-

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number POPLA0xxxxxxx
arising out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, Liverpool, on 7
August 2014, 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

On 7 August 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark xxxxxx for stopping on a roadway where stopping is
prohibited.

The Operators’s case is that the site’s terms of parking state that the area in
question is a restricted zone and no stopping is permitted at any time. The
Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed to be stationary on
the airport approach roads, which have been designed as a red route where
stopping is prohibited at any time at 22:41.They have provided a genuine pre-
estimate report to support their submissions.



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 amount of the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.



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 stopping on a roadway where stopping is
prohibited. They have submitted a breakdown of the losses they incur 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 do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss 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 of 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 parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages and damages sought on this
particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate of loss.



Accordingly, I allow this appeal.



Aurela Qerimi

Assessor
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

so thanks again

Ralph:cool:

trisontana

Another black eye for Trev:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91180&st=20&start=20

24 October 2014

XXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
ANPR Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Dixon Court, on XXXXXXX, 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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in the car park and received a parking charge notice for failing to display a permit as required.

The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.

Considering the evidence before me, I find that, in the context of this arbitration, the operator bears the burden of showing on the balance of probabilities that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This is because there is no method to compel the operator to disclose relevant information which it, but not the appellant, possesses. In order that a correct decision is reached, it is necessary that this information is produced. I further 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. Once such a loss is shown, 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.

The payment under the contract which the operator states is their initial loss is not a valid initial loss, as the contract produced by the operator shows that the contract is not terminable upon a single breach of the terms of parking. This means that the loss is speculative, rather than being directly caused by the breach, so cannot be considered a valid initial loss. 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 the charge notice is invalid. Having found this, I am not required to consider any further issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor

sineapse

Highview parking

tekskin

Another Win! :-)

XX October 2014

always quote in any communication with POPLA

Kevin XXXXXX (Appellant)

-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising

out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Street, on XX XXX

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

On XX XXX 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for

being in breach of the parking terms and conditions.

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.

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not

represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the

operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves 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 do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss 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 of 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 parking

charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages

sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate

of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad

Assessor

peters56

Many thanks for the help from this forum and its members!

nn October 2014
Reference xxxxxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
xxxxxx xxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
CP Plus Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number nnnnnnnnnnnn arising out of the presence at Roadchef Strensham South, on nn July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xnnn xxx.
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
As the appellant does not admit to being the driver and no evidence that they were has been produced, the only method by which the appellant can be found to be liable for the parking charge is as the keeper. This requires that relevant requirements within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 be shown to have been complied with.
In this case, as the Notice to Keeper was not preceded by a notice to driver, the operator is required by paragraph 9(5) to issue a ‘Notice to Keeper’ which is received within 14 days after the end of the period of parking. The period of parking ended on nn July 2014 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on nn September 2014. The gap between these events is longer than 14 days, meaning that the operator has failed to demonstrate the required compliance. As a result, the appellant cannot be pursued as the keeper.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal and need not consider the appellant’s substantive case.
Christopher Monk
Assessor

5MINSALONE

Many thanks for all help listed on this site, today won the appeal decision enclosed below


xx October 2014

Reference xxxxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA

xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, on xx August 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.
xxxxxxx 27 October 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, on xx August 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

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 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator has responded by stating that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has provided a breakdown of the losses which they say that they have incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach.

I find that the operator has not shown that by stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited the appellant at that point caused a loss to themselves 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.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the operator has not shown that they have incurred an initial loss as a result of the appellant stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited, the charge sought is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Tyler_Du

And another win

Original thread :-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5030634

Assessor wrote:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On [date] the Operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with
registration mark [reg]. The Operator recorded that the vehicle failed to
park in a designated area.
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 parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the
alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss
which 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 any
pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a
failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is
for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its 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 detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge
notice. Whilst these heads of loss do not seem to include general operational
costs, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The
Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been
caused initially by the Appellant failing to park in a designated area.
Therefore, taking together 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.

djvorn

Thanks folks followed the advice in the forums and used one of the templates, and appealed successfully based on genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not going to be specific about the case or the costs which were considered to be genuinely linked to the notice as the ACPOA parking folks read these forums. Suffice to say I am pleased , I hate bullies which is what it feels like they are.