POPLA Decisions

Simon1212

Another win.


The Operator did not produce a copy of the parking ticket to prove it had been issued correctly or any evidence to say I was in breach of the conditions of parking.


Special thanks to Coupon mad and Redex for support.

SarahJLS

mpb1975 wrote: »

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:

I haven't posted on here before but used a lot of information in my fight against Care Parking - as above - for parking in a Manchester Metrolink carpark overnight. Pleased to say I have won - on the same basis as above! Will try and post the detail.

A huge thank you for all the help.

SarahJLS

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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ...... arising out of the presence at Metrolink, Radcliffe, on 03/08/2014, 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

At 03:47 on the 3 August 2014, the operative observed a vehicle with registration mark ......, parked at Metrolink, Radcliffe. A parking charge notice was issued for abusing the patron parking.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions in place at the site state that the car park is for the use of Metrolink passengers only and parking is not permitted outside of tram hours. There are several signs throughout the site which set out the terms and conditions and as a result of parking outside of tram hours, the motorist had failed to park in accordance with the terms and conditions.

The Appellant’s case is that:
a) The signage at the site was insufficient on the date he parked and since work at the station has been completed, more signage has been put in place at the site.
b) The charge is disproportionate and is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Operator does not dispute that the charge represents liquidated damages and this means that the amount of the charge should represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions. In order for consequential losses to flow from a breach of the terms and conditions, there must be an initial loss incurred by the Operator.

In circumstances where the initial loss is not obvious, it is for the Operator to address the initial loss that has been incurred. In the absence of there being an initial loss to the Operator, the charge cannot be deemed to be a genuine pre estimate of loss; as the Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.

The Operator has attempted to justify their initial loss in relation to average length of stays and rateable values and has stated that the loss is a ‘genuine and quantifiable loss.’ Whilst I note that the Operator has stated that the loss is quantifiable; in this case, the loss has not been quantified or explained in relation to the Appellant’s breach. The Operator has not explained the initial loss that was incurred by the Appellant’s specific breach and I am consequently not satisfied that the Operator has demonstrated that there was an initial loss. As there does not appear to be an initial loss, consequential losses cannot flow from the breach. On balance, I am therefore not satisfied that the Operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred. It does not fall to me to decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

SarahJLS

Incidentally, Care Parking blatantly lied about the number of signs at the station. I was able to show that the were lying via a report in the local paper from two weeks after they issued me with a 'PCN'. However, the assessor did not look at this reason; the quantifiable loss reason deemed sufficient.

Mike172

Win against UKCPM.

This is ticket #1 of 4



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.

bod1467

You'll likely find the others follow the same process.

erind

Win against Highview Parking

16 January 2015


Reference xxxxx



Dear Sir or Madam

(Appellant)

-v-

Ranger Services Ltd also t/a Highview Parking Limited (Operator)

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

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

Romans55

And again

(Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx, 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

Ryan_Bryan

Nochaqueese, a poster on Pep, is reporting beating slimy Premier Park at POPLA. In a growing trend it seems that Premier didn't contest.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95645

duffs54

PCN Cancelled with Napier 56 day rule. Yay :beer:

Thank you all of you that have helped me along this bumpy road:
Redx Umkomaas Coupon-mad 4consumerrights Marktheshark and any one else I have forgotten:A

Rec'd PCN in post in Dec when the so called offense was in August, No appeal as they went straight to a debt collector as they didn't receive my appeal, which was sent with a priceless free Post office proof of purchase.
Complained to DVLA (not heard anything) and BPA who did respond and contacted Napier on keepers behalf.

Got letter from Napier today.:D

The keeper is now banned from using the said carpark on the grounds that the keeper behaved unreasonably and that they have incurred a significant loss because of this incident. Police action will follow if the keeper ever parks there again as they own the land, it is attached to a shop.


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ***********

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.
g). The NTK was received over the 56 days allowed invoking the Registered Keeper liability under POFA


ETC. ETC.

There is hope out there lol
Cheers all of you xx:T:j:beer::rotfl: