POPLA Decisions

Stroma

Or if you look at it the other way it's not to reject appeals that bring up their true estimate of loss. But I'm looking forward to popla being put of its misery to be honest. Just an utter waste of time IMO

Computersaysno

I think POPLA is a red -herring in the PPC world.

IIRC less than 1% of tickets are appealed, so yes whilst it's correct to say the PPCs lose £27 per loss at POLA, it's hardly going to break them. They only need to have 50% of the 45% of cases that they do win to pay the usual £100 and they are breaking even at POPLA.

In the meantime they can tout POPLA as evidence to the gov that 'there's nothing wrong going on in PPC world, look we have an independent appeals process, how could we possibly be anything other than a respectable industry???'

See, they are in it for the long game....it's not about winning the 1% at POPLA, it's about being allowed to continue to scam for the other 99% of tickets issued.

Look at the figures....losing 0.5% of tickets at POPLA allows you to keep collecting the 35% that do pay up, with no questions asked by the authorities. Simples.


IMO that's why the PPC will not really bother putting too much effort into their POLA cases.....they are simply buying cheap PR and business as usual 'insurance'.

Umkomaas

UK PARKING PATROL

Courtesy of PePiPoo - NOTE the time of the ticket 03.55am :eek:

26 September 2013
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

Xxxx (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxx on xxxx of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx

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

At 03:55, on xxxxxx , the Operator’s employee observed the Appellant’s vehicle bearing the registration number xxxxx parked at xxxxxx.

The Operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was in breach of the car park conditions by not displaying a valid permit.

The Appellant has raised a number of issues. One of the issues she has raised is that the operator has not detailed what the claimed charge is for. She states it is assumed that the charge is for a breach of contract and in that case it can only be recoverable if it is a liquidated damage rather than a punitive/penalty charge, which is unenforceable.

The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission.

It appears to be the Appellant’s case that the parking charge represents a sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.

The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I need not address any other issues. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Umkomaas

This is from PePiPoo too. Tables are going to be turned since this motorist's win - he's issued a PCN against New Generation Parking (Personal Costs Notification) :T

For anyone wanting to follow this, here's the link:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83755

I would like to open this post for discussion, POPLA was established by the British Parking Association (BPA) at the request of the Government therefore we can assume it operates with the blessing of the government.

As POPLA are finding according to their web site in favour of the motorist in 54% of the appeals from its conception with this evidence the parking companies have been found to be at fault.

With this in mind I believe in the majority of these cases by being at fault the parking companies have obtained the personal details of the motorist in breach of the data protection also the DVLA are guilty of breaches by releasing the personal details.

I would suspect this wouldn’t satisfy the “Secretary of Sate”.

In the past 12 month’s the DVLA have acquired over “Five Million Pounds” for what they call administration charges for releasing personal details.

If you do the simple sum of dividing the £2.60 a parking company pays for our details into the £5,000000 then multiply it by £60.00 the average charge a parking company charges the motorist you will see the extent of the problem.

The DVLA state “Although its not the law its our interpretation of the law and the BPA state owing to the lack of legislation we have created our own.

This can’t be right.

I have just won my case against New Generation Parking Management. I have sent them my own PCN (Personal Costs Notification) giving them 14 days to pay or on the 4th October I will start proceedings against them in a small claims court.

I would love to share the information I have acquired over the past six months.

I would guess the biggest bit of information was contained in the result of my appeal.

Please read the part on the signage when it says:

“Furthermore it is not clear whether or not the lines are ‘coloured’, nor is it specified in the sign what ‘coloured’ actually means”.

I believe the majority of signs in the country will be illegal if they don’t state THE colour of the lines.

I will be taking out a case with the ICO for breaches of the Data Protection Act by New Generation Parking and the DVLA for accessing my personal details illegally and I will bring it to their notice the other 2,000 breaches found by POPLA.

Yes it really is fight back time.

I would love some advice and backing (Not monetary) in my quest to get some justice into the un-legislated Parking Industry and their club of car park operators called the British Parking Association.

Incidentally the POPLA decision was made on the 13th September but New Generation Parking haven’t withdrawn the charge as yet.

The result of my appeal:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator submits that the appellant was parked in a no parking zone.

The operator has submitted as evidence a number of photographs taken of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach. The operator has also submitted as evidence photographs of signs erected in the site. From the photographs taken of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach it is evident that the appellant parked on land with parallel lines marked on the surface of the road. The signs state that vehicles must not be parked outside of bays, roadways, hatched or coloured areas.

