POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

I generally like the jib of Christopher Monk, and Christopher Adamson; they both seem to have their heads firmly around this stuff, and definitely screwed on!

But why, oh why, are they not tackling the very clear LAW enshrined within PoFA 2012 - that airport land is not relevant land?

Who's guiding them to steer clear of this? Henry Michael - or our favourite, Pants on Fire Boy?

thegamecook

Thanks to all on here for info.

Result of appeal:

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


XX December 2014
Reference XXXXXXXXXX always quote in any communication with POPLA
XXX XXXXXXX (Appellant) -v Meteor Parking Limited (c/o Vinci Park) (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number
XXXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Leighton Buzzard Main, on XX September 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX 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
It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘failing to display a valid ticket or voucher’. 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 to tip the balance in its favour. 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 park in a correct bay. The operator has produced a list of costs; however, these appear to include general overhead costs, which are not losses consequential to the appellant’s breach. For example: ‘Erection and maintenance of the site signage, machines, etc. - £20.00’ and ‘Membership
and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA and ICO - £35.00’.

On balance, I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach.

Having carefully considered all of the evidence before me, I find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

XXX XXXXX
Assessor

digannio

Thanks to all who helped with the successful appeal, below, in which Premier Park Ltd didn't bother to send any evidence to POPLA. Must have been the easiest of all decisions to make.

The circumstances are a PCN notice was issued claiming £100 (£60 if paid early) for alleged overstay of 21 minutes in retail car park (ANPR) where there is free parking for two hours. Appeal was on the grounds of lack of standing from landowner, no genuine pre-estimate of loss, unfair, unreasonable and punitive, unreliable ANPR and failure to invoke keeper liability.

We will now be pursuing a complaint against the DVLA for flogging private and personal details to Premier when clearly there weren't reasonable grounds to do so. It will also go to the Information Commissioner.

Thanks again for the help on this excellent forum.




XXXX XXXXX (Appellant)

-v-

Premier Park Ltd (Operator)

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

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.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

Jaystoke

QueasyRider wrote: »

I won my POPLA case today. Hooray! Thanks to all on the forum for help and advice, it definitely worked for me.


Here's my original submission to the parking company:


To: CP Plus
PO Box 3573
Barnet
EN5 9QA


From: XXXXXX


Dear Sir or Madam


Notice Ref No: XXXXXXX


Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX


I am in receipt of your “Charge Notice” dated 17/07/2014 relating to the above vehicle parking at MOTO motorway services Knutsford South on 11/07/2014.


Having taken legal advice I believe this ticket to be unfairly issued and I will not be complying with your demand for payment.


According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £50 or £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner. According to the Moto website as at 28/07/2014, the parking charge for staying between 2 and 24 hours is £16.00.


Whilst I do not accept that the driver of the vehicle entered into a fair contract with Moto or CP Plus in failing to pay this amount at the time of the parking event, I am prepared to settle the matter by paying the £16.00 parking charge that the driver would have paid, had the full details of the contract been made clear at the time. Please therefore re-submit your invoice for this amount.


Yours sincerely XXXXXX


The above was rejected by the parking company; I appealed to POPLA on the grounds that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The evidence pack from the parking company included a break-down of costs (unfortunately it was sent to me as an image file which I can't copy and paste into here); the costs mostly related to the cost of administering the appeal! I sent this additional email to POPLA:


Dear Sirs


Verification Code: xxxxxx


(xxxxxx v CP Plus Limited)


With reference to the above case I note that that parking operator, CP Plus Limited, has now submitted an evidence pack. Within the pack they have itemised their losses in order to show that the parking charge (£100) is proportionate to their costs (£103.13).


I would like to point out that a significant proportion of these costs relate directly to defending the POPLA appeal itself (see table of costs on page 3 of the evidence pack – items marked as “Responding to Appeal” and “Responding to POPLA Appeal” amounting to a total of £82.81).


In my original representation to CP Plus Limited (please see section E of the evidence pack) I quite clearly offered to pay the £16 fee that I would have paid had I realised there was a 2 hour free-parking limit.


Had CP Plus Limited accepted this offer, I would not have needed to make an appeal to POPLA and CP PLus Limited would not have incurred the costs they claim are associated with the appeal.


I do not think it is fair and reasonable for CP Plus Limited to refuse my offer to pay which would, by their own admission, have substantially reduced their costs and then claim from me the costs they have incurred in defending an appeal that they themselves forced upon me!


