POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

The operator states that although they understand that bay number 7 is allocated to the resident, a valid permit must be clearly displayed to prevent non residents parking on site.

Rubbish, how the f**k does 'a valid permit ..... prevent non residents parking on site'?

Barriers/locked gates/key fob entry/physical, resident-friendly parking attendant would do this, but a piece of paper on your dashboard - how ever will that 'prevent non residents parking'?

Words fail me!

Tell you what, if one of those monkeys turned up on my drive brandishing a parking ticket, he'd be leaving with a limp for the rest of his life.

Coupon-mad

Here's trainbasher's win on pepipoo, against UKPC re a disabled bay (disabled person parked there but forgot the pointless irrelevant Blue Badge). Trainbasher declined to pay their stupid £15 'offer' to cancel.

He also posted a tomonthebus here on MSE but the case grew legs on pepipoo and he sent a very long & detailed POPLA appeal including GPEOL and all the usual stuff, and Equality Act breach:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4677251

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80686&st=0

Guess which point won the day?!


The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXXXXX
arising out of the presence at Merry Hill Shopping Centre, DY5 1QX, on
24 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark TRAINBASHER.
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,
given that the Appellant parked on site in a clear contravention of the terms and conditions for parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that, amongst other things, the charge does not
represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The Appellant has requested that the Operator show a loss of income. 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 has failed to address this issue.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.
I need not decide on any other issues.

Matthew Westaby
Assessor

:T

Computersaysno

Seriously ...how can POPLA be so far behind on appeals???

It takes maybe 5 minutes tops to read the appeal letter, see GPEOL and then scan the PPCs pack for a pathetic response on GPEOL, and then uphold the appeal and close the case.

Maybe the adjudicators think that by having a massive backlog they will have lots of work, whereas in reality they will lose the contract and consequently their jobs??

peter_the_piper

Hovite wrote: »

And POPLA are so incompetent that they can't even decide which three characters need inputting !!!!!

How would they cope with our reg JNJ759

mib150

Computersaysno wrote: »

Seriously ...how can POPLA be so far behind on appeals???

It takes maybe 5 minutes tops to read the appeal letter, see GPEOL and then scan the PPCs pack for a pathetic response on GPEOL, and then uphold the appeal and close the case.

Maybe the adjudicators think that by having a massive backlog they will have lots of work, whereas in reality they will lose the contract and consequently their jobs??

Mine might be getting a coat of looking at in the next week then, the original 'Offence' committed early July.

Coupon-mad

MET (McDonalds car park) were trounced at POPLA - GPEOL here on pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80324&st=20

Can anyone attach the whole decision as I can't seem to get it in one thread!

Umkomaas

Here you go C-m. Formatting not brilliant, but readable.

trisontana

It's funny that both PE and Met use exactly the same wording when trying to justify their so-called losses . I wonder if somebody has been coaching them?

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

It's funny that both PE and Met use exactly the same wording when trying to justify their so-called losses . I wonder if somebody has been coaching them?

Well it wouldn't be POPLA - they're 'independent', and it wouldn't be the BPA because they're too busy 'driving up standards' :rotfl:

bazster

Well if they have been coached it isn't working - unless someone has "coached" them in how to lose on GPEOL in order to give POPLA a bogus veneer of respectability. After all, it wouldn't look too good if every appeal failed would it? And the numbers going to POPLA are so miniscule anyway that it's gotta be worth losing a few of them to keep the DfT happy.