POPLA Decisions

trisontana

minutesago wrote: »

I've been looking around the site, but wonder if some of the experts can help me.

I used some wording from the forum to appeal to CPM in August and have just recently received the four page reply on a letter dated 25 November 2014.

I wonder if anyone can help me with the points I should cover in the appeal letter to POPLA.

Could you please start your own thread. This one is reserved for POPLA decisions .

Coupon-mad

Why on earth would anyone post on 'POPLA Decisions' except to post a POPLA Decision?

jigwar

Win against Meteor (now part of Vinci).

Disabled person parking in train station parking bay but forgetting to display blue badge. Appeal though was allowed on basis of GPOL.

Details are in my parking appeal thread (sorry, not allowed to post links yet!)

Thanks

trisontana

This from PPP concerning an outfit called "Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd" on the campus of Penryn University Cornwall:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=94179&st=20&start=20

Post#33

No GPEOL because there was no initial loss.

CoreDefect

Decision: Allowed

Assessor: Nadesh Karunairetnam

Date: 4 December 2014

Reported: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5092036

Successful Grounds: No GPEOL

PPC: Vehicle Control Services (VCS)



04 December 2014

Reference xxxxx

always quote in any communication with POPLA

CoreDefect (Appellant)

v

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at MediaCity UK, on 22 July 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.

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 22 July 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum period permitted.

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 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.

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

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Nadesh Karunairetnam

sgtbanjo

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ####### arising out
of the presence at The XXXXX XXXX Inn, on 27 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.



Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 27 August 2014 the Operator’s employee issued a parking charge notice
to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX. The Operator’s employee
recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid pay and
display ticket.

The Appellant has at no point admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and
no evidence of this has been provided. Therefore in order for the Appellant to
be liable for the charge the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with.

In order for the Operator to be able to recover unpaid charges from the
registered keeper, four conditions must be met:

1) The first condition is that the Operator has the right to enforce against the
driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid charges, and the
Operator does not know the name and address of the driver.

In this case, it appears the driver of the vehicle parked without displaying a
valid pay and display ticket, and that the Operator does not know the name
and address of the driver. Accordingly, I find that the first condition is met.

2) The second condition is that: either a notice to driver in accordance with
paragraph 7 of the schedule, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance
with paragraph 8 is given; or, a notice to keeper in accordance with
paragraph 9 is given.

The Operator has produced a copy of the notice to driver which was
attached to the Appellant’s vehicle. Accordingly this notice to keeper must
meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 7 and 8.

As keeper liability is statutory, it is for the Operator to produce evidence that
all of the requirements laid out in the Act have ben met. Accordingly, copies
of all Notices relied on must be produced.

In this case, the Operator has failed to produce evidence of the Notice to
Keeper relied on, and so I am unable to find that the requirements laid out in
paragraph 8 of the Schedule have been met. Consequently, I must find that
the Operator has failed to show that the Appellant is liable as the keeper of
the vehicle.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the
Appellant was the driver of the car and so has not produced any evidence to
show that he is liable for the parking charge as either the driver or registered
keeper.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Turnip13

Another win, thanks to Coupon Mad and co.

The PPC was Local Parking Security Ltd, and here is the decision ....

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


On 19 September 2014 the operator’s employee issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark *******. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle was parked for longer than the period paid for.

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 no loss was suffered.

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 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.

The operator accepted that the parking charge is liquidated damages and therefore sought to justify the parking charge as reflecting a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

However, I am unable to accept the genuine pre-estimate provided as sufficient. The operator has stated that £11.50, out of an £85 parking charge, was spent for legal advice in this case. This represents a high proportion of the parking charge, such that I find, on this occasion; it cannot be justified and therefore cannot be taken into account. Consequently, the revised pre-estimate is 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, I allow the appeal.


Nadesh Karunairetnam

Assessor

BlackSpangle

As promised yesterday, text of the appeal determination against JAS:

Reasons for the Assessor's Determination

It is the Operator's case that a parking charge notice-was correctly issued, giving the reason as “Went into car park provider’s premises & then went elsewhere”. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

It is the Appellant's case that:

1. The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could have been caused by the alleged breach.
   
2. There was insufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of motorists.
   
3. The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.
   
4. The Operator failed to mitigate its loss.

The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator's loss, and so is not enforceable.

There is no dispute that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.

The Operator has submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss caused in every car park.

The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification. The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant's failure to use the premises. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, many of the items under these heads, and in particular the large sum for IT expenses are general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. Accordingly, I find that the charge does not substantially represent 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 in order to tip the balance in its favour.

In this case the Operator has not provided sufficient evidence as to why this charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case.

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.

Christopher Adamson Assessor

wannabeatem

thanks for the help with a successful appeal:beer:

me
-v-
LDK Security Group Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxx, on xxx May 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.
xxxxxxxx 15 December 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx, on xxx May 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx for parking without clearly displaying a valid permit.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid permit and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
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 amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in pursuing a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, however, there appears to be costs included for management, administration, stationery and printing which, I am not satisfied can properly be included in the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nozir Uddin
Assessor

Not_Scammed

As per my thread about this, here's another VCS failure to convince POPLA. :T



===================================


X Xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)

-v-

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

---

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Liverpool International Business Park, 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.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It does not appear to be in dispute that the appellant stopped their vehicle on the site in an area where stopping was not permitted. This was detected by the operator’s camera system, causing a parking charge notice to be issued.

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

The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine preestimate 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 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 ch 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. 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