Your sincerely
XXXXXX


The POPLA decision is as follows:




Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination




[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at MOTO Knutsford South, on 11 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX. [/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator recorded that the vehicle remained at the site for longer than 2 hours without purchasing a valid parking tariff. [/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]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 notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


The Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach. I find that a percentage of the amount comes from overhead costs.


Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that overhead costs are a general operating costs which would have been incurred whether or not the breach occurred and can consequently not fall within a genuine pre- estimate of loss, in this case, the Operator is claiming their overhead costs to be a loss. I find that this is not a loss incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the Operator has sufficiently shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by the Appellant’s breach.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


[/FONT][/FONT]Amber Ahmed


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Assessor
[/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]

Thanks again to this great forum for all the help! Good luck to those about to appeal!


Cheers.

Quite a risk in that saying that you offered to pay the £16 that you would have incurred had you known...suggests liability as the driver instead of just as the keeper!

Glad you got the appeal sorted though

Aaron_Aadvark

I have updated the index in post 2.

It is satisfying to see the vast number of appeals allowed. GPEOL is of course still the winner but with PSDSU, the clear second, not far off GPEOL since about post 900.

Parking **Eye** continue fail to submit evidence to POPLA but continue to pursue those who do not appeal through the court system.

There are a smattering of other successful reasons but mitigating circumstances and Equality Act are not among them.

fuziduck

Thanks to everyone who contributed, particularly Coupon-mad for helping my appeal. Just been informed my appeal has been allowed against Meteor (Vinci Park) at Dorking Railway Station (Southern)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ********** arising out of the presence at Dorking Station, on 18 September 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark ****.
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, and that a parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s employee observed the vehicle and concluded that it was parked so as to cause obstruction and/or inconvenience to others.
The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator appears to have made no statement but must be assumed to state that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The operator’s implied assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor

syf277

https://www.popla.org.uk
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

06 January 2015

Reference xxxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Mr (Appellant)
-vVehicle
Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx
arising out of the presence at Exeter Street on 19 August
2014, of a vehicle with registration mark .

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 19 August 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark xxxxxx for parking in a pay and display car park without
clearly displaying a valid parking voucher/ permit.

The Operator’s case is that the terms of parking state that the car park is
permit holders and a valid permit is required to be displayed but the
Appellant failed to comply with this requirement. They enclosed supportive
evidence including a genuine pre-estimate of loss statement 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 parking charge notice is 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 parking in a pay and display car park without
clearly displaying a valid parking voucher/permit. 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

jj42

I've been looking forward to posting this

Both of my PCN's were cancelled the day before POPLA ruled (Care Parking sent POPLA and me an email).

Decision from POPLA below

---

Dear Sir or Madam

Mr XXXX (Appellant)
-v-
Anchor Security Services Ltd t/as Care Parking (Operator)

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXXX.

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.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Reeve

Service Manager

stargazer7

Huzzah! A win against JAS. Thanks again to Coupon-Mad and others who advised on this. You guys really know your stuff! I think there were a number of points that this appeal could have been upheld on, but the one that's been elaborated on was the lack of contract with the landowner. JAS supplied a heavily redacted letter from Staples UK (it wasn't even a Staples car park!) in which they helpfully made it clear that they were not the landowner or landowner's agent:rotfl:- that alone was probably enough to win the appeal. Oh dear. Shot themselves in the foot there, I think!

Good work people

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxx, on dd/mm/yyyy, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx 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
On dd/mm/yyyy a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx for leaving the car park before or after using either premises.

It is the Operators’s case that the terms and conditions of use of site indicate that the car park is for customers whilst using the premises and going elsewhere at the time the parking charge notice was issued and not using the car park providers premises will result in the issue of a parking charge notice of £94. The Operator says that their patrol officer observed the Appellant leaving the car park before or after using either premises. They attached supportive evidence 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 Operator did not provide valid evidence to show that they have an agreement with the landowner to enforce parking charge notices.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations because they state that by leaving the car park before or after using either premises, the Appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the parking contract. They have enclosed a copy of the contract to support their case.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities. The Appellant has questioned the Operator’s authority to pursue parking charge notices and the Operator has provided a redacted contract to show that they authority to issue parking charge notices, however, this contract appears to be invalid as it is redacted. A valid contract shall contain valid names and addresses for both parties of the agreement among other relevant information and this contract does not seem to comply with this requirement. The Operator has not discharged the burden of proof.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

garricw

F1rst Parking LLP


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