POPLA Decisions

Custard_Pie

trisontana wrote: »

This time it's a win against UKCPS, but one that's out of the ordinary and concerns confusing signage:-

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxx, on xxxxxxxx, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx for parking in a xxxxxx only bay.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a xxxxxx only bay and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on the signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions and I do not intend to deal with these but rather just elaborate on the reason I am allowing this appeal, namely that the parking charge amount issued does not match the amount on the signage at the site.
The Operator has issued a parking charge amount of £125, however, on the signage at the site it stated that a breach of the terms and conditions of parking would lead to a parking charge of £100 being issued and this would be reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. The Appellant agreed to pay £100 and not £125. The terms and conditions of the contract cannot be renegotiated.
I must allow this appeal on the basis that the terms and conditions of parking cannot be renegotiated or varied as is the case in this particular instance.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nozir Uddin

But surely if it's an enforceable charge, the amount is relevant to the loss? LOL

PoPLA really haven't got a !!!!!!! clue any more than The BPA or PPCs.

Umkomaas

From PePiPoo:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator submits that the appellant parked whilst displaying an invalid
scratchcard, and therefore breached the terms and conditions of the site.

The appellant has made a number of submissions, including that the amount
of the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

The operator has attempted to address this submission in the Case Summary
by stating that the operator incurs the cost of, amongst other things, the
employment of parking attendants. However these costs were not incurred
by the operator as a result of the alleged breach by the appellant. I am
therefore not satisfied that the operator has proved, on the balance of
probability, that the amount of the parking charge notice is a genuine pre
estimate of loss.

Accordingly the appeal must be allowed

Raivi Shams Rahman
Assessor



*************************************************************

My appeal was quite extensive concerning all the usual aspects, Pre Estimate of loss,
Contracts with the Landlord, CoP from BPA OFT etc.

The above appeal decision arrived 2 weeks beyond the target date and is about as short as you
could make a response. so the question is.... Exactly how much trouble is POPLA in right now?
the staffing level is ever increasing, the assessments are down to the bone compared to a few months
when you got an extensive assessment. and they still continue to slip behind even further and further.

To win at POPLA you just ask for justification of charges and a copy of the contract with the landlord
and you're home and dry. This is like children playing pretend games of judge and jury, except in this
case its actually happening and embarrassingly so.

POPLA decisions are decided by the motorist as long as they ask those questions, and POPLA sweat on
the hope that most motorists do not realise the importance of that question. If every motorist asked that
question, POPLA need to show favour to BPA but just cant get there, so the clock is ticking, time is running out.


I have yet to see a PPC properly justify a pre estimate of loss. All so far have been about irrevelant running costs,
and of course that you have entered a contract. They submit it, they lose, they submit it again, they lose... Blah Blah,
Its like Lemmings queuing up at Dover to jump off the cliff and expecting to survive.

I think that when it comes to certain circumstances such as ANPR, PPC's will circum-navigate POPLA by not contacting
the motorist and just filing N1's all the time, hoping to scare people into paying up, just like the old days (pre POFA).

Another year of POPLA might be a stretch. what do you think?

Custard_Pie

PPC have not provided a Pre-estimate of loss because they can't. Companies like Parking Eye skirt around the issue claiming QC statements, etc. None of which have a legal precedent.

The fact is, they will continue with the intimidation, smoke and mirrors as long as they can.

If they were able to provide a true estimate of loss, they would of provided it by now.

The public have wised up to the scam in ever increasing numbers, to the point that it won't be economically viable soon to run PoPLA for BPA and a major showdown is on the cards. Wouldn't surprise me if they've had their funding cut and let some of the less PPC friendly assessors go and replaced them with new blood. Seems like it to me.

