POPLA Decisions

atilla

Smart Parking grew a pair - and bottled it.

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking
charge notice number TC0xxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with
the registration mark AB123CDE .

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.

bezzy

Huge thanks to everyone for helping me via the forum.
I have now received a response from POPLA with the decision to allow my appeal.
See below:j:beer::T

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

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
30 October 2014
Reference 3312524049
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Kevin Berry (Appellant)
-v-
Defence Systems Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 313699 arising out of the presence at One Stop Shopping Centre, on 17 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark DS63BYM.
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.
3312524049 2 30 October 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 4 August 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark DS63BYM. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle entered a no access area.
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 the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 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 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 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 further.
In this case the operator has stated that as the parking charge is not in excess of £100 they feel they do not have to justify the parking charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to do this. Once the appellant raises the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator must either argue that the charge is consideration (i.e. the price paid for parking) and so does not have to be a genuine pre-estimate, or that it is liquidated damages in which case the charge must be justified as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has done neither in this case.
Consequently I must find that the operator has failed to discharge their burden.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

ampersand

Well done bezzy, but remove your identifiers immediately -name, date, reg.no.+fake invoice no.

bod1467

Certainly redact the reg no. The rest of it is less of an issue - the PPC already knows they have lost.

trisontana

Once again a PPC using that mythical £100 suggested by the BPA Ltd as a "reasonable charge".

Buttermilk181

Decision: Accepted

Assessor:Shehla Pirwany

Date: 26th March 2015

Reported: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5168534

Successful Grounds: 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.

PPC: UK Parking Limited

TB2013

Thanks everyone for the help, had the decisions for both (identical) appeals back today (hopefully not an April Fools! hehe):

Decision: Accepted

Assessor:Shehla Pirwany

Date: 1st April 2015

Successful Grounds: 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.

PPC: Secure-a-space

ThornyEng

Followed the advice and just got this from Popla

30 March 2015

(Appellant)
-v-
New Generation Parking Management Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number ****** arising out of the presence at Talbot Green, on ******* , 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 at the site for longer than permitted. A parking charge notice was issued after this was detected by the operator’s ANPR system.

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 stated 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

Daver

UKPC are such muppets, they replied with an 'evidence pack' that was that full of holes it should have been printed on tea bags!.....interesting alternative to the GPEOL as they had submitted the 'agreement' with the landowner and had made reference to the GPEOL 'costs'.... but failed to submit them! However it looks like the assessor decided to have a bit of fun with this and get them on another glaring error!
Many thanks to Redx and others for advice on this!

(Appellant)

-v-

UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)






The Operator issued parking charge notice number 1248943581553 arising out of the presence at Ashton Moss Leisure Park, on 24
December 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

The operator issued a parking charge notice to the vehicle for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay space.

The appellant has made various submissions; I have not dealt with them all as
I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have authority to pursue
parking charges in relation to the land in question.

After reviewing the evidence, I find that the operator has submitted a letter which is dated 17 January 2013. I find that this letter states that the operator has an agreement with Jones Lang Lasalle which is dated 8 May 2006. I find that this letter does not state whether Jones Lang Lasalle are the landowners, moreover this letter does not provide the date upon which this agreement comes to an end. Therefore I find that this letter is not sufficient evidence to show that the operator has authority from the landowner to pursue parking charges.

Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that on this particular occasion, the operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to pursue parking charge notices. As the appellant submits that the operator does not have this authority, the burden of proof shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. The operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

mrelliott

Won our appeal today, ParkingEye did not even supply any evidence or information to popla. Absolutely disgraceful company. My full order is tilted "County court judgment against the wife over a year old" if it's any good to any one.