POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Good result buddy, glad to be able to help.

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

One would assume that any other charge at this location would be the same - a PENALTY. Wrong, unless you find the right form of words ...... the utterly perverse world of private parking

mrs_n

Hi


Received this from POPLA regarding our appeal against APCOA for a ticket at Birmingham Airport:


The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX 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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor


A Big Thank You to you all for your advice given. We could not have done it without you. We really appreciate it. I will be telling everyone I know about this process and about your forums. :T:D

Supersaint13

Hi,

I recently submitted an appeal to POPLA against a "fine" I got for dropping off at LJLA, and have been succesful! Many thanks to all who have contributed to these threads outlining the strategies to use.

Issued by VCSL, Appeal decision made by Aurela Qerimi

I know that VCSL - the issuing body - have now changed to a different appeals agency, which seems to be more inclined to reject appeals, but for the sake of hopefully giving some relevant info on why my appeal was upheld, here's a verbatim copy of the reason provided by POPLA for upholding the appeal, and which should hold true no matter which body looks at it:

"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 23 August 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX 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 parking is permitted at any time. The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed to be stationary at 07:49 on the airport approach roads, which have been designed as a red route where stopping is prohibited at any time. They have provided photographic images to demonstrate this point and a genuine pre-estimate report to support their case.

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 parking charge notice is excessive and not 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."

Hope this helps someone!

Coupon-mad

CEL lost on no GPEOL:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91115&st=80&gopid=1024730&#entry1024730

As always!

Snaefell

I have now received my POPLA appeal response for a PCN from CEL (Civil Enforcement).

Success!!

Thanks to Coupon-mad, Umkomaas, and Dee140157 for your advice and guidance. This site has been a great help to me and many others in ensuring these companies do not get away with this so called 'business model'.


Please find the response from POPLA below:



PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700

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

Reference XXXXXXXXXX
always quote in any communication with POPLA

---

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)

---

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Neighbourhood Retail Park, on DD/MM/CCYY, 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 not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site for longer than the maximum stay period. This was detected by the operator’s ANPR system, causing a parking charge notice to be issued.

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

The operator rejected these representations, stating that the charge was consideration so did not have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and in any case was calculated by reference to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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 the activities of the driver of the vehicle. 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.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

XXXXXXXX XXXXX
Assessor

boxy123

Just to like to thank everyone who contributed, especially Coupon Mad.
I've won both of my car parking appeals at POPLA. In my case 2 PCNs had been issued - BA02-dropping off/picking up outside a designated parking area at Birmingham airport - see below.

"The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark xxxxx.
Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.
You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator".

Lloyd12

Hi all

POPLA have allowed this appeal made against Napier Parking. If you are also battling Mr J de Savary and his Napier cronies, please be aware that this is not a typical Napier case. In most cases, Napier own the land the car park is situated on, as well as the car parks often being Pay and Display (Willen Lake, for example). In this case, it is much easier for Napier to argue GPEOL.

This case was permit parking outside a private residence, land that Napier do not own. The car was parked in a space for which a permit had been purchased by the leasehold owner of the flat - it just hadn't been placed in view of Napier's minion at 7.30am on a quiet Saturday morning.

Napier undid themselves with their evidence pack - they provided a breakdown of costs in what they saw as justification for the £95 charge and made two significant mistakes

1) they included debt recovery, legal advice, and other costs associated with the case, which are after the POPLA stage and are therefore not valid in justifying costs caused by the parking event 2) they included the POPLA fee, which is not allowed.

So if you are fighting Napier, be pedantic with regards to reading their evidence pack, and especially their calculations.

Massive thanks to those who adivsed on the original thread, and especially to coupon-mad, whose advice throughout the case is the reason this has been won. :T

I will post the appeal itself later, not got it with me at the moment.

(Appellant)
-v-
Napier Parking Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxxxx, on xxxxxxxxxxx, 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

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

The appellant raised many grounds of appeal; however I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Appellants are not expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact a 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.

Once a parking charge notice is shown to represent damages, i.e. compensation for the breach of the car park’s terms and conditions, then the parking charge must reflect a pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the operator as a result of that breach. The onus is on the operator to show this, in particular by providing a cost break down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator rejected the representations made by the appellant. With regard to the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator accepted that the parking charge was liquidated damages and provided an itemised breakdown of the loss suffered.
However, the break down provided by the operator contains a number of costs that cannot be properly taken into account. The costs for debt recovery, legal advice, and any other costs associated with the case proceeding to the County Court cannot be taken into account as not all parking charge notices will go to this stage and it is beyond the POPLA appeal stage.

Further, the cost for the case to go to POPLA (£32.40 – inclusive of VAT) cannot be properly taken into account. As a matter of policy the POPLA scheme is designed to be free to motorists. Thus, the parking charge notice cannot be said to reflect a fee which motorists are not meant to incur. In addition, the cost of bringing the case to POPLA is too remote - it would not be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator.

Consequently, the revised pre-estimate, absent of the costs which cannot be taken into account, stands at substantially lower than the parking charge.

Therefore, 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, this appeal must be allowed.
Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Coupon-mad

Glad to see that posted here, Lloyd12 - it was a satisfying outcome. After Napier winning a couple of cases I know about, using the same flawed GPEOL 'sums' as in your case (and even after a complaint to R Reeve where he missed the point several times) we finally got a decent POPLA Assessor to spot the holes in the argument. Your case was also a tad easier as there was 'no initial loss' whereas at Willen Lakes etc,. Napier can point to 40p or some such tiny amount being owed, then use that as leverage to pull the wool over Farah's eyes...again.

Make no mistake, Napier are trying hard to win at POPLA - maybe too hard. Raises them to the attention of the media especially when they charge disabled people unfairly and make no attempt to offer them the other alternative (at Willen Lakes) of a concessionary Annual Disabled Driver's Permit.

Shirleysharpeyes

Many thanks for all the help - I received this from POPLA regarding our appeal against the bully boys at Kernow Parking Solutions (KPS) for a ticket at Mousehole, Cornwall car park:


The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX 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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

Two weeks later I received a debt recovery letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd which I am ignoring.

Bertie129

Thanks to all here for their help. This appeal against Topher Ltd (Homebase car park) was allowed on grounds of NGPEOL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4995163

POPLA decision:
http://s7.postimg.org/531c3u49n/page_001_redacted.jpg
http://s28.postimg.org/jwmde73l9/page_002_redacted.jpg