POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

LOL! Well done, and that's a new one for POPLA. They even knocked back PE's attempt to blind the POPLA adjudicator law graduate with Fairlie v Fenton!

Umkomaas

I wonder whether the Lead Adjudicator has received the screech of the Chorley banshee in his ear yet?

No mind, he'll be able to pop out to see them (as offered) to help them develop more robust approaches to these appeals that stick daggers in PPC hearts....... all, of course, in the pursuit of fairness and independence you understand

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Proves that even cats can win Popla appeals

A black car with the registration mark ******* was observed at the Staples car park. The car park is for customers only and at the time the parking charge notice was issued the patrol office checked the store but the driver of the car could not be located inside the store. A parking charge notice was issued for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.
The operator’s case is that terms and conditions for parking in the car park are clearly displayed and expressly state that ‘parking is only for Staples customers on the premises.’ They state that despite carrying out checks, the driver of the car was not in Staples at the time of the parking charge notice being issued.
The appellant has stated that he requires the operator to prove that they have the necessary authority to recover parking charges from the land owner. He has also called into question whether the amount sought is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In addition he states that no relevant obligation has been created and has cited both case law and recent POPLA decisions in support of the arguments he wishes to advance.
The operator rejected the representations of the appellant on the basis that he did not have a genuine ground for his appeal as he asserted that his cat had driven the car to Staples.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion the operator has made no reference to whether the amount sought is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and have failed to provide evidence in support of this. As a result of this, I am not required to deal with the additional points raised by the appellant in his appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

Umkomaas

Not the most detailed of results, but a RESULT nonetheless - and, as you've probably guessed, it's the abject failure by the PPC to justify any losses (other than the usual business running costs, which POPLA are just not going to accept).

From Pepipoo

Result!

Today I received notification from POPLA that I have won my appeal!

The reason given by the assessor was;

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 display a valid parking ticket/voucher/permit. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses caused by the Appellant’s breach.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate

Very pleased

This is the full thread for anyone wanting to read the background and context

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79447&st=0&#entry863050

trisontana

The above concerned APCOA at Luton Airport.

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

The above concerned APCOA at Luton Airport.

& wasn't about parking but APCOA trying to enforce their ridiculous 'no stopping or drop off outside designated area' rules.

Umkomaas

And another PE loss (because they ain't got no loss, boss :rotfl:).

From Pepipoo (but no transcript as yet).

I have finally received a POPLA reply.

My appeal has been upheld and I don't have to pay PE a penny!!!

The reason POPLA gave is that PE have not evidenced their genuine pre-estimate of losses. The appeal states that PE have produced a list of costs; these however are 'general opeating costs and not losses caused by the Appellant's breach'

PE appear to be coming unstuck at POPLA stage listing all their operating costs, claiming they are losses.

Thanks for all your help.

Full thread for anyone wanting more details of circumstances:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79196&st=20&#entry863871

Stroma

Yes operating tax deductible costs are not losses, they can never be!

Umkomaas

So boring now - PE stuffed (again, yawn) on losses.

Full wording:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 210807/782875 arising out of the presence at Holiday Inn XXXXXXXXXXX, on 22 February 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XX00 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.
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
POPLA
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS:
Reasons for the Assessor's Determination
The appellant received a parking charge notice after parking in a hotel car park.
The operator submits that the appellant parked in a site reserved for hotel
patrons only, who must register their details at the hotel reception, and that by failing to park without a valid permit in accordance with the terms and conditions, the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site. The operator further submits ·that ·there are a number of signs erected throughout the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions of parking.
The appellant has made a number of submissions, including at paragraph 4.3.1, that the operator must evidence the amount of loss or damage caused by the alleged breach.
The burden therefore shifts to the operator to prove that they suffered a loss and/or damage as a result of the alleged breach. The operator has not addressed this submission either in the case summary or in any other evidence submitted, and has therefore failed to discharge the evidential burden; on this ground alone I allow the appeal.
Raivi Shams Rahman
Assessor
6061083009

If I was her boss, I'd certainly be looking very closely at her performance at POPLA when doing her annual appraisal.

Umkomaas

Courtesy of Pepipoo:

Well it's taken some time but..... POPLA appeal decision was received via email today and they have stated that ARMTRAC have no case. This is good news!
Shehla Pirwany was the assessor and I have copied and pasted some of her reply if anyone is interested.....

The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was parked and the pay and display voucher that was visible was face down which meant that patrol officers were unable to check the ticket in order to determine its validity

The appellant’s case is that he purchased a valid pay and display ticket but due to the wind, it had blown over and was face down on the dashboard. The appellant raises that the parking charge is disproportionate as the landowner is not out of pocket because a valid pay and display ticket was purchased. Additionally, the appellant challenges the parking company’s lack of title and seeks demonstration of a proprietary interest in the land.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has raised the issue of whether the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance, this means that the breach should represent the loss caused. The operator has not addressed the issue of genuine pre estimate of loss and therefore I have no evidence to dispute the claim that the landowner would not have been out of pocket. Based on this, I am not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.

KBT / ARMTRAC - if your reading this - I hope you have yourselves a lovely summer.

This post has been edited by CombatBarney: Today, 14:28