After considering the photographs of the surface of road where the appellant parked, it is evident that the lines marked on the road are approximately the same width of some of the cars parked in the site. Furthermore it is not clear whether or not the lines are coloured, nor is it specified in the sign what ‘coloured’ actually means. This would have caused confusion in the minds of motorists; in particular it would not have been clear to motorists whether the road had marked on it a bay or a hatched area.

I find that that the operator cannot enforce a term of a contract that was not made sufficiently clear to motorists at the time the contract was formed, and on this ground alone I must allow the appeal.

Accordingly the appeal must be allowed.

Raivi Shams Rahman
Assessor

trisontana

Yet another "erection" loss by Parking Eye:-

Hello, I just had a POPLA decision on my appeal and it has been allowed. First of all I wanted to say big thank you to the forum and axeman for all the help on my case.

Just a brief history - Aldi parking, free, overstay by short amount of time. I contacted Aldi - no joy. Appealed to PE - no joy. Wrote my appeal based on details provided by axeman. It listed few issues, including genuine pre-estimate of loss, right to form a contract, compliance with BPA Code regarding signage. It was upheld with details as below:

The operator’s case is that the signage clearly shows that the car park is a maximum 2 hour free stay car park. This is displayed on 8 signs displayed at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park itself. By staying in the car park for a period exceeding the maximum allowed time, the appellant is in breach of the terms and conditions indicated on the signage.

The appellant’s case is that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by the operator and they have failed to demonstrate a proprietary interest in the land or the authority to issue parking charge notices. The appellant also raises the issue that the signs are not sufficient to form a contract as no consideration is offered. Additionally, the appellant notes that the parking charge notice is not compliant with Schedule 4 as they have failed to identify the creditor and there is no evidence to show that the operator has complied with the BPA Code requirements in relation to ANPR cameras.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, although I appreciate that the signage is clear and clearly indicates the terms and conditions for parking, 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 actual loss caused. The operator has made a reference to the loss incurred and justified the charge in relation to the erection and maintenance of site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the ANPR systems, employment of office based administrative staff, membership fees and general costs. In this case, the justification appears to be on the basis of general operating costs rather than addressing the loss actually caused as a result of overstaying the maximum permitted time. As a result of this, I am not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Once again thank you - so glad this forum exists!

lcbandituk

thank you to all that helped me out, couldn't have done it without you!



PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700 [EMAIL="enquiries@popla.org.uk"]enquiries@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL] www.popla.org.uk [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Bell MT,Bell][FONT=Bell MT,Bell]Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Bell MT,Bell][FONT=Bell MT,Bell]Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Bell MT,Bell]
[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]30 September 2013 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Reference [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]always quote in any communication with POPLA [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Us [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]-v- [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]ParkingEye Ltd (Operator) [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator issued parking charge notice number [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]arising out of the presence at Fistral Beach, on 25 May 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be [/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Assessor’s reasons are as set out. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]6061723057 2 30 September 2013 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]‘By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time, or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking Charge is now payable’[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Appellant does not dispute that the driver of the vehicle did not pay for parking. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Appellant’s case that: [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]a) There was insufficient signage to indicate the terms of parking, and so no contract was formed between the parties. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]　[/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]　[/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]c) The parking charge is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]　[/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]d) There was insufficient evidence provided to demonstrate that the contravention occurred. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]　[/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]e) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimation of the Operator’s loss. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a "[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]failure to comply[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]" with the terms of parking. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]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 [/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]6061723057 3 30 September 2013 [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]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 pay for parking. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, many these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Accordingly, I allow the appeal. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

Umkomaas

And again, and again, and again!

Well done icbandituk!

Computersaysno

People really need to stop including 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' as an appeal reason, otherwise we will never get a ruling on the other points!!!

Umkomaas

Computersaysno wrote: »

People really need to stop including 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' as an appeal reason, otherwise we will never get a ruling on the other points!!!

For one moment I thought you were going to say 'so that we can give the PPCs a chance' :rotfl:

Hovite_2

Computersaysno wrote: »

People really need to stop including 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' as an appeal reason, otherwise we will never get a ruling on the other points!!!

Thankfully we have the wonderful Parking Prankster for test individual reasons - the guys deserves a knighthood !