POPLA Decisions 9 March 2013 at 6:49PM edited 28 October 2016 at 9:29AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking 3.9K replies 864.7K views

Custard_Pie

The danger on putting one or two points, is that we know appeals are taking Months. What if the point(s) named during this time have been proven to be no longer acceptable?

I put every point possible in my appeal. It was war and peace. The PPC waved the white flag and cancelled the invoice, probably because they knew that they were on a hiding to nothing.

Poor PoPLA can't handle the workload. That's a shame, employ more adjudicator's, or even better, get BPA to bring their members in line with proper signage, etc, etc.

Sorry, I'm not one for pandering to people whose sole aim in life is to coin in as much money as possible through legally immoral practices.

Computersaysno

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You may be right, but unless you are a POPLA adjudicator, then your post is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Are you a betting man/woman???

I say 'Adjudicators [rightly] look for an easy win [after all there are massive backlogs and POPLA is under pressure to deliver] and do not assess anything else once they have a 'win'....

You say 'If I explain nicely that I want POPLA adjudicator to do extra work for no extra pay and in so doing actually risk losing their job, they will be only too happy to do it'.

!!!!!! POPLA themselves even say in a lot of the determination letters 'Having upheld the appeal [usually on GPEOL], I need not consider any further points...'

Coupon-mad

One from pepipoo where the OP beat P4Parking re a ticket in his own bay:


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81862

I had appealed on the grounds of being in my normal parking place as per my sublease and that the company had made no loss by me parking there without permit (landlord never sent me one, but has since).


I received the POPLA appeal result today. Here is their reply:

''It is the Appellant's case, {that a parking charge} is not due because the landowner suffered no loss as a result of this Appellant parking in what was his allocated parking place.

The signage produced in evidence by the operator states that a PCN would be issued for contravening 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 the 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 Appellant submitted that no loss was incurred as a result of the alleged breach. The operator has not responded to this point.

Consequentially. 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.

Accordingly, it does no fall for me to decide any remaining issues.''



NEWBIES PLEASE NOTE:

This case would have been lost if he'd said 'the managing agent never gave me a permit'. But the case was found in his favour because he put the right thing about 'no pre-estimate of loss'.


P4Parking can D4 do one!!

Coupon-mad

Another one, this time from a nervous and unwell newbie who beat Excel in the end! Her so-called crime was to type the car reg in wrongly (only put the numbers in not the letters).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4596057&page=2

The POPLA appeal was written by me for this appellant, post #33, because she was ill and suffering from breast cancer (awaiting more surgery).

Equality Act 2010 was mentioned of course, Excel couldn't care less, but good old GPEOL won the day, as ever:


The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX
arising out of the presence at XXXX on XX April 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXX.

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 set out. The Operator should now cancel the parking charge.

{detail missing}...consequently I must find the operator has failed to produce the sufficient evidence to demonstrate the the parking charge is of genuine pre estimate of loss.


Assessor: SAKIB CHOWDHURY

:T

Umkomaas

Well done Coupon, you were an absolute rock for this lady. :T

SRS should hang his head in shame, pursuing someone with a life-threatening condition, but I don't expect he'll give a fig while he's sipping his G&T - served by his cabin boy.

Coupon-mad

Third win posted today, and the OP racer111 said:

''I can only say two things:
1. Thanks to everyone on this forum who contribute to exposing these scum
2. To ParkingEye: GFY.''


This was a delay caused by breastfeeding but although the POPLA assessor noticed that point (good, makes a change!) she chose to find again, that here was no GPEOL of course but also PE had not shown their contract/authority:


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77331


The Operator issued parking charge notice number <blah> arising out of the presence at Riverside Retail Park, on 3 March 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark <blah>. 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

On 3 March 2013, a <blah> with the vehicle registration mark <blah> was recorded by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system
entering the car park at the Riverside Retail Park.

The Operator submits that the parking charge notice was issued for remaining in the car park for longer than the stay authorised without authorisation. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking stating “2 hour max stay”.

It is the Appellants’ case:
- that the Operator does not have authority over the land,
- that the charge does not represent a true loss suffered by the Appellant’s overstay,
- that the operator has not adhered to the BPA code of {Practice}
- and that it is an offence to discriminate against a breastfeeding mother.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking
company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the
land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking
charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

The Appellant has also submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss.

The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.

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.

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 refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice and to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Marina Kapour
Assessor

Umkomaas

Seems that the assessor has commented on all but one of the appeal points, has swerved the Equality Act issue. Hmm!

Computersaysno

Marina [adjudicator] will be getting a slap tomorrow....her boss will be annoyed that she has wasted effort on this case, [after GPEOL was mentioned].

Guys_Dad

Computersaysno wrote: »

Marina [adjudicator] will be getting a slap tomorrow....her boss will be annoyed that she has wasted effort on this case, [after GPEOL was mentioned].

Computersaysno wrote: »

What, you think you can tell POPLA how to read your appeal and give them a running order for their decision making??

Not a chance [and I don't blame them].

Adjudicators are not interested in what you want, they will do what any sensible person would do, skim read looking for easy wins [eg GPEOL] and soon as they see one, they will put it in the 'out' pile, stop work and have a cup of coffee. Job done.

If you want a decision on a particular point, you will need to make that your SOLE appeal point.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You may be right, but unless you are a POPLA adjudicator, then your post is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

There is no downside to trying what I suggested and if you are right, nothing lost.

And, of course, they have missed the additional points on the previous appeal, didn't they?

Computersaysno wrote: »

Are you a betting man/woman???

I say 'Adjudicators [rightly] look for an easy win [after all there are massive backlogs and POPLA is under pressure to deliver] and do not assess anything else once they have a 'win'....

You say 'If I explain nicely that I want POPLA adjudicator to do extra work for no extra pay and in so doing actually risk losing their job, they will be only too happy to do it'.

!!!!!! POPLA themselves even say in a lot of the determination letters 'Having upheld the appeal [usually on GPEOL], I need not consider any further points...'

I don't think I need to add anything extra, do you????

Computersaysno

That's why I said Marina would be getting a slap...she's obviously slipped up and wasted time.

Have you actually read any of the POPLA decisions on this thread....many of them say 'Having upheld on this point [usually GPEOL], there is no need for me to assess any other points raised'.

Maybe you should insist to POPLA that your master plan [of telling POPLA adjudicators how you want them to handle your appeals] is passed direct to Marina and hope she slips up again.

POPLA managers will be telling their lackeys to 'crack on, get loads done or we'll be sacked before Xmas, so don't waste time, look for easy wins'.