POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, the thread starter is collating numbers - and all winners should get their moment to post here.

I agree. And while PPCs quote and copy forum threads as 'evidence' in court cases, this thread is a goldmine for future evidence of PPC unlawful actions.

Keep em coming. But I do hope we also get some other appeal points assessed by POPLA. It's 'shooting fish in a barrel' at the moment.

Aaron_Aadvark

Computersaysno wrote: »

Do we really need any more GPEOL winners to be posted??

Yes, the sheer volume of GPEOL wins helps to undermine the PPC's "legal basis" for the charges.

And it gives more confidence to those who do not wish to pay but are not sure whether it is worth fighting or do not know how to fight back.

trisontana

Not only the PPC's "legal" basis, but also that of the BPA who side with the PPC's over this matter.

bargepole

Another loss for PE

10 October 2013

XXXXXXXXX (Appellant) -v- ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Blackpool Airport, Car Park 1, FY4 2QY, on 11 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXX.

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

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for being “parked in a no parking area” and for having “abused patron parking”. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly advertised terms of parking which stated “Strictly no parking on grass verges”. The Operator has produced photos of the Appellant’s vehicle and site signage in support of its case.

The Appellant disputes that the PCN was properly issued. Amongst other grounds, it is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge is unenforceable because the Operator has been unable to justify it as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a PCN would be issued for “failure to comply” with the parking conditions. This wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract.

Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The Operator submitted that the charge is “a genuine pre-estimate as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these.” The Operator gave examples of such costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority.

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 do not have the evidence before me to refute the
Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I must allow the appeal on this ground. Accordingly, it does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor

boltonians

:T Thanks to all who helped on here, without you I would not have known what to do, just wish everyone would visit here before coughing up to these crooks. :T

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ********** arising out of the presence at The Range in Bolton, on 16 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark *******
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

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘By remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) There was inadequate signage displaying the terms of parking.
b) The parking charge is punitive, unfair and unreasonable as it does not reflect the loss caused by the alleged breach.
c) Thecarparkispartcouncil-ownedandsoitisnotclearthatthe Operator has the authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.
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 signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a “a failure to comply” 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.

The Operator has submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre- estimate of the loss caused in every car park.

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 parking in the car park when not permitted. The Operator hasproduced a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.

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 in order to tip the balance in its favour.

In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case.
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.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Umkomaas

I think we and ParkingEye are living in parallel universes. In their 'Hall of Fame' they quote every judge agreeing with them that their charge is a GPEOL, yet here every appeal is upheld on the basis that their charge is anything but a GPEOL!

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/News

Computersaysno

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think we and ParkingEye are living in parallel universes. In their 'Hall of Fame' they quote every judge agreeing with them that their charge is a GPEOL, yet here every appeal is upheld on the basis that their charge is anything but a GPEOL!

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/News

PE are cherry-picking...out of the possible hundreds that they have lost they may have had a few 'GPEOL wins' slip through.

Would be interesting to see what they would say to the ASA if a complaint was made about their 'over 90% won' claim and the actual content of the wins?

zzzLazyDaisy

Computersaysno wrote: »

Would be interesting to see what they would say to the ASA if a complaint was made about their 'over 90% won' [of those claims that we actually pursue to the end] claim and the actual content of the wins?

I think the (amended) claim above is probably true. The vast majority of those claims being ignorers who get a judgment in default against them and those who lose their bottle and pay up on getting the court papers.....

Computersaysno

Also be interesting to see transcripts of any of their winning cases...are there any knocking about??

Computersaysno

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I think the (amended) claim above is probably true. The vast majority of those claims being ignorers who get a judgment in default against them and those who lose their bottle and pay up on getting the court papers.....

That's not how I read their news page [link above].

They say [towards the bottom] * they have listed all of their CC actions that went to hearings. Also in the blurb it reads as if many of the defendants in these cases have turned up and put in a defence [that according to PE was unsuccessful].


* - quote - It should be noted that every court hearing that ParkingEye has attended as Claimant in 2013 (where Judgment has been given) has been listed above. ParkingEye has not vacated any hearing unless the defendant has chosen to pay prior to the date of the hearing. This can be proven by any FOI request made in relation to ParkingEye's court action.