POPLA Decisions

jdybnsn

"This is interesting but may be subject to a great deal of comment that may clog up this thread. It is very informative.

Would you mind reposting to anew thread and changing your post on here to point to your new thread with a short paragraph saying what it's about."

Have done ;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63079430#Comment_63079430

Please post feedback in the above linked post.

trisontana

Yet again PE lose because of their inability to get their heads around what an actual loss is:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83182&hl=

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.

Umkomaas

From Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=77845&view=findpost&p=866921

trisontana

"Breakdown of loss is commercially sensitive". What a load of nonsense. A loss is a loss, simple as that.

trisontana

Another success for a motorist, this time against Armtrac:-


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.

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued and that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed, or that his vehicle remained in the car park for longer than permitted.
It is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge does not meet with the requirement for an amount of compensation to the landowner that should only be in consideration of the actual loss occasioned by the landowner. The Appellant submits that in their case, the parking charge does not reflect the loss sustained by the landowner.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause.
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 favour.
The Operator has produced no evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is, in fact, a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to justify the charge in any other way.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable, as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
I need not decide any other issues.

Computersaysno

Once the adjudicator has judged 'pre-estimate of loss' on one case, should they not apply this across all cases that come in front of them??

Isn't that what PATAS do..ie they don't rule on each case for a council ticket , once they have decided that eg the council has an issue with incorrect lines that all tickets at that site are invalid??


Now that would be something worth pushing for POPLA to do...!!!!!!!!!!

Umkomaas

And another - posted here on MSE. Not sure who the PPC is or the POPLA Assessor but have asked the questions of the poster - and will edit this when I get the information.

EDIT:

PPC - ParkingEye

Assessor - Sheryar Majid

My wife received a parking charge notice in November 2012 for parking on a supermarket car park which had just recently started using a car park management company. The car park had notices put up and it was monitored by a CCTV system which took pictures of cars entering and exiting the car park along with the time and date stamp.

She had parked at 7 pm and then returned at 10:30 pm. The first hour on the car park was free (to customers). The store closed at 9 pm. When she arrived the weather was thick fog and she failed to see, or even look for the recently erected signs as she had used it on a couple of previous occasions and was unaware of the changes. The area was not local to her.

The parking charge was for £70 (£35 if paid within 14 days). I used the template letter on Martins site and outlined the reasons above along with an expressed opinion that the 'charge' was excessive in comparison to the loss incurred by the landowner. At worst I outlined that they had been deprived of 1 hour of customer parking before they closed (1st hour was free) and had my wife been in and bought a single item of cheap merchandise she would have had a valid hour of parking in any case. I also pointed out that the cost of parking in the city centre was only £5 for the entire day and failed to see how they arrived at the amount that they did.

I sent off her appeal and the company sent back asking for more evidence. I sent a weather report from a website which showed local weather conditions for the area and outlined the Met. Offices' definition of 'Thick fog' which the weather conditions were recorded as meeting. I also asked for a copy of the maintenance log for the equipment used to record my wife's car entering and leaving the car park, along with proof of the method of calibration to ensure that the time and date were in sync with GMT (like you can do with CCTV footage on bus lanes). I also told them that I knew they were entirely biased and reminded them to send their cheque for £34 to POPLA when they registered her formal appeal with them as I intended to go to the next stage because I knew they would refuse her appeal. (I just wanted to upset them by this point!)

A few weeks later they replied and gave a stock answer about meeting all the industry standards and asked for more evidence. They 'generously' gave her a further 14 days to furnish them with further evidence. I ignored them, just like they had me.

In July this year we received their decision and the paperwork which they had sent to POPLA. It stated their case and outlined why they felt their cost was proportionate. They are required to send a copy of all the paperwork to the appellant and it was at least an inch thick!

Today (September 2013) my wife received an email with a copy of POPLA's decision. WE WON!

