POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Nosy said:

PNE_CHA said:

Me v Liverpool John Lennon Airport

Thanks to this and a couple of other forums for all their help!!

Here's the steps I took:

1: Reply to VCS using the template in the newbies section of this website. You will then receive a response from VCS which includes a code which then enables you to take the next step which is an appeal to POPLA. Remember you do not need to name the driver. They will probably send you a letter to say that in order to proceed then they need the name of the driver. This seems to be an automatic email. Don't respond to this as they will still process your appeal.

2: Send your appeal to POPLA using another template in the newbies section (maybe tweak a little to suit your specific case).

3: You will then receive an email full of evidence including a breakdown of costs, images, cctv footage, images of signs and arial shots of airport etc. Don't let this worry you.

4: Once I received this email I sent a reply to POPLA using some of the wording that I found on recent successful appeals. Basically every appeal that seems to win is about the 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Here's the wording I used:

I have looked through all the evidence provided by VCS.

Please could you take the following into consideration before making your final judgment, as this is in direct response to the evidence they have provided:

In regards to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, the operator has stated that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.

I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased.

The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.

Once such a loss is shown, actual losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them.

As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I feel the charge notice is invalid.

5: I won the case and this was the reply from POPLA:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xx xxxxxx the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant used their vehicle for stopping or waiting in an area where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force. There is photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also photographic evidence which shows the appellant’s vehicle in an area
where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force. The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Whilst I appreciate that the operator’s breakdown of costs does reflect losses incurred in relation to the appeal process, there is no reflection of any initial losses incurred. I find that the operator has not shown that by stopping or waiting in an area where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force, the
appellant at that point caused a loss to the operator or the landowner. The operator has only shown that they incurred the loss as a result of the appeals process after issuing the parking charge notice. In order for a charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has to show that they at first have incurred an initial loss. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Don't give up and good luck.

Anyone know if genuine pre-estimate of loss is still a good reason for allowing appeal in 2022? 

Not since the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court Judgment in 2015. Forget it, no legs as far as private parking charges are concerned. 

bluetoffee1878

Another POPLA win to me!!!

Appeal against Euro Car Parks on behalf of a friend who was the Hirer of a lease car, POPLA appeal template found on here so more or less copied and pasted appeal as Keeper/Hirer.

POFA schedule 4 paragraph 14 not satisfied so no keeper liability, as well as the usual signage, authority etc etc.

Usual nonsense 'evidence' from ECP which included a GDPR breach as they sent PII details of another person unrelated to this case.

Rebutted all of their crap, including the contract which states they can only pursue drivers (probably an oversight not picked up by anybody).

Got comms from POPLA yesterday the Euro car Parks do not wish to contest the appeal. Ha Ha, not sure if it was the GDPR breach or the crap contract or the no keeper liability.

Still going after them for GDPR breach though which I'll update in original thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6320025/euro-car-parks-lease-car-not-pofa-compliant#latest

Fruitcake

Great news. Nice to see you are still fighting the good fight.
Minor point, it's PoPLA, not PoFA.

bluetoffee1878

Fruitcake said:

Great news. Nice to see you are still fighting the good fight.
Minor point, it's PoPLA, not PoFA.

Good spot - trying to multitask - edited

IndieGirl

Success - a POPLA win for me

This was against Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.

They kind of shot themselves in the foot a bit by quoting Section13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice:

"If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependent on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. They then went on to say that the driver had been stationary for two minutes before leaving...

I argued that 'the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding'.

Assessor verdict:

By parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the land. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant codes of practice or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly.

In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for parking in No Parking area. In this case the appellant has stated that there is no contract as the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding. Having viewed the available evidence I have concluded that there is no contract as there is nothing on offer to the motorist.

PCNs can arise if a motorist breaks the parking conditions or for trespass. In a case of parking somewhere the motorist is not entitled to park comes under trespass. However, the operator is not pursuing the motorist for trespass and is pursuing for breach of terms and conditions as set out on the PCN.

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Based on the above, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I must allow the appeal.

Thanks to all those who offered advice - great result  

Fruitcake

Nice one. We don't often see a Forbidding Signage win. Well done.

Coupon-mad

In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant for parking in No Parking area. In this case the appellant has stated that there is no contract as the signage is forbidding in nature and a motorist cannot contract to do something that is forbidding. Having viewed the available evidence I have concluded that there is no contract as there is nothing on offer to the motorist. 

Wow, never seen that sensible stuff from POPLA! 

30000ft

Received 3 NTKs from Greater Anglia Parking (issued by NCP).  All three sent between 3 months and 4 months after the parking date so followed the advise on here, stating that the notice was received after 14 days and therefore me as the registered keeper could not be held liable etc.  Have now received 3 different replies (even though i used the same template).  

• The first reply stated that they have not heard from me (even though i have a record of my appeal) so the reduced fine of £60 was no longer relevant and if i did not pay the full amount they would instruct debt collection firm.

• The second reply said they have received my appeal and have accepted such and have therefore cancelled PCN.

• The third one said - "On Railway Land managed by NCP, we currently enforce under contract law. We are not allowed to use the provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) & Keeper Liability as Railway Land is exempt from this. Therefore, timescales defined in POFA are not required to be met but there is an expectation that if an operator does not make use of Keeper Liability provisions, they are expected to adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and contractual requirements to issue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) no later than 7 months after the parking event.".  At the bottom it says i can appeal to POPLA

So now totally confused.  They are within the 7 months but annoyingly there is no contact details to try to argue the fact that they have accepted my appeal on another NTK.  I have tried to read the Indigo thread but can't find if this is same for Greater Anglia - presume railway land is railway land?

Any thoughts help would be very much appreciated.  Thanks
 

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

Please start your own discussion (after reading the other Announcement called NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST - the 3rd post tells you how to win at POPLA) as this thread is only for reporting POPLA Decisions.

Your third one is easy to appeal to POPLA.  Nothing has changed, it was always non-POFA and all they've done is confirmed that.  Nice. Hopeless for them!  Keeper is not liable.

First one needs a complaint to the BPA.

30000ft

Thanks Coupon. Appreciated.