POPLA Decisions

vacheron

Another POPLA win for myself and MSE overturned based on Pre-estimate of loss and an interesting consideration -vs- damages ambiguity in the signage.

Thanks to everyone involved for all your help and assistance.
:money: :beer:

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700 [EMAIL="enquiries@popla.org.uk"]enquiries@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL] 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

12 February 2015

Reference xxxxxxxx
always quote in any communication with POPLA

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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxx, on 13 October 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

The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxxx , on 13 October 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx xxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle exceeded the maximum permitted stay.

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 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator has responded by stating that the amount of the parking charge is a term of the contract and not an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. The operator has also provided a breakdown of the losses incurred by them if the amount of the parking charge notice is held to be an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. I find that it is not permissible for the operator to do this. This is because when a contract is formed the intention of the parties is fundamental. It is clear that the operator has intended the amount of the parking charge notice to be consideration and not damages.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, after objectively assessing the signage displayed at the site, I find that the signage does not mean that motorists may exceed the maximum permitted stay provided that they pay £100, which would make the amount of the parking charge consideration. However, I do find that the signage means that exceeding the maximum permitted stay is not permitted and that a parking charge of £100 will be issued to vehicles. Therefore, I find that the amount of the parking charge does represent damages for a breach of contract.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Crustyclown74

Folks, I have the great pleasure in informing you that my appeal to POPLA was upheld. a copy of the assessors determination can be found below. Basically no GPEOL.


Can I say a big thanks to everyone who assisted me in my fight against Armtrac, in particular Coupon-mad, Umkomass, guysdad, arab 101 to name a few.


Determination

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions of use of site require valid pay and display vouchers to be correctly displayed and the Appellant failed to comply with this requirement. The Operator has provided a genuine pre-estimate of loss statement to support its 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 amount of the parking charge notice represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without clearly displaying a valid pay and display voucher. They have provided a list of costs in assessing this loss in this appeal and arrived to a total genuine pre-estimate of loss of £114.00 with the list including the following but not restricted to them: admin staff 1 hour call handling and reply typing for this case at a cost of £10 and POPLA appeals staff wages and salaries, management at 3 hours quality control/evidence gathering/appeal assessing/POPLA replies for this case at a cost of £40 and legal, accounting and IT advice for this case at a cost of £20.


The burden of proof is on the Operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities. Although, the Operator has provided a pre-estimate of loss statement, I find that the Operator in this case refers to operational costs and management at 3 hours quality control/evidence gathering/appeal assessing/POPLA replies for this case at a cost of £40 does not appear to be substantially linked to the loss suffered and legal, accounting and other professional advice has to be taken for this particular case and not from time to time. I find that the Operator has not proved that the amount of the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Accordingly, I allow the appeal.


Aurela Qerimi


again thanks


Crusty :j

burkey7

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The operator issued parking charge notice number NR620396 arising out of the presence at York Commuter, on 2 December 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark PF06MYX. The operator recorded that the vehicle failed to purchase and display a valid parking ticket or valid parking permit.
The operator’s case is that there is clear signage displayed at the site informing motorists that the site is a pay and display car park and that motorists must display a valid ticket when parked at the site. The operator submits at the time the parking charge notice was issued the appellant’s vehicle was not clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket and that the appellant breached the terms and conditions of parking at the site.
The appellant’s case is that they purchased a valid pay and display ticket for £6 on the date of the alleged breach. The appellant submits that when they returned to their vehicle they realised that their pay and display ticket had fallen off the dashboard. The appellant states that the ticket did not have an adhesive.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, by not clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of using the site. I also find that the requirement that a ticket be clearly displayed means that it is visible so that all the details can be read. The onus is on the motorist to clearly display a valid ticket. I find that the appellant’s case is that of mitigation. Mitigating circumstances do not form a valid ground to allow an appeal. The Assessor is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law. As in the statutory schemes, the Assessor has no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description. This discretion rests solely with the operator who issued the parking charge notice.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Amber Ahmed
Assessor

cody2010

Hi, as Ryan Bryan reports in #1621 28/01/2015 Premier Park have also failed to give evidence to POPLA in my appeal. The assessor allowed the appeal on the basis he had no evidence from them.
Like the pepipoo poster I emailed POPLA on the 8th, a few days prior to the POPLA suggested hearing, & they confirmed then that they hadn't received any evidence either.
My thread was (tt replaced with xx) hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5134900

The full PDF from POPLA says:



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]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.
[/FONT]

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

Genuine_Essex_Lad

I have today received a letter from POPLA informing me that Premier Park cancelled the PCN before the appeal hearing. Happy days

Thank you to all who gave me advice.


Full thread here showthread.php?p=67199809

TryingHard1

I recently had my parking ticket from Carparking partnership cancelled. Thanks for everyones help.

My thread is ?t=5141773

crog80

Thanks for the help on the forum. Won my POPLA appeal.

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

Won on the fact that: the operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.

Has anyone ever successfully claimed expenses from the issuing company after appeal is upheld?

nurse-money

Today I received this to advise I have won my appeal against Car Parking Partnership. Thanks everyone for your help and assistance on these forums.

This matter is before me for a re-hearing. The first hearing for this case resulted in a decision that the appeal be refused. However, owing to the appellant having not received the operator’s evidence, it was decided that the interests of justice would be best served by a re-hearing. The operator’s evidence was provided to the appellant, and they provided a response to this evidence. The appeal is therefore considered anew in the light of the additional submissions received.

It is not in dispute that the appellant parked at the site and received a parking charge notice after the operator’s employee observed the vehicle and concluded that it was parked in an unauthorised area.
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 made no express 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 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

JOC23

I have just read your message and as I am about to put an appeal into POPLA I just wondered if you were parked in the same car park as us? Cedar Lane, Frimley? We would be grateful for any help or advice. WBW.

crog80 wrote: »

Thanks for the help on the forum. Won my POPLA appeal.

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

Won on the fact that: the operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.

Has anyone ever successfully claimed expenses from the issuing company after appeal is upheld?

DoaM

Wrong thread for this - sorry. This thread is ONLY for appeal results, not questions.