The adjudicator acknowledged that my wife did not dispute that she had parked in the car park. They also noted that the question of proportionate costs had been raised. The reams of papers showing why the company felt their charge was fair was not accepted by the adjudicator. Their reasoning was:

"The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. 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 favour. The operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification. 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 leave the car park after the maximum free stay period. 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."

My advice, treat these bandits with the contempt they deserve, refuse to pay, they are chancers who treat you with contempt and try to scare you into paying them excessive 'charges'. Stick to your guns, follow the tips on this site and use the template letters, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I hope this helps other 'victims'

Beauty12_2

I received several PCNs from my workplace (hospital car park) in the space of a week! On one occasion I'd forgotten to
Pay and display but on the other occasions I had paid and displayed but still received the fines because my permit was out of date- even though I was in the process of apply for a new one. I
Still have the P&D tickets that prove I STILL paid to park. I read and took Martin Lewis's advice and appealed using POPLA.
The appeal was rejected and I have only just received there
Decision - I first appealed in march/April 2013, so took longer than they stated. I am now being told that I have 14 days to pay the £100.
They have stated that this is not a fine but compensation of damages for failing to comply with the parking company rules.
I am now worried as what to do next and what will happen if I still refuse to pay?
Any suggestions welcome. :-)

Coupon-mad

Beauty12 wrote: »

I received several PCNs from my workplace (hospital car park) in the space of a week! On one occasion I'd forgotten to
Pay and display but on the other occasions I had paid and displayed but still received the fines because my permit was out of date- even though I was in the process of apply for a new one. I
Still have the P&D tickets that prove I STILL paid to park. I read and took Martin Lewis's advice and appealed using POPLA.
The appeal was rejected and I have only just received their
Decision - I first appealed in march/April 2013, so took longer than they stated. I am now being told that I have 14 days to pay the £100.
They have stated that this is not a fine but compensation of damages for failing to comply with the parking company rules.
I am now worried as what to do next and what will happen if I still refuse to pay?
Any suggestions welcome. :-)

Please show your unsuccessful POPLA appeal decision here because that is ALL this thread is for. It would help newbies to see what you said in your appeal that failed, and what POPLA said (so others can learn what not to do, sorry...). What a shame you didn't come here earlier as we know how to win at POPLA and you 'missed a trick', this forum being just one click away from the advice you were reading. You needed certain appeal wording - and you'd have won - because we win 100% of the time in cases where we have helped since Easter. POPLA always take months to decide; we could have told you that too.

You DO NOT have to pay, POPLA isn't binding on you.

Start your own thread on the forum if you want specific advice because this is ONLY for posting the actual decision - and we would be interested to see yours. See my signature below for where to click to get to the current forum view, to read other threads and post yours.

But do stay here on this thread long enough to copy & paste your appeal to POPLA and their response, please, to help others.

Coupon-mad

Another win against Parking Eye at POPLA, this is getting a little predictable!!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79482



''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 submits that the appellant parked without purchasing a valid
pay and display ticket and therefore breached the terms and conditions of
the site.
The appellant has made a number of submissions, including that the parking
charge notice issued for the alleged breach exceedsthe appropriate
amount.
The operator has not addressed this submission in either the Case Summary or
in any other evidence submitted, and on this ground alone I must allow the
appeal.
Raivi Shams Rahman
Assessor''




The appeal focused on:

1. no evidence the vehicle was actually parked, just that it was in the car park between the stated times. the car park contains a public slipway for boat launching/retrieval
2. non-compliant signage
3. the £100 charge is not a charge but a punitive sanction to dissuade parking longer than the free period without paying and therefore a penalty
4. not a genuine pre-estimate of loss



Pete P, the OP on pepipoo added:
PE's evidence pack contained nothing that my own did not (except a map of the car park showing where the signs were). They did not answer any of the points in my appeal, eg breakdown of losses etc. I had almost forgotten about this, 4 months and 1 day from the original PCN to the appeal result.