POPLA Decisions

technique1966

Picked up a PCN at Liverpool Airport issued by VCS 28/09/2014 for stopping on an approach road for approx 30 seconds.

Appeal to POPLA allowed 12/1/2015 after drawing their attention to the lack of a second stage process in the GPEOL supplied by VCS, appeal upheld on that and the cost of debt recovery not properly being included.

Many thanks to all who have posted information up previously that helped me immensely when dealing with this.

mpb1975

Hi,

Today I received notification from POPLA that my appeal against the parking notice I was issued has been upheld.:T

I received a parking ticket (invoice) from CARE parking for breach of their parking restrictions at Derker metrolink stop in Oldham.

The car park is free to metrolink users, and there are several signs which state this. In the small print they also state that parking is not allowed outside of tram operating hours.

Despite the notices being in plain sight, my appeal was allowed since as the car park is free, there is no loss to the operator whether I am parked there or not. As such, the breakdown of the loss they incurred to attempt to justify the £100 charge, was all incurred because they issued me with a notice; not because they were chasing a loss.

Thanks to the contributors to the forum that helped me formulate my appeal.

:beer:

Howard_Ino

This was the decision I got after challenging Excel with GPEOL ( A million thanks to Coupon-Mad)





The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Iceland, on 4 July 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 [FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]


The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination




[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Iceland, on 4 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX for parking for longer than the maximum period permitted.


It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site for longer than the maximum period permitted 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 list of heads that they have to pay for in relation to pursuing a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, however, they have not stated how much they have to pay for each head listed. I find that this is a general list and does not address 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.


[/FONT]

[/FONT]Nozir Uddin




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

RHead

XXX (Appellant)
-v
CP Plus Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxx
arising out of the presence at Roadchef Northampton North, on ...

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

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

Ricky Powell
Assessor

"The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal. He submits that:
a) The parking charge is punitive and does not reflect a genuine preestimate of loss;
b) The Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charge on the land;
c) The ‘keeper liability’ provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been complied with;
d) The signage at the site is inadequate; and
e) The ANPR records are unreliable.

(1) I find that the Operator has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the charge is based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

(2) The Operator has provided a signed witness statement from a person authorised to make a statement on behalf of the Landowner which confirms that the Operator has authority to issue parking charges on the land

(3) I find that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been properly complied with in this case

(4) I find that the signage at the site was adequate and clearly stated the Terms of parking. This is on the basis of photographic evidence provided by the Operator.

(5) The Appellant has submitted that there may have been two visits which were recorded as one by the ANPR camera. However, the Appellant, as registered keeper, can provide no evidence one way or the other as to whether the driver entered and exited the site more than once. On all of the evidence before me, I find that it is more likely than not the driver entered and exited the site only once.

Consequently, I find that the Appellant is liable to pay the parking charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Accordingly, I refuse the appeal."

Coupon-mad

RHead wrote: »

XXX (Appellant)
-v
CP Plus Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxx
arising out of the presence at Roadchef Northampton North, on ...

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

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

Ricky Powell
Assessor

"The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal. He submits that:
a) The parking charge is punitive and does not reflect a genuine preestimate of loss;
b) The Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charge on the land;
c) The ‘keeper liability’ provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been complied with;
d) The signage at the site is inadequate; and
e) The ANPR records are unreliable.

(1) I find that the Operator has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the charge is based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

(2) The Operator has provided a signed witness statement from a person authorised to make a statement on behalf of the Landowner which confirms that the Operator has authority to issue parking charges on the land

(3) I find that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been properly complied with in this case

(4) I find that the signage at the site was adequate and clearly stated the Terms of parking. This is on the basis of photographic evidence provided by the Operator.

(5) The Appellant has submitted that there may have been two visits which were recorded as one by the ANPR camera. However, the Appellant, as registered keeper, can provide no evidence one way or the other as to whether the driver entered and exited the site more than once. On all of the evidence before me, I find that it is more likely than not the driver entered and exited the site only once.

Consequently, I find that the Appellant is liable to pay the parking charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Accordingly, I refuse the appeal."

Ouch - you do know not to pay though?!

We had another person lose a CP Plus one in 2014 at a MSA and CP Plus had argued that a tariff was applicable after 2 hours and so the person lost.

What shocks me is his finding that the NTK was compliant because we KNOW it is not. You need to complain (twice, escalating it) to POPLA about an error because the NTK is NOT compliant from CP Plus, this is factually wrong. Also how can they decide that the driver didn't visit a services twice if CP Plus have not shown constant CCTV images? Because you raised it as a possible double visit, please show on your thread how exactly CP Plus rebutted that because the burden falls upon them to prove.
This needs help on your own thread.

Umkomaas

And there was me thinking Ricky Powell was one of the more 'clued up' POPLA Assessors.

Weekends_r_2_short

:j:j:j This is the winning reply from POPLA. :j:j:j
:T:T A huge thank you to Parking Prankster for composing the rebuttal of Highview's so called evidence and to all those who helped to me to get to that point, DJ Benz, Coupon-Mad, Bod1467 and The Deep. :T:T

MY NAME (Appellant) - v - Highview Parking Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ############ arising out of the presence at Stadium retail Park, Wembley, on ## November 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 10 November 2014, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with registration mark #### for exceeding the maximum duration of stay permitted.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions of use of site state that there is a permitted free parking period of 90 minutes as stated on the signage and the Appellant’s vehicle was captured remaining at the site for a period of 31 minutes longer than the stay authorised. They have produced 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 does not have a proprietary interest to issue and enforce parking charge notices in behalf of the landowner.

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 exceeding the maximum duration of stay permitted. They state that they can confirm that they have authority on behalf of the landowner.

The burden of proof is on the Operator to prove their case on balance of probabilities. Once the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have a proprietary interest to issue and enforce parking charge notices, the onus is on the Operator to prove otherwise.

In the present case, having considered all the evidence before me, I find that the Operator has failed to provide a contract or witness statement to evidence that they have authority the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices. The Operator has not discharged the burden of proof and they failed to prove their case.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

Mike172

Win against UKCPM.

This is ticket #2 of 4 that I know about. #1 belongs to my friend and the result is arriving in the post, #3 I have submitted an appeal for, and I am waiting for advice on #4 due to the time between issue of PCN and receiving the NTK.

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

As I suspected UKCPM did not bother to fight it. Part of me thinks that they will still pursue it regardless and part of me thinks that they are the most laid back PPC out there.

I was going to remove my windscreen permit to bait the PPC but due to the lease company waiting two months to tell me I have an NTK I worry Ive lost the chance to appeal.

impossible1

Allowed POPLA Appeal vs Highview Parking - Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination:

On 22 October 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice
for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle exceeded the maximum stay at the parking 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.

I find that the operator has not shown that by exceeding the maximum stay at the site, the appellant at that point caused a loss to the operator or the landowner.

The operator has only shown that they incurred the loss as a resultof 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.

I note that the operator has stated their initial loss to be the loss of revenue at £24.50. However, the operator has not shown that each customer would spend this amount upon visiting the site. In addition, it is not clear how the amount of £24.50 was calculated.

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 exceeding the maximum stay at the site, the charge sought is not agenuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad

Assessor

trisontana

As has been pointed out before, any "loss" from that made-up customer spend of £24.50 would have been suffered by the shops on site, not by the PPC.