Tick tock

trisontana

But still the BPA will not accept that day-to-day running costs and general business expenses can't be treated as losses caused by a particular parking "incident". Today I received this from them after I had sent them details of five recent POPLA decisions where the adjudicator has very rightly said that costs are not the same as losses:-

[FONT=&quot]Your note does not change my contention that a genuine pre-estimate of our loss should i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nclude the costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and the costs incurred in following up on any breaches of these identified.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would suggest that in the examples provided, the operators have failed to provide strong enough evidence of how their charges are calculated and this is why POPLA have found against them. If you could detail the operators concerned to me, I will ensure that the appropriate training takes place.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I doubt that you will agree with the above comments but I am sure that there is one thing that we will be both be pleased with – namely, the fact that POPLA appear to disagree with my contention is proof positive of the independence of the service which is a great thing for the motorist and for the parking profession. As we approach the first anniversary of POPLA some 7999 adjudications have been made with about half of these being in favour of the motorist – in essence about 4000 people have had their tickets cancelled who without POPLA would probably not have done so – the parking landscape is clearly a far better place than 12 months ago.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Steve[/FONT]

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

But still the BPA will not accept that day-to-day running costs and general business expenses can't be treated as losses caused by a particular parking "incident". Today I received this from them after I had sent them details of five recent POPLA decisions where the adjudicator has very rightly said that costs are not the same as losses:-

[FONT=&quot]Your note does not change my contention that a genuine pre-estimate of our loss should i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nclude the costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and the costs incurred in following up on any breaches of these identified.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would suggest that in the examples provided, the operators have failed to provide strong enough evidence of how their charges are calculated and this is why POPLA have found against them. If you could detail the operators concerned to me, I will ensure that the appropriate training takes place.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I doubt that you will agree with the above comments but I am sure that there is one thing that we will be both be pleased with – namely, the fact that POPLA appear to disagree with my contention is proof positive of the independence of the service which is a great thing for the motorist and for the parking profession. As we approach the first anniversary of POPLA some 7999 adjudications have been made with about half of these being in favour of the motorist – in essence about 4000 people have had their tickets cancelled who without POPLA would probably not have done so – the parking landscape is clearly a far better place than 12 months ago.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Steve[/FONT]

Yep - 4,000 tickets incorrectly issued. Extrapolate that to all tickets issued - 1.6 million p.a. - means that (as a minimum) over three quarters of a million motorists have been incorrectly harassed and intimidated in the short space of 12 months - over 2,000 motorists every single day!

I rather think BPA training should be aimed at righting that situation than training numbnut PPCs how to try to snake around pre-estimate of losses declarations!

zzzLazyDaisy

trisontana wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Your note does not change my contention that a genuine pre-estimate of our loss should i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nclude the costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and the costs incurred in following up on any breaches of these identified.[/FONT]

Dear Steve

Thank you for your explanation of the law relating to genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am completely confused by your assertion that tax deductable business costs for managing the car park may be included in the calculation of loss occasioned by a motorist's breach of contract, which runs counter to the generally accepted law relating to this issue.

This point was considered in some detail specifically in relation to parking cases, by a County Court Judge in VCS v Ibbotson 16th May 2012 who set out the situation at some length at pages 4 and 5 of the transcript of the case.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

In the circumstances I respectfully suggest that the BPA might wish to seek legal advice on this point.

With love and Kisses

Trisontana

trisontana

I wonder is Steve is actually legally trained? I doubt it. I have mentioned the above case in a previous email to him and he came back with this:-

I am fully aware of the VCS vs Ibbotson case that you refer to but as I am sure you appreciate, the judgment in this case does not create precedent and we should let the Courts decide these matters on a case-by-case basis.

Funny that, when certain PPCs quote the few cases they have won as though they have set some sort of precedent, and the motorist should pay up.

zzzLazyDaisy

Jeezzzzz.... that case doesn't create a precedent - but the judge wasn't MAKING law, he was EXPLAINING it <slaps head>

When I get a break from personal stuff, I am going to do a step by steps 'Idiots guide to Genuine Pre-estimate of loss' complete with references and explanation of relevant case law in language that even a PPC tea boy can understand!

D

trisontana

I am afraid that is the sort of person who populates the BPA. Perhaps that was the only job they could get.

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]I would suggest that in the examples provided, the operators have failed to provide strong enough evidence of how their charges are calculated and this is why POPLA have found against them. If you could detail the operators concerned to me, I will ensure that the appropriate training takes place.[/FONT]

Yeah, right, as if we 'forum guru's' {sic - unnecessary apostrophe courtesy of Perky's mate} are going to help them out!! :rotfl: