POPLA Decisions

Custard_Pie

The claim is that latest figures are 51-49 in favour of the Motorist. That still leaves thousands being incorrectly extorted out of Joe Bloggs.

Watch PPC go into liquidation almost overnight when the whole scam is ruled illegal in Court. Can't see the PPCs being a good egg and repaying all invoices and interest.

Guys_Dad

Custard_Pie wrote: »

The claim is that latest figures are 51-49 in favour of the Motorist.
.

Not with those cases that come here for advice (and follow it)!!! We would treat that ratio as failure. :beer:

tospig

I'm doing my bit:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4777418

I have another appeal in with UKPC that I'm hoping will fail too.

trisontana

A rather strange one from CAG:-

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Appellant)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]-v-[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]LDK Security Group Ltd (Operator)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Operator issued a parking charge notice arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark NU62XXX.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge notice[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]determined that the appeal be [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]allowed[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Assessor’s reasons are as set out[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ChrisAdamson[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Assessor[/FONT]

Hovite_2

That's a strange way to throw away £32 !!!!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Another win , this time TSP

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 15:47, on June 8 2013, the operator’s employee observed the Appellant’s vehicle bearing the registration number ***** parked at the Linx Building car park.
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 made representations stating her case. The Appellant raised a number of points. One of the points she raised was that she believes there has been no loss or no breach of contract and if there has been one, she asks the operator to show a break-down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator addresses this point by stating this was never asked for by the Appellant in the initial appeal e-mail. They have not addressed this issue fully.
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 this appeal.

trisontana

"The Operator addresses this point by stating this was never asked for by the Appellant in the initial appeal e-mail"

This is the same point that PE have been whinging on about (according to Aldi's parking department). They say that motorists are just making a soft appeal and do not include "all the facts". Because of this, PE refuse the appeal and give out a POPLA code. When it gets the POPLA those extra"facts" are disclosed by the motorist thus resulting in the appeal being allowed. PE say that if "all the facts" had been known then they would have allowed the initial appeal. Complete hogwash of course.

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

"The Operator addresses this point by stating this was never asked for by the Appellant in the initial appeal e-mail"

This is the same point that PE have been whinging on about (according to Aldi's parking department). They say that motorists are just making a soft appeal and do not include "all the facts". Because of this, PE refuse the appeal and give out a POPLA code. When it gets the POPLA those extra"facts" are disclosed by the motorist thus resulting in the appeal being allowed. PE say that if "all the facts" had been known then they would have allowed the initial appeal. Complete hogwash of course.

Clearly if an appeal to a PPC is turned down then the motorist will try much harder when constructing an appeal to POPLA including taking advice from forum guru's(sic) & others regarding salient points that they had omitted from the initial appeal.

Computersaysno

Let's not be coy here.

The advice is a 'soft' appeal to the PPC, which in 99.9% of cases is rejected [as they would do no matter how well constructed your appeal would be].

Then get a POPLA code, cost the PPC £27, the BPA £100 and then slam them hard with a full detailed appeal at POPLA.

PPCs can cry all they want about 'full facts' but they can go and *&^£ themselves as far as I'm concerned.:beer:

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

"The Operator addresses this point by stating this was never asked for by the Appellant in the initial appeal e-mail"

This is the same point that PE have been whinging on about (according to Aldi's parking department). They say that motorists are just making a soft appeal and do not include "all the facts". Because of this, PE refuse the appeal and give out a POPLA code. When it gets the POPLA those extra"facts" are disclosed by the motorist thus resulting in the appeal being allowed. PE say that if "all the facts" had been known then they would have allowed the initial appeal. Complete hogwash of course.

Yep - and it's exactly the same situation as in the 'real world' of parking tickets where an appellant can say one thing (or nothing) at PCN stage, then something weak at NTO stage - but then come up with a winning point for the adjudication appeal.

Tough, live with it PE and co. Your tickets are beatable at POPLA.