POPLA Decisions

Birmingham_Motorist

Hi All,

Just wanted to share that I followed the advice on here and have just heard from POPLA that APCOA parking have cancelled their "PCN" for drop off / pick up at Birmingham Airport. It seems that they didn't want the adjudicator to consider my arguments - while I also referenced GPEOL, I majored on their inability to rely on POFA on airport land to come after me as keeper, and then their other breaches of the POFA regulations.

Many thanks for the help and reassurance!

Terry2805

Hi. Just wanted to thank the posters here and share my POPLA response. I am a Blue Badge holder but forgot to display it whilst parked in a railway car park.
The land is pirated by APCOA and they gave me an £85 penalty charge. I gave them my badge number and explained I had forgot due to medication I take but they were not interested and pushed for the penalty to be payed.
I appealed to POPLA on the grounds that as it is free to park in the disabled bays for Blue Badge holders there could be no loss of income as I am a blue badge holder.
I also appealed that under the consumers act 1999 where a contract is not individually negotiated and is detrimental to the consumer it is void.
POPLA informed me today that APCOA had cancelled the parking charge notice.
Thanks everyone and if anyone reading this is worried about a parking charge don't be. Just follow the advice.
Terry

zeberdy

Hi All just wanted to say many thanks to those that offered help and guidance that enabled me to receive an email today from POPLA saying that my appeal against APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd who issued my vehicle with a PCN at Birmingham Airport had been upheld.

I submitted this on the 6th October via email and received the reply today 4th November Your appeal has been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator Officer sent by Richard Reeve Service Manager.

I plan to split what I would have had to pay between two charities that seem a much better cause than the mercenary parking operators.

:j:j:j

Zeberdy

Edna_Basher

For the record, POPLA newbie Amy Riley has this week upheld an appeal I'd submitted regarding a parking charge from G24 Ltd.

Although the appeal included the usual points on GPEOL, signage, no authority etc., Amy has honed in on the GPEOL point. Mind you, G24 made her life easy by not bothering to submit any breakdown of their GPEOL calculations; they had clearly already moved their attentions over to their new PPC-friendly home in IPC-land.

Here's Amy's adjudication:

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: ‘exceeded the maximum duration of stay permitted’. 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 of £100 is not a genuine pre-estimate of the operator’s 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 operator has acknowledged that the appellant believes that the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; however, the operator has not provided any explanation or evidence, such as a list with a break down of costs, to show that the parking charge notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of its loss. I am only able to make a decision based on the evidence before me. It is for the operator to provide all of its evidence to POPLA in order to justify the £100 parking notice.

Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Amy Riley
Assessor

Umkomaas

Maybe Henry Michael's had a word in her shell-like? Let's see how she develops with a bit of ongoing mentoring (or is that monitoring?).

Henry, you do the mentoring; leave the monitoring to us. :rotfl:

pbsimon

Decision: Allowed against Highview Parking Ltd

Assessor: Ricky Powell

Date: 07 November 2014

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 exceeding the maximum permitted stay 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. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Where such a submission is made, there is a burden on the Operator, and not the driver, to provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss which details how they calculated the parking charge amount. It does not need to be particularly detailed or amount to exactly the charge amount because it is simply an estimate. The estimate provided by the Operator seems to consist largely of consequential losses they would expect to incur as a result of a contravention of the Terms.

For such losses to be recoverable, the Operator must show an initial loss which needed to be pursued. This is simple where there was, for example, a failure to pay a tariff to park. However, in cases such as the present one an initial loss is not demonstrably clear and the Operator must set it out in their pre-estimate of loss. Without an initial loss, the costs incurred by the issue of the parking charge notice cannot be considered to have been caused by the driver’s contravention of the Terms of parking. This is because the Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge not been issued.

I am not satisfied there has been an initial loss in this case. The Operator has submitted that the initial loss is the average spend per customer at the retail park. However, they have not provided evidence as to how this amount was calculated and therefore I must disregard it from the pre-estimate of loss. The other losses, which I find to have been properly included in the pre-estimate, would only be suffered as a result of pursuing an initial loss. Therefore, I find that there is no initial loss and that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Ricky Powell
Assessor

trisontana

Of course that silly point about "average spend" would only apply if every space in the car-park had been full. Even then it's a very dodgy argument, especially as the defendant had overstayed. During that extra time they may have spent even more in the store than if they had left bang on time.

bazster

How does a supposed loss of custom to a retailer translate into a loss for Highview?

Umkomaas

bazster wrote: »

How does a supposed loss of custom to a retailer translate into a loss for Highview?

Perhaps they're on a similar 'deal' to the one conjured up by owd Trev!

4stars

And yet another successful POPLA appeal. Many thanks for all who have helped.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xx July 2014 the operator’s employee issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant raised more than one ground of appeal; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant stated that the parking charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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.

The operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Link:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5020837